What exactly gives particles their mass according to physics?

…………. The Higgs boson, a sub-atomic particle that pervades the Universe, is crucial to something called the Standard Model, which attempts to unite the building blocks of matter with three of the four known forces of nature – only gravity is left out.
Until Peter Higgs, Francois Englert and Robert Brout came along with their theory in 1964, the Standard Model was under threat because it could not explain how sub-atomic particles – and hence all matter in the Universe – have mass and therefore structure.
The proposition of a sub-atomic particle that creates a field through which other particles interact was the missing piece of the puzzle. It is this interaction between matter and the field created by the Higgs boson that imparts mass to matter. ………..
For Detail, Visit

Extrapolating from Higgs' theory, scientists were able to explain how all particles get their mass which would explain, in turn, how everything in the universe, from scientists at CERN to the grand Jura Mountains that surround them, comes to have weight.
It works like this: Across the postBig Bang universe, collections of Higgs bosons make up a pervasive Higgs field which is theoretically where particles get mass. Moving particles through a Higgs field is like pulling a weightless pearl necklace through a jar of honey, except imagine that the honey is everywhere and the interaction is continuous. Some particles, such as photons, which are weightless particles of light, are able to cut through the sticky Higgs field without picking up mass. Other particles get bogged down, accumulating mass and becoming very heavy. Which is to say that even though the universe appears to be asymmetrical in this way, it actually is not the Higgs field doesn't destroy nature's symmetry; it just hides it.
The way to find the Higgs boson is to create an environment that mimics the moment postBig Bang. The powerful LHC runs at up to 7 trillion electron volts (TeV) and sends particles through temperatures colder than deep space at velocities approaching the speed of light. (The second most powerful particle accelerator, at Fermilab in Illinois, runs at 1 TeV.) The added juice allows scientists to get closer to the high energy that existed after the Big Bang. And high energies are needed, because the Higgs is thought to be quite heavy. (In Einstein's famous equation E=MC2, C represents the speed of light, which is constant; so in order to find high-mass particles, or M, you need high energies, E.) It's possible, of course, that even at such high energies, the Higgs boson will not be found. It may not exist.
But if it does exist, the Higgs would help plug a hole in the so-called Standard Model the far-reaching set of equations that incorporates all that is known about the interaction of subatomic particles and is the closest thing physicists have to a testable "theory of everything." But many theoreticians feel that even if the Higgs boson exists, the Standard Model is unsatisfactory; for instance, it is unable to explain the presence of gravity, or the existence of something called "dark matter," which prevents spiral galaxies like our Milky Way from falling apart.

I will send you to a more general physics blog, where a contributor Stephen Wolfram on Higgs, particle physics discusses how the masses enter within the standard model.
Here’s how it basically works. Every type of particle in the Standard Model is associated with waves propagating in a field—just as photons are associated with waves propagating in the electromagnetic field. But for almost all types of particles, the average amplitude value of the underlying field is zero. But for the Higgs field, one imagines something different. One imagines instead that there’s a nonlinear instability that’s built into the mathematical equations that govern it, that leads to a nonzero average value for the field throughout the universe.
And it’s then assumed that all types of particles continually interact with this background field—in such a way as to act so that they have a mass. But what mass? Well, that’s determined by how strongly a particle interacts with the background field. And that in turn is determined by a parameter that one inserts into the model. So to get the observed masses of the particles, one’s just inserting one parameter for each particle, and then arranging it to give the mass of the particle.
That might seem contrived. But at some level it’s OK. It would have been nice if the theory had predicted the masses of the particles. But given that it does not, inserting their values as interaction strengths seems as reasonable as anything.
The standard model does not predict the masses of the particles composing it, so there is nothing to apply. It is put in by hand, and then maybe higher order corrections etc in the case of quarks can play a role in modifying the input values.

Two “up” quarks and a “down” quark in the case of the proton and one “up” quark and two “down” quarks in the case of the neutron. Those quarks are fundamental particles.
The Higgs interacts with the electron and the quarks and gives them mass. You could say it “generates” the mass. I’m tempted to say that without the Higgs those fundamental particles wouldn’t have mass. So, there you have it. This is one of its roles. Without this Higgs, we would not understand at all how electrons and quarks have mass, and we wouldn’t understand how to correctly calculate the mass of an atom!
Now, any physicist who has made it this far is cringing with my last statement – as a quick reading of it implies that all the mass of an atom comes from the Higgs. It turns out that we know of several different ways that mass can be “generated” – and the Higgs is just one of them. It also happens to be the only one that, up until July 4th, we didn’t have any direct proof for. An atom, a proton, etc., has contributions from more than just the Higgs – indeed, most of a proton’s mass (and hence, an atom’s mass) comes from another mechanism. But this is a technical aside. And by reading this you know more than many reporters who are talking about the story!
The Higgs plays a second role. This is a little harder to explain, and I don’t see it discussed much in the press. And, to us physicists, this feels like the really important thing. “Electro-Weak Symmetry Breaking”. Oh yeah! It comes down to this: we want to tell a coherent, unified, story from the time of the big-bang to now. The thing about the big-bang is that was *really* hot. So hot, in fact, that the rules of physics that we see directly around us don’t seem to apply. Everything was symmetric back then – it all looked the same. We have quarks and electrons now, which gives us matter – but then it was so hot that they didn’t really exist – rather, we think, some single type of particle existed.

Trend: Searching for the Higgs
Since the 1970s, physicists have known that two fundamental forces of nature, the electromagnetic force and the weak force, can be unified into a single force—the electroweak force—if the particles that carry these forces are massless. The photon, which carries the electromagnetic force, is massless, but the particles that carry the weak force have substantial mass, explaining why the weak force is weaker than the electromagnetic force. This unification can still work if a new spin-zero boson, the Higgs boson, is introduced, allowing the particles that carry the weak force to be massive. In addition, interactions with the Higgs boson are responsible for the masses of all particles. These ideas form the basis of the standard model of particle physics, which is consistent with almost all observations. Gravity can act once particles have mass due to the Higgs boson—the Higgs boson is not the source of the gravitational force. The one outstanding missing piece in this entire picture is the Higgs boson itself. What are the prospects for its discovery?
The standard model of particle physics and the Higgs boson
Matter is made up of spin- fermions, the particles known as leptons (the “light ones”) and quarks. There are three families of leptons, each consisting of two particles: the electron with its corresponding neutrino (), the muon () and its neutrino, and the tau lepton () and its neutrino . Electrons are familiar from electric current and as constituents of atoms; they are the lightest electrically charged particles. Muons and tau leptons are also charged and can be considered to be heavier electrons. Neutrinos are neutral and (almost) massless. All of the leptons can be directly observed, some more easily than others.
Quarks also come in three families, and they also have electrical charge, but their charges are fractions of the charge of the electron ( and ). They cannot be directly observed—the particles we do observe, such as the proton and the pion, are made up of either three quarks or a quark and its antiparticle, an antiquark. Every particle has a corresponding antiparticle with the same mass but opposite charge, for example, the antiparticle of the electron is the positively charged positron.

Scientists at the Cern European physics research centre say they have found signs of Higgs boson, the so-called “God particle” and the missing link of particle physics.
Scientists have long been searching for the Higgs boson particle because its existence proves the theory about the existence of the Higgs field, which they say gives mass to all particles in the universe.
The Higgs field works by restricting the speed of particles it interacts with, which would otherwise zip around the universe at the speed of light.
The field acts in the opposite way to, for example, a person who “becomes” lighter when swimming in water.
Scientists at the Cern physics research centre near Geneva said, however, they had found no conclusive proof of the existence of the particle.
“If the Higgs observation is confirmed…this really will be one of the discoveries of the century,” said Themis Bowcock, a professor of particle physics at Liverpool University.
“Physicists will have uncovered a keystone in the makeup of the Universe…whose influence we see and feel every day of our lives.”
The leaders of two experiments, Altas and CMS, revealed their findings at Cern, where they have tried to find traces of the elusive boson by smashing particles together in the Large Hadron Collider at high speed.
“Both experiments have the signals pointing in essentially the same direction,” said Oliver Buchmueller, senior physicist on CMS. “It seems that both Atlas and us have found the signals are at the same mass level. That is obviously very important.”
Prof Stefan Soldner-Rembold, from the University of Manchester said: “Within one year we will probably know whether the Higgs particle exists, but it is likely not going to be a Christmas present.”
The theory, expounded by British physicist Peter Higgs in the 1960s, talks about the field as a kind of lattice that filled the entire universe, 100th of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang.
Elementary particles, with no mass, had previously been whizzing around at the speed of light. But once the massless particles passed through the field, Higgs boson particles became highly attracted to them, creating friction and slowing the particles’ movement.
Some types of particle travel through the field virtually unimpeded, others dragged to slower velocities by varying amounts.
As the particle slowed, their energy was condensed into a super-concentrated form of energy: mass.

Particles moving through that field, if they interact with the field, experience a sort of drag. That drag is mass. So - just like particles like neutrinos aren't affected by electromagnetic fields, some particles like photons won't have mass because they don't interact with the field that produces mass. We call that field the Higgs' field.
(The previous paragraph formerly contained an error. The higgs field produces mass, not gravity. Just a stupid typo; my fingers got ahead of my brain.)
So physicists proposed the existence of the Higgs' field. But how could they test it?
It's a field. Fields have exchange particles. What would the exchange particles of the Higgs' field be? Exchange particles are bosons, so this one is, naturally, called a Higgs' boson. So if the Higgs' field exists, then it will have an exchange particle. If the standard model of physics is right, then we can use it to predict the mass that that boson must have.
So - if we can find a particle whose mass matches what we predict, and it has the correct properties for a mass-field exchange particle, then we can infer that the Higgs' field is real, and is the cause of mass.
How did they find the Higgs' boson?
We have a pretty good idea of what the mass of the Higgs' boson must be. We can describe that mass in terms of a quantity of energy. (See the infamous Einstein equation!) If we can take particles that we can easily see and manipulate, and we can accelerate them up to super-super high speed, and collide them together. If the energy of a collision matches the mass of a particle, it can create that kind of particle. So we slam together, say, two protons at high enough energy, we'll get a Higgs' boson.
But things are never quite that easy. There are a bunch of problems. First, the kind of collision that can produce a Higgs' doesn't always produce one. It can produce a variety of results, depending on the specifics of the collision as well as purely random factors. Second, it produces a lot more than just a Higgs'. We're talking about an extremely complex, extremely high energy collision, with a ton of complex results. And third, the Higgs' boson isn't particularly stable.

Look the Higgs is a postulated particle. It was born as a mathematical trick in order to solve some problems concerning symmetry in quantum field theory. The Higgs has mass because we defined it like that. The Higgs particle gives mass to elementary particles via it's interaction with these particles. This interaction can be expressed in terms of a coupling between the higgs field and the elementary particle field. The coefficient of the product of these fields is the mass of the elementary particle. This is just how the QFT formalism works. This is all very nice but the question remains as to wether this is true. This is why many scientists await the first experimental verification of this system of spontaneous breakdown and mass generation. Also, elementary particles need to be massless when in gauge theory because of symmetry reasons. I have written many topics on this in my journal, go check it out
search for the entries on the Higgs field and 'why elementary particles are massless'
This is very interesting stuff but not that easy.
Also i read analogy stuff like 'the gravitons are the photons'. Do not pay any attention to this because it is fundamentally wrong. Gravitons are very different in nature, they indeed mediate the gravitational force but they are different in nature because they ARE particles of space time itself. There is not such a think as gravitational radiation or some sort. If this were the case, the analogy with photons is justified. Keep this in mind...
Scroll down to the Higgs field entry and read why elementary particles are massless on the next page (8)

So if protons and neutrons each consist of three quarks that make up about 1% of their masses and also gluons that are massless, where does the other 99% of their mass come from? It comes from the energy of interaction of the gluons with the quarks. In other words, from the energy stored in the spring-like forces.
As I will discuss later, the Higgs phenomenon, via the Higgs field, gives rise to the masses of just the elementary particles, which in this case are the quarks and leptons and the W+, W-, and Z particles. So if the Higgs field were not there, the quarks would become massless but the masses of the protons and neutrons would be practically unchanged. If we omit for the moment the as-yet-undetected dark matter whose composition we do not know, almost all the mass of known matter in the universe comes from protons and neutrons. (To learn more about dark matter and dark energy, see parts 8 and 9 of the 16-part series of posts titled Big Bang for Beginners that I wrote in 2010.)
Since the proton and neutron masses would be almost unchanged by the absence of the Higgs, the mass of the almost everything in the universe would remain pretty much the same as it is now. So could life as we know it still exist? The catch is with the electrons. Even though their mass is so small and thus makes a negligible contribution to the mass of everyday objects, without the Higgs they too would become massless and would then travel at the speed of light (like all massless particles do) and thus would not become bound to form electrically neutral atoms. Since matter as we know it is made up of those neutral atoms bound together in a wide variety of ways, we could not exist.

"Scientists' best theory for why different things have mass is the "Higgs field" - where mass can be seen as a measure of the resistance to movement. The "Higgs field" is shown here as a room of physicists chatting among themselves.So that's the new standard model of the universe, allegedly, in modern theoretical physics, without gravity of course, which turns out to be a bother.
A well-known scientist walks into the room and causes a bit of a stir - attracting admirers with each step and interacting strongly with them - signing autographs and stopping to chat.
As she becomes surrounded by admiring fans, she finds it harder to move across the room - in this analogy, she acquires mass due to the "field" of fans, with each fan acting like a single Higgs boson.
If a less popular scientist enters the room, only a small crowd gathers, with no-one clamouring for attention. He finds it easier to move across the room - by analogy, his interaction with the bosons is lower, and so he has a lower mass."
If gravity were added, we suspect the floor under the scientists in the above model would collapse at some point of idolizing boson accumulation and then what would we have?
The Guardian wrote more recently in The Higgs boson does a new trick (probably):
"In the Standard Model of physics, the fundamental building blocks of nature are quarks (which live inside hadrons) and leptons (such as the electron, and its heavier siblings, the muon and the tau). These building blocks interact with each other via fundamental forces carried by bosons - the photon carries electromagnetism, the W and Z bosons carry the weak nuclear force, and the gluon carries the strong force.We always wonder where those "fundamental forces" that are taken as givens come from, or where the boson gets its "interactive" power, but this does not appear to bother the physicists. The main thing is that the current math formulas work and they get enough "bumps" in the hadron colliders.
All those particles (except the photon and the gluon, which are massless) acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs boson, the discovery of which was announced last year on the fourth of July."
Somehow, we think these epicyclic-type theoretical models do not yet really explain the "real" universe. Give it another few thousand years, at least.

Therefore, the slower the particle is made to go, the greater its mass becomes.
Cern has often referred to the analogy of a bustling Hollywood party.
When a celebrity arrives, the crowd is evenly distributed around a room. When the famous actress arrives, the people closest to the door swarm around her. As she walks through the room, she constantly attracts the people closest to her.
When she gets far enough away, parts of the crowd return to their other conversations. So by restricting her movements across the room, the crowd are giving her mass.
Without the Higgs field, particles would never have merged together to form atoms and molecules and, in turn, stars and planets.
The Higgs boson itself, like other bosons which have actually been observed, are the smallest fundamental units of matter in the universe. Smaller than atoms, smaller than their components, and smaller than the compenents of their components.

These charge geometries show the weak force to be a magnetic dipole [edge] interaction between mass energy geometries and Matter topologies and the strong force to be a charge [fascia] interaction between Matter topologies themselves.
The key to understanding the mechanics of the quantum and uniting it with the dynamics of the Cosmos is through the use of equilateral charged energy geometries. Deep within the data of these collider experiments, the tetryon of Matter is hidden away. We can declare the search for the Higgs boson to be over.
Independently and almost simultaneously in 1964, three groups of physicists proposed the Higgs Mechanism through which the inertial mass properties of Matter are created: Francois Englert and Robert Brout: by Peter Higgs (inspired by the ideas of Philip Anderson); and by Gerald Guralnik, C.R. Hagen and Tom Kibble. The Higgs mechanism was incorporated into modern particle physics by Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam, and is an essential part of the standard model.
As the Universe cooled and the temperature fell below a critical value, an invisible force field called the 'Higgs Field' was formed together with the associated 'Higgs Boson.' The Higgs mechanism is a process by which vector bosons can obtain mass.
The Higgs Field is another name for the Aether, or vacuum energy field that fills free Space. It's interaction with inductive Tetryonic topologies create the inertial properties observed in mass-Matter.
The Higgs boson can also be considered another name for the 2-dimensional charged mass-energy fascia of all Matter, whose inductive (Quantised Angular Momentum) quanta create the physics property of inertial mass. Inertial mass is a measure of a body's resistance to changes in acceleration due to external forces. Resistance to motion of charged fascia through vacuum energy fields creates inertial mass.
All charged fascia [Higgs bosons] are comprised of squared numbers of equilateral Planck quanta within a larger equilateral geometry. The equilateral Quantised Angular Momentum of inductive Planck mass energy geometries within squared [Higgs] Fascia of Matter Topologies is what creates inertial properties of Matter at the quantum level.
One day soon, the value and validity of Tetryonics will rise to the surface.

Even when the universe seems empty this field is there. Without it, we would not exist, because it is from contact with the field that particles acquire mass. The theory proposed by Englert and Higgs describes this process.
On 4 July 2012, at the CERN laboratory for particle physics, the theory was confirmed by the discovery of a Higgs particle. CERN's particle collider, LHC (Large Hadron Collider), is probably the largest and the most complex machine ever constructed by humans. Two research groups of some 3,000 scientists each, ATLAS and CMS, managed to extract the Higgs particle from billions of particle collisions in the LHC.
Even though it is a great achievement to have found the Higgs particle—the missing piece in the Standard Model puzzle—the Standard Model is not the final piece in the cosmic puzzle. One of the reasons for this is that the Standard Model treats certain particles, neutrinos, as being virtually massless, whereas recent studies show that they actually do have mass. Another reason is that the model only describes visible matter, which only accounts for one fifth of all matter in the cosmos. To find the mysterious dark matter is one of the objectives as scientists continue the chase of unknown particles at CERN.
Nobel physics: A closer look at the Higgs boson
So what is the Higgs boson, the elusive particle that physicists Peter Higgs and Francois Englert theorized about and won the Nobel Prize for on Tuesday? The subatomic particle—which has also been called the "God particle" by some because it is seen as fundamental to the creation of the universe—has been the subject of an intense scientific hunt at the world's biggest atom smasher near Geneva. Last year, scientists at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, announced they had finally detected the long-sought particle.
WHAT EXACTLY IS THE GOD PARTICLE?
Everything we see around us is made of atoms, inside of which are electrons, protons and neutrons. And those, in turn, are made of quarks and other subatomic particles. Scientists have wondered how these tiny building blocks of the universe acquire mass. Without mass, the particles wouldn't hold together—and there would be no matter.
One theory proposed separately by Higgs and Englert is that a new particle must be creating a "sticky" energy field that acts as a drag on other particles.

The situation grew desperate: The equations for particles with the properties of W and Z, when forced to accommodate non-zero mass, led to mathematical inconsistencies.
The right kind of cosmic medium could rescue the situation, however. Such a medium could slow down the motion of W and Z particles, and make them appear to have non-zero mass, even though their fundamental mass––that is, the mass they would exhibit in ideally empty space––is zero. Using that idea, theorists built a wonderfully successful account of all the phenomena of the weak interaction, fully worthy to stand beside our successful theories of the electromagnetic, strong, and gravitational interactions. Our laws of fundamental physics reached a qualitatively new level of completeness and economy.
The predictions of those “medium-based” laws got tested with the sharpest precision and in the most extreme conditions that experimenters could devise. They were eager to disprove them. The Swedish Academy of Sciences gives prizes for things like that! But the laws passed every test, with flying colors. This grand synthesis has been so successful, for so long, that it has become known as the Standard Model.
Of course, the success of the Standard Model gave circumstantial evidence for the cosmic medium it relies on. Nevertheless, until a few months ago a nagging question remained: What is that cosmic medium made from? No known particles had the right properties.
On July 4, 2012, scientists at the CERN laboratory, near Geneva, announced the discovery of a new particle that seemed as though it might have the required properties. Over the last few months, more detailed measurements have confirmed and sharpened the initial discovery. Several tough consistency checks came in positive. In March CERN declared victory. The main building block of our cosmic Ocean, the Higgs particle, has been successfully identified.
Why does it matter?
The discovery of the Higgs particle is, first and foremost, a ringing affirmation of fundamental harmony between Mind and Matter. Mind, in the form of human thought, was able to predict the existence of a qualitatively new form of Matter before ever having encountered it, based on esthetic preference for beautiful equations.
We plumb the depth of that Mind-Matter harmony if we meditate on the challenge the Higgs particle discovery posed.
The Higgs particle is heavy, couples poorly to matter, and is extremely unstable.

The particle credited with giving others mass, the Higgs boson, may also be to blame for the universe flying apart ever faster. That’s because the Higgs boson could, in principle, be giving rise to dark energy.
The standard model of particle physics encompasses the fundamental particles that make up matter, as well as associated fields. The photon, for instance, is tied to the electromagnetic field. Discovered last year, the Higgs boson also comes with an associated field but, unlike others of its class, the Higgs field is scalar – it does not act in a specific direction.
Taken together, the known particle fields create a certain density of energy permeating the universe. Before the discovery of dark energy, particle physicists were worried that the simplest versions of the standard model predicted an enormous, possibly infinite energy density that would force the universe to expand at an ever-increasing rate.
That seemed improbable until observations of distant supernovae showed that galaxies are not only moving away from each other, but accelerating. The discovery seemed to resolve the issue, but it turns out that the culprit, which we now call dark energy, is much weaker than the standard model indicates.
“It’s very different from what we would predict,” says Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “This is the profound embarrassment of this fundamental feature of the universe.”
Spurred by the appearance of the long-anticipated Higgs boson, physicists Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University in Tempe and James Dent of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette may be on the trail of why dark energy is so wimpy.
“What we show is, if the Higgs exists – which it appears to – it can be a portal to new physics and in principle be associated with a new field, which could give an energy density in the universe that’s of the right order of magnitude,” says Krauss.
Even before the Higgs was discovered, Krauss was wondering if other scalar fields could couple to the Higgs field, offering links to new physical phenomena. But he was actually a Higgs sceptic until the very end.
“I was preparing papers on why the Higgs doesn’t exist, expecting them not to see it at the LHC.

There's only, you know, a handful of elementary particles that we're all made of, and each one has a specific electric charge, a specific interaction with a strong nuclear force and with gravity and also a certain mass.
And it turns out that if you look at the theories of physics that we have, that was such a success, they have so much symmetry built into them that there's an implication, namely that all of the particles they describe should be massless, should have exactly zero mass.
And that implication is patently false. So you need to do something about it. And in 1964, the year The Beatles came to America, a handful of physicists figured out a way to fix that problem, by introducing a new field into nature, a field who breaks the symmetry that is built into particle physics and by breaking that symmetry allows all the other particles to get mass.
That field is the Higgs field, and the vibrations in that field give us the Higgs boson.
FLATOW: So the experiments at CERN were able to sort of ring that field, shock the field, and out pops a Higgs?
CARROLL: That's exactly right, and in fact, that's how you make all particles in particle physics. The photon, the particle of light, is a wave in the electromagnetic field. And even things that we really think of as particles, not fields, like the electron or the up quark, these are still fields. This is just the lesson of 20th-century physics is that the world is described by quantum field theory.
So it's the Higgs field that is doing the work, giving mass to all the other particles, but it's the Higgs boson which is a vibration in that field that lets us tell the Higgs field is there.
FLATOW: So could you ring the gravitational field and have a gravity thing pop out?
CARROLL: Absolutely. I mean, at Cal Tech, we're very interested in trying to do that, and the thing is that gravity is such a weak force that you're never going to detect an individual graviton, a particle of gravity. What you could do is detect the combination of a gajillion(ph) gravitons that makes up a gravitational wave, and that's an ongoing project, looking for gravitational radiation from astrophysical sources.
FLATOW: That's an interesting project.

Then, of course, there's the question whether there's any reason to expect, if you look on this particular very small scale inside matter, is there going to be anything there? And I think we have a couple of reasons for thinking there will be something there. We have this theory of elementary particles and the forces between them, the structure of matter. This model works extremely well, but we know it's incomplete. And one of the reasons why it's incomplete is, if you write down the basic theory, it looks like all the particles would be massless. That's clearly not true. If you look in the universe today you see that some particles are heavy, some are not. So there has to be an explanation for that.
Now, in fact, this "Standard Model" of particles contains an explanation, but at the moment, it's very much a theoretical explanation. It's a hypothesis. We don't know whether it's correct or not.
This is an idea that was suggested by Peter Higgs and others way back in the 1960s. According to their idea, there should be a new particle which could be produced and observed at the LHC, called the Higgs boson. This is in some sense the holy grail of particle physics, to find this missing link in the standard model. So that's one thing that we're really looking forward to with the LHC. In fact, back when we persuaded the politicians to stump up the money to build the thing, that's probably what we told them.
Now, the other reasons for thinking there are new physics … one of my personal research interests is dark matter. Astrophysicists tell us that something like 90 percent of the matter in the universe is some sort of invisible stuff, and nobody knows what it is. They can see that it attracts gravitationally visible particles, and presumably it's not made of the same constituents as the visible matter. It could be something that we're going to be able to produce with the LHC. There are various different ideas about what might be, but quite generally I think there are good reasons to think that these dark matter particles, if they exist, will be observable at the LHC.
Q: Just speaking about dark matter, is there thought that these are particles that exist homogeneously in all of reality?

For example, two up quarks with charge +2/3 combined with 1 down quark with charge -1/3 gives a net asymmetrical expression of charge +1 (as in the proton). Likewise, one up +2/3 plus 2 down -1/3 charges for the neutron result in a net symmetrical charge expression of zero.
Thus the Higgs boson represents that state where the mass, charge and spin vectors (contained within the ST units forming it) are each lined up to point in equal but opposite directions to give a net symmetrical expression of 0, 0, and 0, respectively.
Break the symmetry of the spin vector, changing it from equal and opposite, to additive, and you now have the graviton at mass 0, charge 0 and spin 2. The graviton is actually composed of two spin 1 photons that are constructively added together (i.e. positive interference construction). More on this shortly.
The photon, once again, represents the fundamental dynamic dimensional ST particle that has mass 0, charge 0 and spin 1. It is symmetrical in two vectors (mass and charge), but asymmetrical in spin (which, along with zero mass, accounts for its net lightspeed velocity with each ST pulse).
To note is that all spin on any particle can point in one of two opposite directions and therefore you can have net expressions of spin that are equal and opposite, i.e. left-handed and right-handed. Likewise, i.e. the photon, you can have left- and right-handed spin 1 states (or counter-clockwise and clockwise if you're riding the photon).
So going up the particle ladder, we have photons which have asymmetrical spin 1 vectors which can spin additively in one of two directions, say either clockwise, Ck, or counterclockwise, CCk. Now if two Ck photons constructively interfere, they generate (momentarily) a graviton with spin 2 (Ck). Likewise, two CCk photons can generate a graviton with spin 2 (CCk). However, a Ck photon interfering with a CCk photon will generate a spin 0, mass 0, charge 0 Higgs boson.

This isn't exactly my area of expertise, but I've gotten requests by both email and twitter to try to explain yesterday's news about the Higgs' boson.
- What is this Higgs' boson thing?
- How did they find it?
- What does the five sigma stuff mean?
- Why do they talk about it as a "Higgs'-like particle"?
So, first things first. What is a Higgs' boson?
When things in the universe interact, they usually don't actually interacts by touching each other directly. They interact through forces and fields. What that means is a bit tricky. I can define it mathematically, but it won't do a bit of good for intuition. But the basic idea is that space itself has some properties. A point in space, even when it's completely empty, it has some properties.
Outside of empty space, we have particles of various types. Those particles interact with each other, and with space itself. Those interactions are what end up producing the universe we see and live in.
Fields are, essentially, a property of space. A field is, at its simplest, a kind of property of space that is defined at every point in space.
When particles interact with fields, they can end up exchanging energy. They do that through a particular kind of particle, called an exchange particle. For example, think about an electromagnetic field. An electron orbits an atomic nucleus, due to forces created by the electromagnetic fields of the electrons and protons. When an electron moves to a lower-energy orbital, it produces a photon; when it absorbs a photon, it can jump to a higher orbital. The photon is the exchange particle for the electromagnetic field. Exchange particles are instances of a kind of particle called a boson.
So.. one of the really big mysteries of physics is: why do some particles have mass, and other particles don't? That is, some particles, like protons, have masses. Others, like photons, don't. Why is that?
It's quite a big mystery. Based on our best model - called the standard model - we can predict all of the basic kinds of particles, and what their masses should be. But we didn't have a clue about why there's mass at all!
So, following the usual pattern in particle physics, we predict that there's a field.

the Standard Model has Nature doing a most unnatural thing:
imparting masses to each of the particles with random abandon:
allowing the photon to be massless and the neutrinos to be near-massless,
while the most massive particle, the top quark, measures in at
175 billion electron volts and the second-most massive, the bottom
quark, is a mere 5 billion electron volts. (Shochet explains an
electron volt as "how much energy an electron gets when it
goes through a one-volt battery"-a measurement system that
draws on Einstein's theory of relativity and the notion that mass
and energy are interchangeable. So the particles' masses
are, in essence, how much energy they deposit when they go splat
against the walls of the accelerator detectors.)
the mass conundrum begins with finding the Higgs.
the poet William Blake wrote, is eternal delight. The search for
the Higgs boson is a quest for energy: high enough levels of it,
more accurate measurements of it, a better understanding of it.
The small step between delight and light would not
be lost on the visionary poet. Says Henry Frisch, a visiting scientist
at Fermilab, "It's really intensity - it's luminosity
- that we need. Which is to say we need more collisions."
collisions is, in theory, simple work. Researchers begin with
hydrogen, the simplest and lightest element, with one proton and
one electron. LEP isolates the electron, while the Tevatron uses
the proton. Huge numbers of the particles are cooled and stored,
as are the particles' antimatter, which carries a reverse electric
charge. The collider at LEP used antielectrons (or positrons),
while Fermilab uses antiprotons.
accelerators are built in circular tunnels-four miles in circumference
at Fermilab, 17 at CERN-with magnets and high-voltage accelerating
devices placed at regular intervals around the loop. The particles
are released into the tunnel, and as they race around the loop,
they pick up energy from the high-voltage field, fattening them
for the slaughter ahead.
the antiparticles are also fed into the tunnel but, because they
have an opposite charge, they travel in the opposite direction.

For example in electron field, whenever ripple is created then you get electron.
As well as when ripple created in quark field then quark is obtain.
And the best part is that, when ripple is vanishes then particle associated with this ripple is also vanishes.
Actually in this field the energy given to the field position you see that particle only.
And as the energy spread out to the field it seems that particle is moving.
Therefore in some field you need more energy to generate particle. But in some field less.
Because how much energy needed in a field to move the particle, it depend upon the mass of the particle.
For example Higgs Bosons are heavier than electron, so it required large Hadron collider to generate particle.
In which large amount of energy given to Higgs Boson then it was seen Higgs Bosson particle.
Quantum Physics Law of Attraction And How different Forces work ?
Well, these field exist in space at same place in space and time.
And sometime energy is exchanged between these fields.
So forces also work there and many time one particle is changes to other particle.
Therefore quantum is the best theory to understand our nature right now.
But still there’re many unsolved puzzle in front of us like Dark energy and Dark matter.
So physicist are trying to solve this puzzle.
But still they’re unknown about this field.
Now i will suggest you to buy this best book for quantum physics theory from Amazon.
This is an affiliate link if you buy from this link then you’ll help Physics Easy Tips commission.
You learned in this article what is building block of this universe ? And understood the main building block are fields not electron and quarks. Where you provide energy to generate these particles. Today topic is closed now. I hope that you enjoy learning about what is quantum physics. If this article is helpful for you then comment, like and share on social media. what you have learned new in this article write in comment box right now. If you have any doubt ask me always here for your support Thanks for sharing this article.

As I already wrote in a previous post, matter can be characterized as a
system that contains particles with non-zero rest mass
. Taking the simplest atom, viz. the hydrogen atom, as an example, this consists of a proton (that itself enjoys an internal structure by being composed of quarks that are held together by the exchange of gluons) and one electron, both interacting via the exchange of virtual photons. The latter are the messenger particles that convey the electromagnetic force; photons have zero rest mass, while the electron and the proton enjoy a nonzero rest mass. The mass of the latter is about 1840 times the mass of the former, so that most of the rest mass of the atom is concentrated in its nucleus.
Let me try to provide a bit more information to some statements in postings above:
Matter can neither be created or destroyed
No, that is not true. If matter and antimatter collide, e.g. hydrogen and antihydrogen (consisting of a (negatively charged) antiproton and a (positively charged) positron), then both annihilate into radiation, i.e., photons. However, the assertion above becomes correct if "matter" is replaced by "mass", so:
Mass can neither be created or destroyed
It is the motion of the electrons that creates the illusion of solid matter
. Well, this "motion" must be regarded as being very different from the orbiting of, e.g., planets around a central star. If the electrons in an atom were really moving, then (since they are charged particles) this would imply that they would constantly produce electromagnetic radiation, so atoms would lose energy by radiating all the time and thus couldn't be stable. Actually, the probability distribution of electrons in an atom is static and thus does not change in time (unless perturbed by "external" effects). It is the complex phase of the electronic wavefunction that oscillates in time. On the other hand, it is true that the kinetic energy of the electrons is required to render atomic systems stable. Without this kinetic energy, the electrostatic attraction between the positive nucleus and the negatively charged electrons would make the latter to collapse into the nucleus. The structure of atoms and molecules and thus of "ordinary" matter is also significantly influenced by the fact that electrons are fermions and thus the Pauli exclusion principle holds which forbids any two electrons to occupy the same quantum state.

Thus, both the world selector and the condensor describing the internal particle structure can be split up in a manner allowing a system of partial metrics to be specified for each hermetric form. An appropriate choice of indices (ij) then results in a solution of the general energy spectrum corresponding to a separation of the discrete spectra c and d. These solutions actually yield discrete spectra of inertial masses, showing good agreement with measured particle and resonance spectra.
The following picture regarding the spectrum of elementary particles found in high energy experiments emerges from the theoretical analysis above:
Elementary particles having rest mass constitute self-couplings of free energy. They are indeed elementary as far as their property of having rest mass is concerned, but internally they possess a very subtle, dynamic structure. For this reason they are "elementary" only in a relative sense.
Actually, such a particle appears as an elementary flow system in R6 (equivalent to energy flows) of primitive dynamic units called protosimplexes, which combine to form flux aggregates. The protosimplex flow is a circulatory, periodic motion similar to an oscillation. A particle can only exist if the flux period comprises at least one full cycle, so that the duration of a particle's stability is always expressible as an integer multiple of the flux period. Every dynamical R8-structure possible constitutes a flux aggregate described by a set of 6 quantum numbers. All of them, however, result from an underlying basic symmetry of very small extent, essentially determined by the configuration number k, which can only assume the values k = 1 and k = 2. The empirically introduced baryonic charge then corresponds to k – 1, i.e. k = 1 refers to mesons and k = 2 to baryons.
The physically relevant parts of an R6-flux aggregate are its k + 1 components in the physical space, R3, which are enveloped by a metric field. Thus, mesons contain two and baryons three components. Evidently, there exists an analogy to the empirically formulated concept of quarks. If this is true, then quarks are not fundamental particles but non-separable, quasi-corpuscular subconstituents in R3 of a mesonic or baryonic elementary particle. In this picture the condition of quark "confinement" is unnecessary.

Brout and Englert made no mention of it in their paper, although they were aware of its manifestation in condensed-matter physics. Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble suppressed it in their analysis, which was simplified to focus on the removal of its massless companion. Higgs alone pursued it. What is being called Higgs’s boson is, in effect, Goldstone’s massive boson. Although at least six physicists can lay claim to this particular mechanism for generating mass, only Higgs realized the importance of the massive boson in testing the theory.An understanding of the terms is not as important as a perception that various competing teams appeared to be playing with shadows in the dark, and making up concepts as they went along. Can a particle really be a carrier of a force? Can mechanisms generate mass just because a theory needs it? Where is the mass coming from? As useful as the terms and nomenclature become to theory, does nature owe any obligation to conform to human conceptions? Did nature suddenly change properties this year when one Higgs boson became five? The intuitive answer to such questions is that of course nature didn’t change: we did. Our scientific understanding of nature changed. But then can we assume it is improving? Is it evolving? Is our understanding continuously changing, and if so, is there any point at which we can say we understand something with a sufficient degree of certainty? At what point do we jettison things textbooks have been teaching for decades? Can we assume we have the story right now? What unforeseen discoveries in the next few years will have us regretting that what we are learning in 2010 is all wrong? These are serious questions, underscored by another example in New Scientist this week, “Anti-neutrino’s odd behaviour points to new physics,” as if all we need right now is a new physics (the hard science). Reporter Anil Ananthaswamy wrote, “The astounding ability of these subatomic particles to morph from one type to another may have created another crack in our understanding of nature.” This crack, he said, “cannot be explained by standard model physics.” Granted, neutrino physics experiments are difficult, but a Fermilab test of theory produced unexpected results. Jenny Thomas of University College London put a happy face on it: “If the effect is real, then there is some physics that is not expected.

Broadly defined, particle physics aims to answer the fundamental questions of the nature of mass, energy, and matter, and their relations to the cosmological history of the Universe.
As the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson, as well as direct evidence of cosmic inflation, have shown, there is great excitement and anticipation about the next round of compelling questions about the origin of particle masses, the nature of dark matter, and the role leptons, and in particular neutrinos, may play in the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the Universe.
The energy scales relevant for these questions range from the TeV to perhaps the Planck scale. Experimental exploration of these questions requires advances in accelerator and detector technologies to unprecedented energy reach as well as sensitivity and precision. New facilities coming online in the next decade promise to open new horizons and revolutionize our view of the particle world.
Particle theory addresses a host of fundamental questions about particles, symmetries and spacetime. As experiments at the Large Hadronic Collider (LHC) directly probe the TeV energy scale, questions about the origin of the weak scale and of particle masses become paramount. Is this physics related to new strong forces of nature, to new underlying symmetries that relate particles of different spin, or to additional spatial dimensions that have so far remained hidden? Will this physics include the particles that constitute the dark matter of the universe, and will measurements at the LHC allow a prediction of the observed cosmological abundance? String theory remains the leading candidate for a quantum theory of gravity, but a crucial debate has emerged as to whether its predictions are unique, or whether our universe is part of a multiverse. All of these fundamental questions about particles and spacetime lead to corresponding questions about the early history of the universe at ever higher temperatures. The most compelling links between cosmological observations and fundamental theory involve dark matter, inflation, the cosmological baryon excess and dark energy.

where mX* the desired gravitational charge of the particle , qX2 is the square of the particle charge x.
We draw readers’ attention to the differences between the gravitational charge of a charged elementary particle mX and its inertial electromagnetic mass mX The gravitational charge mX* (see expression (III.1.4)) has no direct connection with the inertial electromagnetic mass mX defined by expression (III.1.3). The gravitational charge mX* and the inertial electromagnetic mass mX reflect the different properties of the elementary particle. Therefore, we have no right to talk about the “equivalence” (identity) of these masses. Now we can proceed to the determination of the gravitational charge of other elementary particles.
• Electron: The inertial mass of the electron is 1/1836 of the inertial mass of the proton. The electric charge of an electron is equal to the electric charge of a proton. If we calculate the gravitational charge of the electron using (III.1.4), then it turns out that it is numerically equal to the gravitational charge of the proton. For an electron, the ratio
• Neutron: From the point of view of the quadratic effect, the neutron is a special particle, because it does not have a pronounced charge. We study macroscopic phenomena, so we do not need to consider the quark model of a neutron. It is important for us to bear in mind the following experimental fact. The difference of inertial masses between the proton and the neutron is small by the standards of nuclear physics and is about 1.3 MeV. As a result, the neutron in the nuclei may be located in a deeper potential well than the proton, and therefore the beta decay of the neutron is energetically unfavorable. This leads to the fact that the neutron in the nuclei can be stable
Moreover, in neutron-deficient nuclei, a beta transition of a proton into a neutron occurs with the capture of an orbital electron. For this reason, from a macroscopic point of view, we can conditionally consider a neutron as a “bundle” of a proton and a neutron with a relatively weak electrostatic interaction of electric charges. Following this logic, we can assume that the gravitational charge of the neutron is the sum of the gravitational charge of the proton and the gravitational charge of the electron.

The two groups will double-check each other's work and provide a bit of friendly rivalry as to who can discover what first.) The collision will concentrate all that speeding energy in an infinitesimally small space. And then that ball of pure energy will become something else entirely. "By Einstein's E = m2, you can make particles whose mass is less than the amount of energy you have available," says Martinus Veltman, a physics professor at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and a Nobel laureate. Energy becomes mass. This, in a nutshell, is why the protons need to go so fast—with more energy, the LHC can summon ever-heavier particles out of the ether. And the heavier particles are the interesting ones. The heavy ones are new.
Here's what we know about what the universe is made of: We have the ordinary, common matter, like protons and electrons. In addition, there's all the stuff that transmits a force, like photons of light, or gravitons, which pull heavy objects together. That's the universe—matter and force—and physicists have spent the past 60 years or so uncovering the details of how all the matter particles and the force particles interact. The totality of that work is called the Standard Model of particle physics, and any particle physicist will tell you that it is the most successful theory in the history of human existence, powerful enough to predict the results of experiments down to one part in a trillion.
And yet the Standard Model is almost certainly not the whole picture. While particle physicists have been busy constructing the Standard Model, astronomers and cosmologists have been working on another task, a giant cosmic accounting project. What they see—or, more precisely, don't—is a clear sign that there are far more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of by the Ph.D.s.
If you go out and count up all the stars and galaxies and supernovae and the like, you should get an estimate of how much total mass there is in the universe. But if you estimate the mass another way—say, by looking at how quickly galaxies rotate (the more mass in a galaxy, the faster it spins) or by noting how galaxies clump together in large groups—you will conclude that the universe has much more mass than we can see. About five times as much, by the latest reckoning. Since it can't be seen, we call it dark matter.

The God Particle
Physicist Brian Greene explains the Higgs boson particle, also known as the "God Particle," and why you should care about it. This energetic and delightful talk will make you wish your high school physics teacher taught like this. Greene says the feat of finding such a particle is akin to "trying to hear a tiny, delicate whisper over the massive thundering, deafening din of a NASCAR race."
Greene gave this talk in 2012 just days before CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) confirmed the theory of the Higgs boson using the Large Hadron Collider. The following year, the Nobel prize in physics was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles.”
Around 1970, Peter Higgs imagines that all of space is uniformly filled with an invisible substance that’s sort of like molasses. When a particle, like an electron, tries to move through this molasses, the resistance it encounters is what we interpret as the mass of the particle. In fact, the idea is that different particles would have different degrees of stickiness which means they would experience a different amount of resistance as they try to borrow through this pervasive molasses. Higgs’s theory, if proven, would rewrite the very meaning of nothingness because the field, or molasses, is essentially an unremoveable occupant of space.
The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, in Geneva, is about 18 miles around. Protons are sent cycling around the collider in opposite directions, near the speed of light, so fast that they can traverse that 18-mile race track more than 11,000 times each second. And these particles engage in head-on collisions. It’s a monumental challenge to carry out this procedure. “It’s like trying to hear a tiny, delicate whisper over the thundering, deafening din of a NASCAR race,” says Greene.
By the numbers
Fundamental discovery can have a profound impact on the way we live our lives, but we must wait for theoretical discoveries to turn into practical applications. Confirming the existence of the Higgs particle in 2012 substantiated 30 years of theoretical science. In short, the Higgs discovery put the bang in the Big Bang Theory.

Here are some excerpts from a BBC article on a so-called "God" Particle -- that might explain how matter attains mass.
Cern scientists reporting from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have claimed the discovery of a new particle consistent with the Higgs boson.
The particle has been the subject of a 45-year hunt to explain how matter attains its mass.
Both of the Higgs boson-hunting experiments at the LHC see a level of certainty in their data worthy of a "discovery".
They claimed that by combining two data sets, they had attained a confidence level just at the "five-sigma" point - about a one-in-3.5 million chance that the signal they see would appear if there were no Higgs particle.
However, a full combination of the CMS data brings that number just back to 4.9 sigma - a one-in-two million chance.
Read more here:

Shochet and Henry J. Frisch, professor in physics,
the Fermi Institute, and the College, are among the 2,000 scientists
conducting experiments at Fermilab.
Higgs, if it exists, will be the latest in a series of subatomic
particles discovered during the last century. The fermions, named
for the Chicago Nobel physicist, are the building blocks of atoms.
They include three pairs of quarks (top and bottom, up and down,
and the fancifully named charmed and strange) and three pairs
of leptons (the electron, muon, and tau and their corresponding
bosons, on the other hand, carry the forces that interact with
the fermions, causing them to stick together, have inertia, and
disintegrate under radioactive conditions. Four of the five predicted
bosons have already been seen in the lab. The photon, or the particle
of light, carries the electromagnetic force, which binds atoms
together to create molecules and, eventually, berries and steel.
The gluon carries the strong force, which holds atomic nuclei
together by binding together quarks to form protons and neutrons.
The Z and W bosons carry the weak force, which governs radioactive
decay, the demise of all unstable particles. Last but not least,
the Higgs boson carries the sticky muck that gives the fermions
inertia, or mass.
the roster of fermions and bosons and their interactions create
the Standard Model, the summary of scientists' present understanding
of Nature. Every physicist will tell you it's an imperfect model-or,
more precisely, an inelegant model, because it requires
parameters such as mass to be factored in, rather than accounting
for them on its own-but it's what they have for now, and the Higgs
is an important part of it.
most natural way for it all to work," Shochet explains, "would
be for all the elementary particles to have no rest mass whatsoever-to
have mass that only came from kinetic energy, the energy from
motion, and potential energy, the energy associated with things
interacting. But we know that's not the case."

Named for Peter Higgs, the retired Scottish
theorist who proposed its existence in the early 1960s, the Higgs
is a hot object of pursuit for experimental physicists because,
after so much waiting, finally seeing it in the lab would
be the first step toward understanding its nature and properties.
does it mean for a particle to "give" another particle
its mass? When the Higgs hubbub began late last year, many well-meaning
journalists explained mass as the weight of something,
and the Higgs as the mechanism that gives things weight. But mass
is not the reason why a hunk of steel weighs a ton and a gooseberry
weighs a few grams. That's a function of gravity. Rather, mass
is why a thing has inertia, causing it naturally to resist a change
of motion, which is why a gooseberry and a hunk of steel both
stay right where they are until some intervening force (late-season
rain, a forklift) moves them.
Higgs boson is the particle that carries the inertia. The more
tightly it gloms on to other particles, the less likely they are
to be swayed by intervening forces. Melvyn J. Shochet, the Elaine
M. & Samuel D. Kersten Jr. professor in physics, the Fermi
Institute, and the College, describes the phenomenon created by
the Higgs as, in essence, sticky muck: "It's like soldiers
walking through mud. Interaction with the mud slows them down
and makes it much harder to walk." In fact, particle physicists
believe all of Nature is covered in a blanket of mud, and they
would like very much to scoop up a glob from this Higgs field
to study how, exactly, it gloms onto other particles.
they won't have to wait another five years to do it. Just as LEP
was shutting down in December, another particle accelerator 40
miles outside Chicago was preparing to fire up in March to resume
the hunt for the Higgs. The Tevatron accelerator, located at the
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, has
undergone extensive equipment upgrades, increasing the intensity
of its colliding beams and the machine's ability to tag data like
that seen at LEP.

The Higgs. Whaaaa? July 6, 2012Posted by gordonwatts in ATLAS, CMS, Higgs, LHC, physics, press.
Ok. This post is for all my non-physics friends who have been asking me… What just happened? Why is everyone talking about this Higgs thing!?
It does what!?
Actually, two things. It gives fundamental particles mass. Not much help, eh? Fundamental particles are, well, fundamental – the most basic things in nature. We are made out of arms & legs and a few other bits. Arms & legs and everything else are made out of cells. Cells are made out of molecules. Molecules are made out of atoms. Note we’ve not reached anything fundamental yet – we can keep peeling back the layers of the onion and peer inside. Inside the atom are electrons in a cloud around the nucleus. Yes! We’ve got a first fundamental particle: the electron! Everything we’ve done up to now says it stops with the electron. There is nothing inside it. It is a fundamental particle.
We aren’t done with the nucleus yet, however. Pop that open and you’ll find protons and neutrons. Not even those guys are fundamental, however – inside each of them you’ll find quarks – about 3 of them. Two “up” quarks and a “down” quark in the case of the proton and one “up” quark and two “down” quarks in the case of the neutron. Those quarks are fundamental particles.
The Higgs interacts with the electron and the quarks and gives them mass. You could say it “generates” the mass. I’m tempted to say that without the Higgs those fundamental particles wouldn’t have mass. So, there you have it. This is one of its roles. Without this Higgs, we would not understand at all how electrons and quarks have mass, and we wouldn’t understand how to correctly calculate the mass of an atom!
Now, any physicist who has made it this far is cringing with my last statement – as a quick reading of it implies that all the mass of an atom comes from the Higgs. It turns out that we know of several different ways that mass can be “generated” – and the Higgs is just one of them.

This text accompanies the video.
The Standard Model of particle physics is the most successful scientific theory of all time. It describes how everything in the universe is made of 12 different types of matter particles, interacting with three forces, all bound together by a rather special particle called the Higgs boson. It’s the pinnacle of 400 years of science and gives the correct answer to hundreds of thousands of experiments. In this explainer, Cambridge University physicist David Tong recreates the model, piece by piece, to provide some intuition for how the fundamental building blocks of our universe fit together. At the end of the video, he also points out what’s missing from the model and what work is left to do in order to complete the Theory of Everything.
And then when you have looked at that, you can look at this.
By which time you will find you actually know nothing at all about anything that makes up the universe in which we live, at least nothing that makes any practical difference in what you do.

In the late 1940s a number of experiments with cosmic rays revealed new types of particles, the existence of which had not been anticipated. They were called strange particles, and their properties were studied intensively in the 1950s. Then, in the 1960s, many new particles were found in experiments with the large accelerators. The electron, proton, neutron, photon, and all the particles discovered since 1932 are collectively called elementary particles. But the term is actually a misnomer, for most of the particles, such as the proton, have been found to have very complicated internal structure.
Elementary particle physics is concerned with (1) the internal structure of these building blocks and (2) how they interact with one another to form nuclei. The physical principles that explain how atoms and molecules are built from nuclei and electrons are already known. At present, vigorous research is being conducted on both fronts in order to learn the physical principles upon which all matter is built.
One popular theory about the internal structure of elementary particles is that they are made of so-called quarks (. Quark), which are subparticles of fractional charge; a proton, for example, is made up of three quarks. This theory was first proposed in 1964 by the American physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig. Despite the theory's ability to explain a number of phenomena, no quarks have yet been found, and current theory suggests that quarks may never be released as separate entities except under such extreme conditions as those found during the very creation of the universe. The theory postulated three kinds of quarks, but later experiments, especially the discovery of the J/psi particle in 1974 by the American physicists Samuel C. C. Ting and Burton Richter, called for the introduction of three additional kinds.
In 1931 the American physicist Harold Clayton Urey discovered the hydrogen
isotope deuterium and made heavy water from it. The deuterium nucleus,
or deuteron (one proton plus one neutron), makes an excellent bombarding
particle for inducing nuclear reactions. The French physicists Irène
and Frédéric Joliot-Curie produced the first artificially
radioactive nucleus in 1933 and 1934, leading to the production of radioisotopes
for use in archaeology, biology, medicine, chemistry, and other sciences.

These HIGGS Boson of u-HIGGS, d-HIGGS are Force Carriers of the Weak Gravity Force; and sparticles; d-HIGGSINO, and u-HIGGSINO Bosons of the Electroweak Gravity Force. It's their absorption and emission that creates mass of subatomic and larger particles and sparticles in the nucleus. The other Force Carriers are Gravitons; c-Graviton, t-Graviton of the Weak Gravity Force, and s-Gravitino and b-Gravitino of the Electroweak Gravity Force. It's the emission and absorption of these Gravitons and Gravitinos that create the SPIN, MOMENTUM and ENERGY of subatomic and larger particles and sparticles inside the nucleus. The 2 Force Carriers of Weak Gravity and Electroweak Gravity are similar to the 2 Force Carriers; W+, W-, and ZO (+-=Z0, -+=Z0) of the Weak Nuclear Force and sparticles; Wino, Zino of the Electroweak Force. The weak interaction in the nucleus is DUE to the Weak Gravity and Electroweak Gravity. The Male HIGGS Bosons have 3 Flavors or Faces; H2 or u-HIGGS, H4 or d-HIGGS, H5 or d-HIGGSINO and u-HIGGSINO, all are Zero or Neutral charged.
The material particles and sparticles of the Male HIGGS Fields or Weak Gravity Force and Electroweak Gravity are what we called Quarks HIGGS (Qhiggs) and Squark HIGGS (Sqhiggs). They are cubical in shape and they housed or confined each specific type of QUARK; Charm(c), Up(u), Top(t), Down(d) and SQUARK; Strange(s), Down(d), Bottom(b), Up(u) and why we called them QUARK HIGGS and SQUARK HIGGS.

So we conclude that each type of particle corresponds to a representation of G, and if we can classify the group representations of G, we will have much more information about the possibilities and properties of H, and hence what types of particles can exist.
The group of translations and Lorentz transformations form the Poincaré group, and this group is certainly a subgroup of G (neglecting general relativity effects, or in other words, in flat space). Hence, any representation of G will in particular be a representation of the Poincaré group. Representations of the Poincaré group are in many cases characterized by a nonnegative mass and a half-integer spin (see Wigner's classification); this can be thought of as the reason that particles have quantized spin. (Note that there are in fact other possible representations, such as tachyons, infraparticles, etc., which in some cases do not have quantized spin or fixed mass.)
While the spacetime symmetries in the Poincaré group are particularly easy to visualize and believe, there are also other types of symmetries, called internal symmetries. One example is color SU(3), an exact symmetry corresponding to the continuous interchange of the three quark colors.
Although the above symmetries are believed to be exact, other symmetries are only approximate.
As an example of what an approximate symmetry means, suppose we lived inside an infinite ferromagnet, with magnetization in some particular direction. An experimentalist in this situation would find not one but two distinct types of electrons: one with spin along the direction of the magnetization, with a slightly lower energy (and consequently, a lower mass), and one with spin anti-aligned, with a higher mass. Our usual SO(3) rotational symmetry, which ordinarily connects the spin-up electron with the spin-down electron, has in this hypothetical case become only an approximate symmetry, relating different types of particles to each other.
Lie algebras versus Lie groups
Many (but not all) symmetries or approximate symmetries, for example the ones above, form Lie groups. Rather than study the representation theory of these Lie groups, it is often preferable to study the closely related representation theory of the corresponding Lie algebras, which are usually simpler to compute.
In general, an approximate symmetry arises when there are very strong interactions that obey that symmetry, along with weaker interactions that do not.

Scientists Close to Understanding Mass With Particle
Scientists seeking to explain the origins of matter discovered a particle that may support a decades-old theory of physics, bringing people closer to understanding unseen parts of the universe.
The observed particle is the heaviest boson ever found, said Joe Incandela, spokesman for one of the experiments at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, at a seminar yesterday at its Geneva headquarters. Scientists stopped short of claiming they have found the elusive Higgs boson, a theoretical particle that could explain where mass comes from.
“As a layman, I think I would say ‘we have it,’” said Rolf-Dieter Heuer, director of CERN, at a press conference in Geneva. It will take at least three to four years of research to fully understand the properties of the observed particle, Heuer said.
The announcement brings humankind closer to answering a millennia-old question that the ancient Greeks wrestled with: what is matter made of? The particle is a key to the Standard Model, a theory explaining how the universe is built, and its existence would help scientists gain a better understanding of how galaxies hold together. It also could open a door to exploring other parts of physics such as superparticles or dark matter that telescopes can’t detect.
‘Sings and Dances’
The new boson “sings and dances like” the theoretical particle, said Pauline Gagnon, a researcher on the Atlas set of experiments in Geneva, in an interview in Melbourne, where she was attending the bi-annual International Conference on High Energy Physics. “There is no doubt it comes from a different signal, different channels, with different experiments. We just need in the next few months with more data to ascertain exactly what are the properties of this particle to see if it is exactly the Standard Model Higgs boson or some variation of it."
Particle physics is the study of the elemental building blocks that make up matter. These particles, with names such as quark, fermion, lepton and boson, can’t be subdivided. They exist and interact within several unseen ‘‘fields’’ that permeate the universe.
The field that generates mass for objects is named for U.K. physicist Peter Higgs, who in the 1960s was one of the first scientists to outline a working theory on how elemental particles achieve mass. Higgs was one of four of the theorists attending yesterday’s meeting in Geneva.

In this theory, there are several kinds of elementary particles. There are strongly interacting quarks, which make up the protons and neutrons inside atomic nuclei as well as most of the new particles discovered in the 1950s and 1960s. There are more weakly interacting particles called leptons, of which the prototype is the electron.
There are also “force carrier” particles that move between quarks and leptons to produce various forces. These include (1) photons, the particles of light responsible for electromagnetic forces; (2) closely related particles called W and Z bosons that are responsible for the weak nuclear forces that allow quarks or leptons of one species to change into a different species—for instance, allowing negatively charged “down quarks” to turn into positively charged “up quarks” when carbon-14 decays into nitrogen-14 (it is this gradual decay that enables carbon dating); and (3) massless gluons that produce the strong nuclear forces that hold quarks together inside protons and neutrons.
Successful as the Standard Model has been, it is clearly not the end of the story. For one thing, the masses of the quarks and leptons in this theory have so far had to be derived from experiment, rather than deduced from some fundamental principle. We have been looking at the list of these masses for decades now, feeling that we ought to understand them, but without making any sense of them. It has been as if we were trying to read an inscription in a forgotten language, like Linear A. Also, some important things are not included in the Standard Model, such as gravitation and the dark matter that astronomers tell us makes up five sixths of the matter of the universe.
So now we are waiting for results from a new accelerator at CERN that we hope will let us make the next step beyond the Standard Model. This is the Large Hadron Collider, or LHC. It is an underground ring seventeen miles in circumference crossing the border between Switzerland and France. In it two beams of protons are accelerated in opposite directions to energies that will eventually reach 7 TeV in each beam, that is, about 7,500 times the energy in the mass of a proton. The beams are made to collide at several stations around the ring, where detectors with the mass of World War II cruisers sort out the various particles created in these collisions.

At the heart of the Standard Model is the idea of elementary particles; the very basic building blocks of the building blocks of the building blocks of... well... pretty much everything really.
So here's a table that nicely organizes all the elementary particles of the Standard Model. Don't expect it to mean anything just yet, but I'll be referring back to it from time to time...
There are basically two types of particle in the universe. The first class consists of particles that make up the matter all around us (the chairs and tables of the world). These are called FERMIONS, being named after a pioneer of particle physics by the name of Enrico Fermi.
The second class consists of particles that cause interaction between matter particles (think of them as the 'springs' that bind things together or push them apart). These particles are called BOSONS, being named after another important early physicist by the name of Satyendra Nath Bose.
In short, fermions are matter particles and bosons are interaction particles. Now let's drill down on each of these categories...
Particles can push and pull on each other in several ways corresponding to four fundamental forces: the gravitational force, the strong force, the weak force, and the electromagnetic force.
The Standard Model can't handle gravity yet; it's way too tricky. But the others can be understood very well by thinking of the forces as being mediated by particles, called bosons.
GLUONS carry the strong force and are usually denoted by a lowercase g. I don't have much to say about gluons yet, but I just wanted this paragraph to be the same length as the next two. There. That should do it.
PHOTONS carry the electromagnetic force and are usually denoted by the greek letter γ (gamma). Photons are better known for their role as the 'light particles' that enable us to see stuff.
GAUGE BOSONS carry the weak force. There are two types of gauge bosons denoted by the symbols W and Z. Most physicists just refer to these particles as W- and Z-Bosons, however the name WEAKON (being suggestive of the weak force) was once proposed.
It didn't take hold among physicists, but the lexicographers seem to have taken notice ;-)
NOTE — You may be wondering how forces can be 'carried' by particles.

Feynman explains:
Clearly as soon as we have to put forces on the inside of the electron, the beauty of the whole idea [i.e. deriving mass from Maxwell’s equations], begins to disappear. Things get very complicated. You would want to ask: how strong are the stresses? How does the electron shake? Does it oscillate? What are all its internal properties? And so on. It might be possible that the electron does have some complicated internal properties. If we made a theory of an electron along those lines, it would predict odd properties, the modes of oscillation, which haven’t apparently been observed. We say “apparently” because we observe a lot of things in nature that still do not make sense. We may someday find out that one of the things that we don’t understand today (for example the muon), can, in fact, be explained as an oscillation of the Poincare stresses…there are so many things about fundamental particles that we still don’t understand. Anyway, the complex structure implied by this theory is undesirable, and the attempt to explain all mass in terms of electromagnetism…has led to a blind alley.
It turns out, however, that nobody has ever succeeded in making a self-consistent quantum theory out of any of the modified [classical] theories…We do not know how to make a consistent theory - including the quantum mechanics - which does not produce an infinity for the self-energy of the electron, or any point charge. And, at the same time, there is no satisfactory theory that describes a non-point charge. It is an unsolved problem.
Of course, in developing our RST-based theory, we escape the horns of this dilemma, by recognizing that electrical, magnetic, and gravitational forces, are properties of scalar, not vectorial, or M2, motions, and that they are certainly not autonomous entities that can exist independently on the surface of a sphere, as a consequence of interacting charges. In the new system, we can define force and acceleration (mass) in space|time terms in a way that eliminates the infinities of point particles and the need for Poincare stresses, in non-point particles.
That is to say, we can redefine force, just as we redefine motion: In the universe of motion, like everything else, force and acceleration must be motions, a combination of motions, or a relation between motions.

In English, many things are named after a particular country – but have you ever wondered what those things are called in those countries?
1física de partículas femenino
- When asked what the most important issue in particle physics is today, my colleagues offer three burning questions: What is the origin of mass?
- String theory always has lots of scalar-field moduli and these can potentially play important roles in particle physics and cosmology.
- The first decade of LFT has been extremely productive and has had a longlasting impact on theoretical particle physics and field theory.
- In particle physics, masses of scalar fields tend to be very large.
- The existence of quarks inside the mesons and baryons had to be deduced mathematically because free quarks have never been observed by particle physics.
- I would like to end by discussing the future of string theory, not as a mathematical subject but as a framework for particle physics and cosmology.
- Since the discovery of quarks in the 1960s, the core questions in nuclear and particle physics have evolved dramatically.
- In the Standard Model of particle physics, the Higgs mechanism allows the generation of such masses but it cannot predict the actual mass values.
- In Deep Down Things, he takes the reader on a fascinating journey into the bizarre, subatomic world of particle physics.
- The article becomes heavy in places, especially in dealing with particle physics and quantum mechanics.
- In the same way it doesn't help us to look at Quantum and particle physics to describe cellular properties, because the level is too far reduced and the sorts of statements we can make are too general.
- Then the electron was discovered, and particle physics was born.
- Some will express surprise that the biggest job in particle physics has gone to a non-particle physicist.
- Fifty years is a long time in particle physics - and not just because most subatomic particles only exist for tiny fractions of a second.
- That hallmark has indeed proved true for quarks, which form the bedrock of the standard model, the dominant paradigm of particle physics.
- The delineation of atomic substructure and mechanisms of subatomic processes evolved into the modern study of particle physics.
- But this quark excess can't be explained using the Standard Model of particle physics.
- How do others see the future of CERN and particle physics in Europe?
- If the Standard Model of particle physics were perfectly symmetric, none of the particles in the model would have any mass.

So what exactly is the physical universe made of … everything that we consider to be “matter” (indeed the only “stuff” that actually exists if you are a materialist reductionist)? Matter exists within various “force fields” such as gravity, the “electro-weak” force and the “strong” force. But if we break down matter to its absolute basic constituents what is it? Well, simply three “things” make up everything physical These are electrons, an “up quark” and a “down quark”. There are actually six quarks but for all intents and purposes matter is made up of just the “up” and “down”. As you will recall the atom consists of a nucleus that is made up of a proton and a neutron and a number of electrons “orbiting” around the nucleus. All protons are made of two up quarks, one down quark and all neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks. The electrons are not made of anything as they are “point particles”. By this is meant that they have no actual extension in space. Let me be clear about this, they do not have any actual physical presence in space … it does not take up space. Got that? So if it has no presence in space it might as well be a ghost and, in many ways electrons are like ghosts … which, of course, like precognition, do not exist …. But what about the up and down quarks? Well each up quark is identical to every other up quark and every down quark is identical to every other down quark which in turn creates the identical protons and identical neutrons. The only thing that makes atoms different from each other is the number of electrons wizzing round and the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. So literally EVERYTHING that physically exists is made up of these two quarks and the electrons which don’t actually exist in physical space (Just like photons, particles of light which are also point particles … the things that “illuminate” physical objects so we can “see” them). Is it me or is this not simply amazing …. and do you not feel, like me, that somewhere along the way we are missing something?

Particle physicists had two nightmares before the Higgs particle was discovered in 2012. The first was that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) particle accelerator would see precisely nothing. For if it did, it would likely be the last large accelerator ever built to probe the fundamental makeup of the cosmos. The second was that the LHC would discover the Higgs particle predicted by theoretical physicist Peter Higgs in 1964 ... and nothing else.
Each time we peel back one layer of reality, other layers beckon. So each important new development in science generally leaves us with more questions than answers. But it also usually leaves us with at least the outline of a road map to help us begin to seek answers to those questions. The successful discovery of the Higgs particle, and with it the validation of the existence of an invisible background Higgs field throughout space (in the quantum world, every particle like the Higgs is associated with a field), was a profound validation of the bold scientific developments of the 20th century.
However, the words of Sheldon Glashow continue to ring true: The Higgs is like a toilet. It hides all the messy details we would rather not speak of. The Higgs field interacts with most elementary particles as they travel through space, producing a resistive force that slows their motion and makes them appear massive. Thus, the masses of elementary particles that we measure, and that make the world of our experience possible is something of an illusion—an accident of our particular experience.
As elegant as this idea might be, it is essentially an ad hoc addition to the Standard Model of physics—which explains three of the four known forces of nature, and how these forces interact with matter. It is added to the theory to do what is required to accurately model the world of our experience. But it is not required by the theory. The universe could have happily existed with massless particles and a long-range weak force (which, along with the strong force, gravity, and electromagnetism, make up the four known forces). We would just not be here to ask about them. Moreover, the detailed physics of the Higgs is undetermined within the Standard Model alone. The Higgs could have been 20 times heavier, or 100 times lighter.
Why, then, does the Higgs exist at all? And why does it have the mass it does?

In 1935 the Japanese physicist Yukawa Hideki developed a theory explaining
how a nucleus is held together, despite the mutual repulsion of its protons,
by postulating the existence of a particle intermediate in mass between
the electron and the proton. In 1936 Anderson and his coworkers discovered
a new particle of 207 electron masses in secondary cosmic radiation; now
called the mu-meson or muon, it was first thought to be Yukawa's nuclear
"glue." Subsequent experiments by the British physicist Cecil Frank Powell
and others led to the discovery of a somewhat heavier particle of 270 electron
masses, the pi-meson or pion (also obtained from secondary cosmic radiation),
which was eventually identified as the missing link in Yukawa's theory.
Many additional particles have since been found in secondary cosmic radiation and through the use of large accelerators. They include numerous massive particles, classed as hadrons (particles that take part in the "strong" interaction, which binds atomic nuclei together), including hyperons and various heavy mesons with masses ranging from about one to three proton masses; and intermediate vector bosons such as the W and Z0 particles, the carriers of the "weak" nuclear force. They may be electrically neutral, positive, or negative, but never have more than one elementary electric charge e. Enduring from 10-8 to 10-14 sec, they decay into a variety of lighter particles. Each particle has its antiparticle and carries some angular momentum. They all obey certain conservation laws involving quantum numbers, such as baryon number, strangeness, and isotopic spin.
In 1931 Pauli, in order to explain the apparent failure of some conservation laws in certain radioactive processes, postulated the existence of electrically neutral particles of zero-rest mass that nevertheless could carry energy and momentum. This idea was further developed by the Italian-born American physicist Enrico Fermi, who named the missing particle the neutrino. Uncharged and tiny, it is elusive, easily able to penetrate the entire earth with only a small likelihood of capture. Nevertheless, it was eventually discovered in a difficult experiment performed by the Americans Frederick Reines and Clyde Lorrain Cowan, Jr. Understanding of the internal structure of protons and neutrons has also been derived from the experiments of the American physicist Robert Hofstadter, using fast electrons from linear accelerators.

Charged particles interact by the exchange of photons — the carrier of the electromagnetic force. Whenever an electron repels another electron or an electron orbits a nucleus, a photon is responsible. Photons are massless, uncharged, and have an unlimited range. The mathematical model used to describe the interaction of charged particles through the exchange of photons is known as quantum electrodynamics (QED).
Quarks stick to other quarks because they possess a characteristic known as color (or color charge). Quarks come in one of three colors: red, green, and blue. Don't let the word mislead you. Quarks are much too small to to be visible and thus could never have a perceptual property like color. The names were chosen because of a wonderful analogy. The colors of quarks in the standard model combine like the colors of light in human vision.
Red light plus green light plus blue light appears to us humans as "colorless" white light. A baryon is a triplet of one red, one green, and one blue quark. Put them together and you get a color neutral particle. A color plus its opposite color also gives white light. Red light plus cyan light looks the same to humans as white light, for example. A meson is a doublet of one colored quark and one anticolored antiquark. Put them together and you get another color neutral particle.
There's something about color that makes it want to hide itself from anything bigger than a nucleus. Quarks can't stand being apart from one another. They just have to join up and always do so in a way that hides their color from the outside world. One color is never favored over another when quarks get together. Matter is color neutral down to the very small scale.
Colored particles are bound together by the appropriately named gluons. Gluons are also colored, but in a more complicated way than the quarks are. Six of the eight gluons have two colors, one has four, and another has six. Gluons glue quarks together, but they also stick to themselves. One consequence of this is that they they can't reach out and do much beyond the nucleus.
The mathematical model used to describe the interaction of colored particles through the exchange of gluons is known as quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

But the electron interacts with the photon field (i.e. the
electromagnetic field) and can create a disturbance in it; in doing
so it too ceases to be a normal particle and becomes a more general
disturbance. The combination of the two disturbances (i.e. the two
"virtual particles") remains a particle with the energy,
momentum and mass of the incoming electron.
Now there are many other types of disturbances that fields can
exhibit that are not particles. Another example, and scientifically
one of the most important, shows up in the very nature of particles
themselves. A particle is not as simple as I have naively
described. Even to say a particle like an electron is a
ripple purely in the electron field is an approximate
statement, and sometimes the fact that it is not exactly true
It turns out that since electrons carry electric charge, their
very presence disturbs the electromagnetic field around them, and so
electrons spend some of their time as a combination of two
disturbances, one in in the electron field and one in the
electromagnetic field. The disturbance in the electron field
is not an electron particle, and the disturbance in the photon field
is not a photon particle. However, the combination of the two
is just such as to be a nice ripple, with a well-defined energy and
momentum, and with an electron’s mass. This is sketchily
illustrated in Figure 3.
Fig. 4: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process in
Fig. 3. One says "the electron emits and reabsorbs a virtual
photon", but this is just shorthand for the physics shown in
The language physicists use in describing this is the following:
“The electron can turn into a virtual photon and a virtual
electron, which then turn back into a real electron.” And they draw
a Feynman diagram that looks like Figure 4. But what they
really mean is what I have just described in the
previous paragraph. The Feynman diagram is actually a calculational
tool, not a picture of the physical phenomenon; if you want to
calculate how big this effect is, you take that diagram , translate
it into a mathematical expression according to Feynman’s rules, set
to work for a little while with some paper and pen, and soon obtain
Fig.

by R. D. Peccei - arXiv , 1999
These lectures describe some aspects of the physics of massive neutrinos. After a brief introduction of neutrinos in the Standard Model, the author discusses possible patterns for their masses. A discussion of Dirac and Majorana masses is included.
Non-Abelian Discrete Symmetries in Particle Physics
by Hajime Ishimori, at al. - arXiv , 2010
The authors review pedagogically non-Abelian discrete groups, which play an important role in the particle physics. They show group-theoretical aspects for many concrete groups, such as representations, their tensor products.
Neutrino masses and mixings and...
by Alessandro Strumia, Francesco Vissani - arXiv , 2010
The authors review experimental and theoretical results related to neutrino physics with emphasis on neutrino masses and mixings, and outline possible lines of development. The physics is presented in a simple way, avoiding unnecessary formalisms.
Quantum Principles and Particles
by Walter Wilcox - Baylor University , 1992
This is an introductory text, it includes material which overlaps with particle physics, including a number of interesting models as well as material on identical particles. The ideas of quantum mechanics are introduced via Process Diagrams.
Lessons in Particle Physics
by Luis Anchordoqui, Francis Halzen - arXiv , 2009
This is a preliminary draft of lecture notes for a (500 level) course in elementary particles. From the table of contents: General Principles; Symmetries and Invariants; QED; Hard Scattering Processes; Precision Electroweak Physics.
Elementary Particle Physics
by Paolo Franzini - University of Rome , 2009
The Electromagnetic Interaction; The Weak Interaction; Strangeness; Quark Mixing; Quantum Chromodynamics; Hadron Spectroscopy; High Energy Scattering; The Electro-weak Interaction; Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking, the Higgs Scalar; etc.
A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics
by M. Robinson, K. Bland, G. Cleaver, J. Dittmann, T. Ali - arXiv , 2008
An introduction to the relevant mathematical and physical ideas that form the foundation of Particle Physics, including Group Theory, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory and Interactions, Abelian and Non-Abelian Gauge Theory, etc.

MASS AND CHARGE OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES
Massa (u) Carica (e)
1.67262 10-27 1.60218 10-19 1.00728
1.67493 10-27 0
ELETTRONE 9.10939 10-31 -1.60218 10-19 0.00055
ATOMIC NUMBER, MASS NUMBER, ISOTOPES ATOMIC NUMBER Z : number of protons of an atom An element is designated by Z: all atoms of the same element have the same Z. However, elements are usually designated not by Z but by a one-two letter symbol Sy. MASS NUMBER A: the sum of protons and neutrons A â€“ Z is the number of neutrons: not fixed given a value of Z! Atoms with same Z (same element) with different A are ISOTOPES
An atom is characterised by both Z and A. The complete notation is:
Usually Z is omitted (not necessary). A indicated only if required.
If we are not interested in isotopes, then the atom is characterised by Z, the number of protons in the nucleus: Z is also the number of electrons of the neutral atom This latter definition is much more important in chemistry!
Correlation between (A â€“ Z) number of neutrons and Z, number of protons
Not all values of Z and A-Z are possible Nuclei are stable up to Z = 83 (Bismuth). For Z > 83, e.g. Po Z = 84, nuclei become unstable and undergo nuclear reactions The number of elements is finite because nuclei become unstable radioactive decay: unstable nuclei transform through emission of particles For light nuclei Z ~ A â€“ Z (up to Z = 20)
how do we weight atoms?
with MS, mass spectrometry • for the electron (e/m) • for atoms • also for molecules The particle, carrying a charge e and having a speed v, is deviated by the electromagnetic field
MASS OF AN ATOM M One would expect additivity: M = Z mp + (A-Z) mn + Z me Instead: M < Z mp + (A-Z) mn + Z me Defect of mass!! Why? Relativistic Effect: mass defect measures the binding energy among nucleons EINSTEIN RELATIONSHIP
ΔE = Δm.

So to summarize: The current Standard Model of elementary particle physics consists of six quarks (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top); six leptons (electron, muon, tau, electron neutrino, muon neutrino, and tau neutrino); and the so-called gauge bosons that act as the agents that carry the four kinds of forces that exist in nature: the graviton (for gravity), the photon (for electromagnetism), the gluon (for the strong nuclear force), and the W+, W-, and the uncharged Z bosons (for the weak nuclear force), making 18 particles in all.
And then we have the recently discovered Higgs particle of mass 126.5 GeV, standing alone. The Higgs particle has many properties in common with the other force particles so that it is often lumped together with them for that reason, but unlike them is not the carrier of any known force.
All the particles except the Higgs were detected by 1995, the last of them being the top quark. The masses of the quarks are hard to determine precisely since they are never found in an isolated state but always in combination with other quarks and gluons inside non-elementary particles. The masses of the neutrinos are hard to determine because their interactions with matter is so weak. (How we detect and measure the properties of something microscopic is by seeing how it disturbs the things that we can see and measure. But that requires the particle to interact with matter in the first place and neutrinos are notoriously reluctant to do so.)
It is these 19 particles that form the elementary particle spectrum from which the Standard Model is built. (Each particle also has its corresponding anti-particle but since the properties of each antiparticle are completely determined by the properties of the corresponding particle, they are not listed separately.) Of these 19 particles, the masses of the graviton, photon, and gluon are predicted to be identically zero, and the masses of W+ and W- are predicted by theory to be identical. That leaves us with 15 masses whose values have to be determined by experiment.
In addition, we have to include as additional parameters the strength of the interaction of each of the four kinds of forces, giving 19 parameters in all to be determined by experiment.
Next: Particle and waves

Yang-Mills theory underlies much of the theory of modern particle physics. To jump ahead in the story, the Standard Model of particle physics is modeled by a composite Lie group: SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1). As you may guess, SU(3) is the group that continuously mixes three entities; and here it is used to quantum-mechanically mix the three "colors" of the quarks. SU(2) in this model mixes an up quark with a down quark and the leptons: an electron with an electron-neutrino--the two particles that emanate together in beta decay (hence capturing the action of the weak force; the strong force being modeled by the SU(3))--and the same for the muon and the muon neutrino, and tau with the tau neutrino (and similarly SU(3) also mixes the higher-order quarks of the second and third "generations"). The U(1) part of the composite group can be described (simplistically, here) as representing electromagnetism.
Part of the model, the unification of electromagnetism with the weak nuclear force (responsible for beta decay)--using the composite SU(2)xU(1)--was the work of Steven Weinberg in 1967 (and independently, in different ways, of Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow, who shared the 1979 Nobel Prize with Weinberg for the electroweak unification work). in his work, Weinberg used what he called "the Higgs mechanism" to break the original symmetry of the unified electroweak force when it split during the very early universe into electromegnetism and the weak force. When this happened, the Z and W+ and W- bosons that carry the action of the weak force inside a nucleus of matter gained mass.
The "Higgs mechanism," whose action is carried out by the then-hypothesized Higgs boson (now confirmed to exist by CERN) is what gave mass to these three bosons and, by implication, to all massive particles in the universe (save, perhaps, neutrinos, where another process may have been at play).

This has the consequence that the results of a measurement are now sometimes "quantized", i.e. they appear in discrete portions. This is, of course, difficult to imagine in the context of "forces". However, the potentials V(x,y,z) or fields, from which the forces generally can be derived, are treated similar to classical position variables, i.e., .
This becomes different only in the framework of quantum field theory, where these fields are also quantized.
However, already in quantum mechanics there is one "caveat", namely the particles acting onto each other do not only possess the spatial variable, but also a discrete intrinsic angular momentum-like variable called the "spin", and there is the Pauli principle relating the space and the spin variables. Depending on the value of the spin, identical particles split into two different classes, fermions and bosons. If two identical fermions (e.g. electrons) have a symmetric spin function (e.g. parallel spins) the spatial variables must be antisymmetric (i.e. they exclude each other from their places much as if there was a repulsive force), and vice versa, i.e. for antiparallel spins the position variables must be symmetric (i.e. the apparent force must be attractive). Thus in the case of two fermions there is a strictly negative correlation between spatial and spin variables, whereas for two bosons (e.g. quanta of electromagnetic waves, photons) the correlation is strictly positive.
Thus the notion "force" loses already part of its meaning.
In modern particle physics, forces and the acceleration of particles are explained as a mathematical by-product of exchange of momentum-carrying gauge bosons. With the development of quantum field theory and general relativity, it was realized that force is a redundant concept arising from conservation of momentum (4-momentum in relativity and momentum of virtual particles in quantum electrodynamics). The conservation of momentum can be directly derived from the homogeneity or symmetry of space and so is usually considered more fundamental than the concept of a force. Thus the currently known fundamental forces are considered more accurately to be "fundamental interactions".:199–128 When particle A emits (creates) or absorbs (annihilates) virtual particle B, a momentum conservation results in recoil of particle A making impression of repulsion or attraction between particles A A' exchanging by B. This description applies to all forces arising from fundamental interactions.

Remember, there is no net charge expression without accompanying mass expression, while there can be the opposite, a massive ST unit with zero net charge. Asymmetry of the charge and spin vectors is a requirement for net expression of these parameters. The mass forming vector is not really a separate structural vector in the same sense as the charge and spin vectors. Rather it is manifested as the result of the particular combination(s) of the other two and in the end acts just like a vector in the sense that if those combinations produce a composite asymmetry mass is expressed (like a localized knot in the ST field). When they produce a composite symmetry, like in the Higgs, gluon, photon and graviton bosons, no mass is expressed and whatever asymmetry is present in the spin vectors (like the spin 1 gluons and photons, and the spin 2 gravitons), that spin energy now translates into 100% mobility with each ST pulse. The Higgs Boson, with spin 0 and charge 0, is assigned a mass and mobility of 0 here to be fully consistent with this model. Its perfect symmetry has no net expression mass, charge or spin. Nevertheless it has mass-energy resulting from the equal and opposite individual charge, spin (and mass) vectors. It spins in place acting as the multipotential transformative gateway that all other ST units are derived, and measured, from and return to. Through interference, photons can become gravitons or Higgs Bosons. Interference of gravitons can also regenerate Higgs. The accounting system for the conservation laws has come full circle.
The irony is that the condensate of matter is light and we see it, while the fluid of which it is composed is dark and invisible. While the curvature of ST inwards toward its mass-energy seen should not exactly point to curvature outward where inflation began is the light.For those who are in doubt, yet consider the Conservation of Energy to be inviolable, consider this:
If energy is conserved now, it must have been conserved in the past and in the future as well (that is if the notions of a past, present and future are endeared likewise).
All the energy now is the same, in amount, as all the energy at the Big Bang, both before and after inflation.
Energy disposition, that is its spatial dispersement, must likewise account for the total sum.

Earlier, I explained how all particles can be classified as either fermions or bosons. This dichotomy is based on quite a technical argument that has been questioned from time to time.
One compelling analysis suggests that in a two-dimensional system, the traditional dichotomy would break down, making room for a whole spectrum of possibilities in between bosons and fermions.
Naturally, ANYthing between a bosON and a fermiON, should be called an ANYON.
Sounding much more like a term from neuroanatomy than particle physics, an axion is a hypothetical particle that was invented to resolve a perplexing issue called The Strong CP Problem.
This problem had to do with the differences between the theories of the strong and weak forces with respect to a type of symmetry called CP.
It doesn't really matter though. The main point is that there's nothing else you can make with these letters.
A glueball is what you would get if you could stick a bunch of gluons together. And you have to admit, even though it sounds more like a team sport than a particle, it's a pretty darn sensible name.
Theoretically, gluons should be able to stick together like this, but, like most things in particle physics, it's a lot easier said than done. In the meantime, feel free to play it.
The greatest problem in modern physics is that general relativity (the theory of space and time) and quantum theory (the theory of matter and interactions) refuse to talk to each other.
A very popular assumption among physicists is that gravity will turn out to be a quantum field (just like the other forces) and the (alleged) particle that mediates the corresponding force is called the graviton. We've yet to detect one, but lots of people are trying.
A model was proposed in the 1970s in which the (now assumed to be) elementary quarks and leptons were actually composite particles. The hypothetical constituent particles were called preons. Although physicists rarely say never, the idea has been largely discredited.
I wonder what the preons were made of? ;-)
A very popular, although speculative, theory in particle physics is called SUPERSYMMETRY (often called Susy by physicists; it's a kind of secret handshake). It's way too difficult to even summarize here, but the upshot of it would be that all known particles would have new (as yet undetected) partners.

This is due to a condition of magnetic disorder (expanded and “hot” corpuscles: for ex., the neutron, compared with compact, highly magnetic and “cold” proton), or to a different collocation of the “barrier of potential” of the particles constituting the corpuscle (as in the proton-electron system: there is normally equilibrium between attractive effects of a particle and “repulsive” effects of the other), or at a regular magnetic anti parallelism of equal composing particles (nucleus and saturated layers, with protons in anti parallel couples, as in the “inert” gas: there is equilibrium between attractive effects of a pole and “repulsive” effects of the other) (30). As for the value presumed unitary of the “charge” both positive and negative, it is preordinate by the caliber of our instruments, whose sensibility is at the limit of a certain gravitational intensity: this appear identical, because perceived at different distances from the field’s center of the proton of the electron which acts as a screen. In other terms, the instrumental perception arrives up to the “potential barrier” of the proton and to the one of the electron, which has the same intensity, because the first is much more distant by the proton than the second is of the electron (31).
Let’s now return to the problem of the measure of mass, which become executed in base of the gravitational effects of the masses themselves. Let’s now observe in this regard that the factors of density (active effect) and of the magnetism has in the gravitational interaction a much restricted radius of prevailing influence, over which remains almost exclusively sensible the nude factor of the amount of matter (still remaining measured in the effects instead that in absolute): right for this Newton’s formula can prescind without too much harm, in the measure of the macro cosmic gravitation, by those two factors, whose gravitational character is however clearly underlined by the similarity of the formulas of the electric and magnetic interaction with the Newtonian law.
Therefore depends by the method and by the instrument of measure employed, if the values of mass result by the calculation almost naked or altered by the coefficients of the very short distances (electric and magnetic “charges”, “nuclear forces”, etc.), which must be deducted to reach the pure and simple effect of the “quantity of matter”.

When the Nobel Prize Committee awarded in 2015
University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan
Arthur B. McDonald
Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Collaboration
Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
for their experimental work showing that neutrinos might have a mass, it had to admit in the press release that:
“The discovery led to the far-reaching conclusion that neutrinos, which for a long time were considered massless (?), must have some mass, however small.
For particle physics this was a historic discovery. Its Standard Model of the innermost workings of matter had been incredibly successful, having resisted all experimental challenges for more than twenty years. However, as it requires neutrinos to be massless, the new observations had clearly showed that the Standard Model cannot be the complete theory of the fundamental constituents of the universe.” (for more information read here)
Let me summarize some of the greatest blunders that have been made in physics so far and expose it as “fake science” only because physicists have not realized that their discipline is simply applied mathematics to the physical world and have not employed it appropriately to established axiomatic, formalistic standards. Therefore, before one can reform physics, one should apply rigidly and methodologically the principle of mathematical formalism as first introduced by Hilbert and led, through the famous Grundlagenstreit (Foundation dispute) between the two world wars in Europe, to Goedel’s irrefutable proof of the invalidity of mathematics and the acknowledgement of the Foundation Crisis of mathematics that simmered since the beginning of the 20th century after B. Russell presented his famous paradoxes (antinomies):
1) Neither photons, nor neutrinos are massless particles. Physicists have failed to understand epistemologically their own definition of mass, which is based on mathematics and is in fact “energy relationship“. All particles and systems of nature have energy and thus mass (for further information read here).
2) This eliminates the ridiculous concept of “dark matter” that accounts for 95% of the total mass in the universe according to the current standard model in cosmology which is another epitome of “fake science” as the recent dispute on the inflation hypothesis not being a real science has truly revealed (read here). The 95% missing matter is the mass of the photon space-time which is now considered to be “massless”.

Standard physics classes in most high schools talk about matter being made of atoms. And atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. And that in each of those parts of the atom, there are three quarks. Those are the basics, but as it turns out, it's a little more complicated. There are not always just three quarks. Protons will always have three quarks, two down and one up, and these are valence quarks. It doesn't stop there however. Some protons will also have anti quark pairs and other particles called gluons that hold it all together. But wait,there's more!
Where does all this stuff come from? Einstein said it best in his E=mc2 formula. Mass can create energy and energy can create mass and that's where the magic happens, all the energy from the quark and anti-quarks makes more matter. There are laws however that still exist. Quark pairs must match, and there must always be one more up quark than there are down quarks. It's the concept of equal and opposite reactions that keeps everything from flying off into a huge mess. Check out the sweet way this video demonstrates some cool particle physics.

Standard Model of Physics Particles
It had a time , when you were seems atom is small particle of a matter.
And it can not be divided further more, so after some research again it was found that electron and proton is actually smaller than atom.
Whereas quantum theory came and then it searched some more new particles which you were totally unknown.
So to understand about this new particle a new theory was needed which is quantum field theory.
And this theory predicted about some more new particles are present in the universe.
After that when these particles were accelerated with high energy and collide together in a accelerator.
Then you found many new particles and it become a large number of particles.
So you have to divide these particles in different groups according to their properties.
And this was the properties.
- Electrical charge
- Lifetime (which time Unless it does not decay to become a lighter particle)
So it was developed a model such that according to their properties they’re put together.
And along with this properties you were able to explain what’s reason for different, different forces work.
What Does Quantum Physics Mean About Particle
Therefore this model is called Standard Model of Physics Particles.
So lets come to know what’re the different types of particles in it and what is their role ?
Hence all types of particle present in the universe is mainly divided into two categories.
Which’re given below.
Fermions build a mater, whether it’s a tree, mountain.
Whereas four fundamental forces in this universe work due to Bosons.
Do you know what’re four fundamental forces
Now in Fermions family there’re two types of particles.
So Quarks are again six types (Up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom)
These’re responsible for making electron and proton inside the nucleus.
But Quarks are not stable so they always make new particle after combination together.
Which’s known as Hadrons.
Now Hadrons are again divided into two parts.
- Baryons (3 quarks)
Also Baryons made with combination of three quarks. So Proton and neutron comes under Baryons.
Because proton made with two up and one down quarks. Whereas neutron made with two down and one up quarks.
How Electron is generated according to Quantum principle ?
Now rest four quarks combine together to make new other combination.
And due to this you get new, new other particles.
If you’ll talk about Leptons these’re those particles which’s not made with quarks.
So Which’re as bellow.

The immediate analogy of a ball being thrown back and forth between two people, thereby pushing them apart, soon breaks down when you try to explain attraction. I'm afraid there is no analogy, as quanta don't behave like ordinary particles. It is quite helpful to think of them as 'probability waves'. It is even more helpful not to think about them at all.
So there are the names of the particles that carry the forces that push and pull matter particles around. Now let's get on to the matter itself. The stuff you, me, and your ugly aunty are all made of...
Fermions are the matter particles, remember? But isn't matter made of atoms? Yes, it sure is. But atoms aren't the basic building blocks. To get to those, we have to dig deeper.
But first, we should probably have a quick recap on atoms, just to make sure we're on the same page. So here's a picture that probably brings back painful memories of your childhood science class...
As you can see, the atom consists of a hard core called the NUCLEUS around which a bunch of tiny particles called ELECTRONS orbit. The nucleus is composed of two types of particles called PROTONS and NEUTRONS, which are collectively known as NUCLEONS.
And what keeps this whole assembly together? Bosons! In particular, gluons and photons generate all the little attractive and repulsive forces that keep every little min-solar-system doing its thing. But we've already talked about bosons. Let's get back to fermions...
Fermions are grouped into two categories, according to how they do or don't interact with each other: QUARKS and LEPTONS.
The quarks interact via the strong force, which is another way of saying that they get pushed and pulled around by gluons (they were the carriers of the strong force, remember?).
Unlike electrons, which are all the same as each other, there are six different types of quark.
Quarks come in pairs in a natural, but difficult to explain, way that I won't go into here. This pairing is reflected in the naming convention used for these quarks: up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom. As you can see in the pink table just above, the first letter of these labels is usually used as a shorthand symbol (u, d, etc.).

Therefore, gravitational energy is obtained through the presence of the Scwarzschild radius. The fundamental reasons behind mass, of course, will be much more complicated. This is only an insight into mass in terms of the radius itself and gravitational energy when in relation to the gravitational charge (or inertial mass) of the system. The Origin of the Quantization of Charges
Here is a nice excerpt about the charge quantization method adopted by Motzhttp://encyclopedia2.thefreedictiona...tion+condition
What we have is
where your constants in the paper have been set to natural units and the angular momentum component comes in multiples of
It seems to say that
plays the role of a magnetic charge - this basically squares the charge on the left handside, by a quick analysis of the dimensions previously analysed.
Here, referenced by Motz, you can see the magnetic charge is given as
, the electric charge of course, still given by
what we have essentially is
In light of this, one may also see this can be derived from the Heaviside relationship since it has the familiar
in it.The Radius
We may start with the quantum relationship
Knowing the quantized condition
we may replace
Rearranging and the solving for the mass gives
we may replace the mass with the definition of the Planck mass in this equation, this gives
Actually, this is not the Planck mass exactly, it is about a factor of
greater, however, the Planck mass is usually an approximation so what we have here is possibly the correct value.
After rearraging and a little further solving for the radius we end up with
which makes the radius the Compton wavelength. In a sense, one can think of the Compton wavelength then as the ''size of a particle,'' but only loosely speaking. Motz' Uncertainty
And so, I feel the need to explain an uncertainty relationship Motz has detailed in paper. But whilst doing so, I also feel the need to explain that such a black hole particle is expected to give up its mass in a form of Unruh-Hawking radiation. The hotter a black hole is, the faster it gives up it's radiation. This is described by the temperature equation for a black hole
The time in which such a particle would give up the energy proportional to the temperature is given as
That is very quick indeed, no experimental possibilities today could measure such an action.

(This means that, for instance, a magnet attracts a nail because both objects exchange photons.) The graviton is the particle associated with gravity. The strong force is carried by eight particles known as gluons. Finally, the weak force is transmitted by three particles, the W+, the W- , and the Z.
The behavior of all of these particles and forces is described with tremendous precision by the Standard Model, with one notable exception: gravity. For technical reasons, the gravitational force, the most familiar in our every day lives, has proven very difficult to describe microscopically. This has been for many years one of the most important problems in theoretical physics– to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.
In the last few decades, string theory has emerged as the most promising candidate for a microscopic theory of gravity. And it is infinitely more ambitious than that: it attempts to provide a complete, unified, and consistent description of the fundamental structure of our universe. (For this reason it is sometimes, quite arrogantly, called a ‘Theory of Everything’).
The essential idea behind string theory is this: all of the different ‘fundamental ‘ particles of the Standard Model are really just different manifestations of one basic object: a string. How can that be? Well, we would ordinarily picture an electron, for instance, as a point with no internal structure. A point cannot do anything but move. But, if string theory is correct, then under an extremely powerful ‘microscope’ we would realize that the electron is not really a point, but a tiny loop of string. A string can do something aside from moving— it can oscillate in different ways. Just as the strings on a violin or on a piano have resonant frequencies at which they prefer to vibrate—patterns that our ears sense as various musical notes and their higher harmonics—the same holds true for the loops of string theory. But rather than producing musical notes, each of the preferred mass and force charges are determined by the string’s oscillatory pattern. If it oscillates a certain way, then from a distance, unable to tell it is really a string, we see an electron. But if it oscillates some other way, well, then we call it a photon, or a quark, or a … you get the idea. So, if string theory is correct, the entire universe is made of strings!

The whole sticky mess is called the strong force or the strong interaction since it results in forces in the nucleus that are stronger than the electromagnetic force. Without the strong force, every nucleus would blow itself to smithereens.
There are twelve named elementary fermions. The difference between them is one of flavor. The word "flavor" is used here to mean "type" and it applies only to fermions. Don't let the word mislead you. Subatomic particles are much too small to have any characteristics that could be directly observed by human senses.
Flavored particles interact weakly through the exchange of W or Z bosons — the carriers of the weak force (also known as intermediate vector bosons). When a neutron decays into a proton, a W boson is responsible. When a neutron captures a neutrino, a W boson did it. The mathematical model used to describe the interaction of flavored particles through the exchange of intermediate vector bosons is known as quantum flavordynamics (QFD), but this is a term that is rarely used by practicing particle physicists. At higher energies, the weak and electromagnetic forces are indistinguishable. The mathematical model that describes both of these fundamental forces is known as electroweak theory (EWT). This is the conventional name for the theory of the weak force.
All fermions are thought to have mass. Particles in generation I are less massive than those in generation II, which are less massive than those in generation III. Within the generations, quarks are more massive than leptons and neutrinos are less massive than the other leptons. Bosons are divided when it comes to mass. Gluons and photons are massless. The W, Z, and higgs bosons are massive. This
|particles||mass (kg)||mass (u)||mass (MeV/c2)|
|neutrinos||νe||electron neutrino||< 10−35||< 10−8||< 10−5|
|νμ||muon neutrino||< 10−35||< 10−8||< 10−5|
|ντ||tau neutrino||< 10−35||< 10−8||< 10−5|
Gravity is the force between objects due to their mass.

The significance of a possible "quantum chromodynamics" will have to be derived on the basis of a unified description of possible interactions. This problem is being investigated in .
Responsible for the inertial mass are the protosimplexes, i.e. the basic building blocks of flux aggregates, which form the structures of the k + 1 subconstituents in R3. They compose 4 concentric spherical shell-like configuration zones maintaining a dynamical equilibrium, during whose existence there appears a measurable particle mass. However, an attempt to measure the mass of a subconstituent part by scattering experiments will result in a very broad, variable bandwidth of measurements, because such a mass depends on the instantaneous flux phase. The sum of the k + 1 subconstituent masses, on the other hand, is constant and gives in essence the measurable particle mass. The relevant quantity in this connection is the degree to which the 4 configuration zones in R3 are occupied by dynamic flux elements.
For k = 1 and k = 2 there are altogether 25 sets of 6 quantum numbers each, characterizing the occupation of configuration zones and the corresponding invariant rest masses. The particles belonging to these invariant basic patterns are in turn combined into several families of spin isomorphisms,in which the spatial flux dynamics of the configuration zones is in dynamic equilibrium.
In all these terms there exists a single basic invariant framework of occupied zones, depending only on whether k = 1 or k = 2. Substituted into the mass formula derived in  this reproduces the masses of electron and proton to very good accuracy. The masses of all other ground states are produced in similar quality. However, the mass formula contains ratios of coupling constants, which could not at the time be derived theoretically. and therefore had to be adjusted to fit experiments carried out at CERN in 1974. Only in  has it become possible to derive the coupling constants from first principles, but a revised set of particle masses has not yet been calculated.
It seems that the lifetime of a state depends on the deviation of its configuration zone occupation from the framework structure mentioned above. It is conceivable, in analogy to the optically active antipodes of organic chemistry, that there exist isomers with spatial reflection symmetry also in the area of flux aggregates, giving rise to variations in lifetime.

The same is true, by the way, for all the other electrically
charged fields, including those of the muon, the up quark, and so
[Here, by the way, we come across another reason why “virtual
particle” is a problematic term. I have had several people
ask me something like this: “ Since the diagram in Figure 6 seems
to show that the photon spends some of its time as made from two
massive particles [recall the electron and the positron both have the
same mass, corresponding to a mass-energy (E = m c-squared) of
why doesn’t that give the photon a mass?” Part of the
answer is that the diagram does not show
that the photon spends part of its time as made from two massive
particles. Virtual particles, which are what appear in the loop
in that diagram, are not particles. They are not nice ripples,
but more general disturbances. And only particles have the
expected relation between their energy, momentum and mass; the more
general disturbances do not satisfy these relations. So your
intuition is simply misled by misreading the diagram. Instead,
one has to do a real computation of the
effect of these disturbances. In the case of the photon, it
turns out the effect of this process on the photon mass is exactly
Fig. 7: The electron can generate disturbances in the photon
field; the resulting photon disturbance can in turn create
disturbances in other electrically charged fields, such as the muon
And it goes on from there. Our picture of an electron in Figure 3
was itself still too naive, because the photon disturbance around the
electron itself disturbs the muon field, polarizing it in its turn.
This is shown in Figure 7, and the corresponding Feynman diagram is
shown in Figure 8. This goes on and on, with a ripple in any
field disturbing, to a greater or lesser degree, all of the fields
with which it directly or even indirectly has an interaction.
Fig. 8: The Feynman diagram needed to calculate the process shown
in Figure 7.
So we learn that particles are just not simple objects, and
although I often naively describe them as simple ripples in a single
field, that’s not exactly true.

For example, even though they’re not fundamental, if you placed two protons a single meter apart, the electromagnetic repulsion between them would be approximately 10⁴⁰ times stronger than the gravitational attraction. Or, and I’ll write it out just this once, we’d need to increase the force of gravity’s strength by 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in order to have its strength be comparable to the other known forces.
You can’t just “make” a proton weigh 10²⁰ times as much as it would normally; that’s what it would take to make gravity bring two protons together, overcoming the electromagnetic force.
Instead, if you want to make a reaction like the one above happen spontaneously, where protons do overcome their electromagnetic repulsion, you need something like 10⁵⁶ protons all together. Only by collecting that many of them, under their combined force of gravity, can you overcome electromagnetism and bring these particles together. As it turns out, 10⁵⁶ protons is approximately the minimum mass of a successful star.
That’s a description of the way our Universe works, but we don’t understand why. Why is gravity so much weaker than all the other forces? Why is the “gravitational charge” (i.e., mass) so much weaker than the electric or color charge, or even than the weak charge, for that matter?
That’s what the Hierarchy Problem is, and that problem is by many measures the greatest unsolved problem in physics. We don’t know the answer, but we’re not completely in the dark on this. Theoretically, we have some good ideas as to what the solution might be, and a tool to help us investigate whether any of these possibilities could be correct.
So far, the Large Hadron Collider — the highest-energy particle collider ever developed — has reached unprecedented energies under laboratory conditions here on Earth, collecting huge amounts of data and reconstructing exactly what took place at the collision points. This includes the creation of new, never-before-seen particles (like the Higgs, which the LHC discovered), our old, familiar standard model particles (quarks, leptons, and gauge bosons), and it can — if they exist — produce any other particles that may exist beyond the standard model.

It took us thirty years, but we eventually did it. We renormalized all the forces, and we came up with quantum chromodynamics.
The graviton can be thought of as a field, but these infinities are real
In a many-body loop diagram, our results diverge no matter what we do:
But what about gravity? Why didn’t we renormalize gravity? Well, the answer is because the graviton, the particle that carries the force of gravity, doesn’t have a spin of 1. It has a spin of 2. Yeah. So that’s a big problem, because it means that gravity isn’t just harder to renormalize, it means gravity can’t be renormalized at all. It’s a nonrenormalizable force.
That’s not to say we didn’t try. We did. For decades. We developed all kinds of crazy theories, and invented at least one major branch of mathematics in the process. But ultimately, we failed. Gravity just isn’t renormalizable.
I see extended 1-D objects with no mass:
To solve this problem, physicists hypothesized the existence of massless strings, which are very small one-demensional objects that just have units of length. These strings, on the atomic scale, become protons, neutrons, and electrons, as well as photons, gluons, bosons, and even gravitons. One of the consequences of string theory is that it eliminates the momentum problem, and thus the need to renormalize at all. So finally, we can combine gravity with the other three forces to make a unified theory of everything. Hooray!
Vibrations. Modes! They become particles:
So how do strings become particles like quarks, electrons, photons, and gravitons? The answer lies in their vibrations. Strings can vibrate in different ways, depending on their properties. Each of the different vibrations produces what we see, at the atomic scale, as a particle. Strings that vibrate at different frequencies become different particles with different energies.
This vibration is also affected by the length of the string, the tension of the string, and whether the string is open or closed. Open strings have ends that are unconnected and free to move, while closed strings have ends that are connected into a loop. Strings can also vibrate at different modes, where higher modes have higher energy states.

Quarks that are produced in particle interactions or decays materialize as “jets” of ordinary particles collimated close to the original quark direction .
Four fundamental forces act on the fundamental fermions: gravity, the weak force (responsible for nuclear beta decay), the electromagnetic force, and the strong force. These forces occur through the exchange of fundamental bosons: the graviton, the charged and neutral and bosons, the photon, and eight gluons. (Gravity will not be discussed further here.) All of the fundamental fermions have interactions via the weak force, and all of the charged fundamental fermions have electromagnetic interactions. Only the quarks can interact via the strong force, and particles such as protons that are made up of quarks and therefore have strong interactions are called hadrons (the “heavy ones”). The fundamental particles and forces are summarized in Fig. 1.
Photons, which have no mass, carry the electromagnetic force, whereas the massive charged and neutral are responsible for the weak interactions; all of these particles are spin-one bosons. The minimal standard model  requires in addition a massive scalar boson, the Higgs boson, to allow the and to be massive, as described by the Higgs mechanism . The lowest energy state of the Higgs field has a nonzero value, which has the dimensions of mass. Particles obtain their mass from their interactions with this Higgs field—this is the reason the Higgs boson plays such a major role in physics. The photon has no such interactions, so it retains its massless character, while the masses of the and are approximately times the mass of the proton. The asymmetry between the masses of the photon and the and bosons is called “electroweak symmetry breaking.”
According to theory, the Higgs occurs as a doublet of complex scalar fields, giving four degrees of freedom. Three of the four degrees of freedom are unphysical but are needed as intermediate states in the theory, while the fourth degree of freedom corresponds to the single physical Higgs boson. Once the Higgs mechanism is included, the electromagnetic and weak interactions are unified into one interaction—the electroweak interaction .
The Higgs boson, or something else that plays its role, is necessary in the standard model, but it has not yet been observed. Therefore its discovery is of utmost importance in particle physics.

Perhaps the two equal-mass components of the K0-meson, K0S and K0L are to be interpreted in this way.
Finally, the requirement that empty space be characterized by vanishing zonal occupations and electric charge states leads to some masses in the case of k =1, which may be interpreted as neutrino states. However, these refer neither to rest masses nor to free field energies (in analogy to photons), but to quantum-like "field catalysts", i.e. particles able to catalyse nuclear reactions that otherwise would not take place. They transfer group theoretical properties, arising from the sets of quantum numbers, through physical space.
The formula derived in  for the spectrum of elementary particles also depends on an integer N >= 0, where N = 0 refers to the 25 ground state masses. For N > 0 the sets of quantum numbers again yield masses, which now denote resonance excitations of the basic structural patterns to states of higher energy. According to the dynamics of configuration zones only a single set of zonal occupations is possible for each N. Evidently, the corresponding masses represent short-lived resonance states, for all measured resonances appear among these spectra. In each case N is limited, since for every set x of quantum numbers there exists a finite resonance limit, Gx < , such that the closed intervals 0<= N<= G < apply to every resonance order N, including the ground state.
Out of the relatively large number of logically possible particle masses present-day high energy accelerator experiments only record the small subset of particles whose probabilities of formation (depending on experimental conditions) are sufficiently large. What evidently still is lacking is a general mathematical expression relating these probabilities of formation to particle properties and experimental boundary conditions.
The theory developed in (1] and  represents a semi-classical investigation. A third volume "Strukturen der physikallschen Welt und ihrer nichtmateriellen Seite" (Structures of the Physical World and its Non-Material Aspect), , leads beyond the semi-classical domain to a dynamics in the hyperspace of R12.
Institut für Kraftfeldphysik u. Kosmologie
 Heim, B. EIementarstrukturen der Materie, Vol.

Kaufmann found that e/m decreased more rapidly with velocity than predicted by the Gamma Factor of Relativity, and this was initially interpreted as evidence that Einstein’s theory was falsified.
In anticipation of such experimental conclusions, Special Relativity axiomatically declared that light can have no mass, since any entity having mass becomes infinitely ‘heavy’ if it moves at the speed of light. And this saved Relativity for the time being.
But all this should have been a warning that physics was moving down the wrong path. How can anybody draw conclusions from subjective observations stemming from experiments, and declare that activity to be Scientific?
At that time, no one entertained the idea that the ratio e/m decreases because the charge of the electron, e, decreases with increasing velocity. Of course not! Relativity was gaining momentum in the scientific community and they would not allow anybody to deviate them from their course; as is the case today.
At the beginning of the twentieth century the sub-atomic nature of matter was not yet understood (is it now?). The nature of radiation was a total mystery (X-rays had just been discovered, and it was concluded that radium emitted two types of ‘radiation’, alpha and beta rays. Such nonsense led them to irrationally conclude that atoms are not the fundamental, basic, indivisible building blocks of nature. It was easier for them to deal with MASS as the variable, and the electron as the constant, in the inseparable connection e/m.
So What is MASS?
Mass is typically defined by the mathematicians as “the quantity of X”, where X usually designates matter (atoms).
All quantities are concepts that were invented by man. The Universe embodies a relation of objects and space, not “mass”. Mass is purely a conceptual relation of a measured quantity. It takes a human with a brain to perform such magical wizardries, as counting and relating. And this is obvious because the SI unit for mass is the “kilogram”. This means that the “mass” of an object is the same as the “weight” of the object.
So is the mass of an object the MEASURE of the amount of matter? Of course it is, because weight is also a MEASURE of the amount of matter. We have no idea how many atoms comprise the object because this is impossible to determine. All we know is how much it weighs!

In any type of matter there are
generally many, many electrons and protons. In 12 grams of carbon-12, there
are almost one million, million, million million atoms. If we pull those
atoms apart and separate the electrons and protons, the force between them
is unbelievably enormous (see the penny puzzle).
In every atom, there are an even number of electrons
and protons, so the external electric forces tend to cancel. However, there
is a tiny bit of force that is left over that we know as "the force
of gravity" (see The Secret of Gravity).
Having an equal number of electrons and protons, each atom consists of a
number of hydrogen atoms (another way to look at the problem that physicists
probably wouldn't appreciate). The neutron is simply a compressed hydrogen
atom that is rather unstable by itself. The neutrons associate closely with
the protons in an atom, so the nucleus can acquire additional neutrons,
and the new atoms are called "isotopes". With these considerations,
we can view all types of mass as an assemblage (of one sort or another)
of hydrogen atoms. An atom can also gain or lose a few electrons, thus creating
ions. The point is that all mass consists of electrons and protons and in
pairs (hydrogen atoms).
The internal workings of these atoms can be incredibly
complex, with all sorts of orbit paths and resonances. My present endeavor,
to analyze these workings. In any case, it becomes clear that we
need to understand hydrogen in order to understand the universe,
and it only consists of two tiny particles! What an incredible and highly
intelligent design! The models of electrons, protons and atoms were all
devised from a vast number of measurements. These measurements are of the
force fields that surround them and the dynamic electromagnetic fields that
they create. Some of that energy can escape into space. The antenna radiation
equations date back at least to 1936 (Mesny), and they are extremely important
in understanding physical phenomena.
The two charges of the hydrogen atom are separated,
and we call that a "electric dipole". This dipole has an electric
field around it that can be, and has been, measured extensively. The two
charges attract one another, and the closer they get, the greater the force.

Instead, they found that these electrons had a range of energies.
Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli suggested that the electron was sharing the energy with an unseen partner. Following up this suggestion in 1933, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi published a theory of beta decay that included an unseen particle that had no electric charge and no intrinsic mass.
He called it the neutrino (Italian for ``little neutral one''). Two decades later, experimenters demonstrated its existence by managing to detect a few of the millions of neutrinos pouring out of a nuclear reactor.
Physicists know the neutrino has no electric charge because it leaves no trail in detectors that track charged particles. But there has never been any proof that it has no mass. This has just been taken for granted.
Then, in 1980, Valentin Lubimov and his team at the Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics in Moscow challenged that assumption. They had taken a detailed look at the way the energy released in beta decay is shared between electrons and neutrinos.
They claimed to have found that a small amount of the energy is converted into neutrino mass.
It was a startling claim, which many physicists disbelieved because of large uncertainties in the experiment.
Walter Kundig at the Swiss Institute for Nuclear Research in Zurich and John Wilkerson at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico have led experiments to try to confirm the Moscow results. But, so far, they have been unable to do so.
Physicists measure particle energies in terms of electron volts. One electron volt (eV) is the energy an electron gains when it is accelerated by a voltage difference of one volt.
The Moscow group last year claimed that about 30 eV is converted into neutrino mass in beta decay. That's quite small - only about 1/10000th the mass of an electron. But it's large for a particle that's supposed to have no mass at all. The Swiss group, however, found that the neutrino mass was less than 18 eV and probably was zero. Dr. Wilkerson's team at Los Alamos has found that the mass must at least be under 27 eV. Improvements in their experiment should enable them to search for a neutrino mass as low as 10 eV.
The Stoeffl team at the Livermore laboratory expects to do better than that.

He turns on itself like a spinning top without stopping and it has some form of connivance very discrete (weak interaction) with many other particles. ||me||9,109 382 6(16)×10-31 kg|
|Muon mass In the standard model of particle physics, the muon is an elementary particle with a negative charge. The muon has the same physical properties as the electron, but with a mass 207 times larger, it is also called heavy electron. ||mµ||1,883 531 40(33)×10-28 kg|
|Tau mass Tau or tauon is a particle of the lepton family. its properties are close to those of the electron and the muon, but it is more massive and short-lived. With its associated neutrino and t quarks (top) and b (bottom or beauty), it forms the third series (the most massive) of fermions in the standard model. ||mτ||3,167 77(52)×10-27 kg|
|Boson mass Z0 The Gluon is the mediator of the strong interaction, ie of the nuclear force, the photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic interaction, the weak interaction but still has no mediator. The physicist Peter Higgs imagined one in the 1960s. This hypothetical particle called Boson. Thus the Higgs mechanism fills the entire universe and all space, molasses, a field of bosons. ||mz°||1,625 56(13)×10-25 kg|
|Boson mass W The Gluon is the mediator of the strong interaction, ie of the nuclear force, the photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic interaction, the weak interaction but still has no mediator. The physicist Peter Higgs imagined one in the 1960s. This hypothetical particle called Boson. Thus the Higgs mechanism fills the entire universe and all space, molasses, a field of bosons. ||mw||1,4334(18)×10-25 kg|
nota: Meter (symbol m) is the length of the path traveled in a vacuum by light during 1/299 792 458 second.
nota: Kilogram (symbol kg) is the base unit of mass in the International System of Units (SI). It is defined as being equal to the mass of the international prototype of the kilogram.

Physicists are homing in on the mass of the neutrino, nature’s most elusive subatomic particle. The latest super-accurate measurement, made by an experiment in Germany, shows that the neutrino is around half a million times less massive than the electron, the lightest particle of normal atomic matter.
According to the Standard Model, the high point of 300 years of physics which describes the fundamental building blocks of matter and three non-gravitational forces that glue them together, the neutrino should be massless.
So why should we care about a mass measurement (no matter how tiny) of a neutrino? Well, it may provide vital clues to the fabled ‘theory of everything’ – a deeper, more fundamental theory of physics of which the Standard Model is believed to be but an approximation.
Hunting the elusive ghost particle
The latest neutrino measurement was made in Karlsruhe, Germany, where physicists exploited the ‘beta decay’ of tritium. Tritium is a heavy type – or ‘isotope’ – of hydrogen. In beta decay, the unstable core – the ‘nucleus’ – of an atom sheds surplus energy by spitting out an electron and an antineutrino (the neutrino and its ‘antimatter’ twin have the same mass).
Neutrinos are fantastically antisocial, interacting so rarely with normal matter that they could pass unhindered through several light-years of lead. Consequently, the physicists at the Karlsruhe Tritium Experiment, or KATRIN, must infer the neutrino mass from measurements made on their electrons.
They can do this because the amount of energy emitted by the tritium nuclei is always the same. The energy is divided between the electron and the neutrino – if an electron has lots of energy, then it must mean that its associated neutrino only has a little bit. So if the physicists only allow the most energetic electrons to reach their detector, it ensures that their associated neutrinos will have very little energy – this allows them to make a more accurate reading of the neutrinos’ mass.
Read more about the Standard Model:
- The weak nuclear interaction: the enigmatic fundamental force that makes life possible
- Who really discovered the Higgs particle?
- Wolfgang Pauli and the discovery of the Universe’s most elusive particle
KATRIN is an extraordinary piece of engineering.

The fact that a particle does not choose a specific state until its observation (measuring) brought Einstein to remark: “God does not play dice.” It is clear that Einstein meant that there must be an underlying, understandable reason for the presumed transmission of information. However, to this day, a satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon has not been found.
There are also questions in which micro level and macro level both play a role. First of all, there is the attraction of a photon by a gravitational field. A photon is deflected in its track by a heavy mass in space (Figure 1). Why does the photon obey to Einstein’s ideas of curved space/time? Traditionally the photon is considered to be massless, the reason why the underlying mechanism has not yet been fully understood. Then there is the gravitational redshift that a photon (in space) undergoes when close to an object with an enormous curvature (black hole). In fact, on the event horizon of a black hole, the redshift becomes extreme (infinite). Although both of these phenomena have been universally accepted and observed, there is no full comprehension. Why does the photon undergo such a deflection and what is the mechanism of the gravitational redshift?
Fig. 1 (Deflection photon close to an object with a heavy mass)1
These and other matters lead physicists to constantly re-evaluate the interpretation of quantum physics. Their mutual goal is always to find a reformulation of the existing framework.
In this article, we propose a theory that, in fact, forms the foundation for the understanding of nuclear forces both on the micro as well as the macro scale. For the observed phenomenon’s, we offer an unconventional explanation. Will the previously mentioned pressing questions be answered? We believe so.
In this article, we will make a number of assumptions that will fit the model we propose.
The basis of the theory is: The most elementary particle in existence is the dimensional basic. This particle has only one property: An infinite curvature in the center. The particle itself has no dimensions (no length, no width, no heights). The particle is found everywhere in the universe. The particle is always moving through space/time. Through agglomeration, or rather joint interaction, the particles form phenomena that at a certain moment rise above the observational limit. The db itself exists below the observational limit and so it can never be demonstrated.

So, if all the atoms constituting the elements are made up of the same particles, what then is it that makes the elements different from each other and causes the formation of infinitely diverse matters?
It is the number of protons in the nuclei of the atoms that principally differentiates the elements from each other. There is one proton in the hydrogen atom, the lightest element, 2 protons in the helium atom, the second lightest element, 79 protons in the gold atom, 8 protons in the oxygen atom and 26 protons in the iron atom. What differentiates gold from iron and iron from oxygen is simply the different numbers of protons in their atoms. The air we breathe, our bodies, the plants and animals, planets in space, animate and inanimate, bitter and sweet, solid and liquid, everything… all of these are ultimately made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.
The Borderline of Physical Existence: the Quarks
Until 20 years ago, it was believed that the smallest particles making up the atoms were protons and neutrons. Yet, most recently, it has been discovered that there are much smaller particles in the atom that form the abovementioned particles.
This discovery led to the development of a branch of physics called "Particle Physics" investigating the "sub-particles" within the atom and their particular movements. Research conducted by particle physics revealed that the protons and neutrons making up the atom are actually formed of sub-particles called "quarks".
The dimension of the quarks that form the proton, which is so small as to exceed the capabilities of human imagination, is much more astounding: 10-18 (0.000000000000000001) metres.
The quarks inside a proton can never be pulled apart from each other very much because the "strong nuclear force" that is responsible for keeping the particles inside the nucleus together operates here as well. This force serves as a rubber band between the quarks. As the distance between the quarks increases, so does this force and two quarks cannot become more distant from each other than a quadrillionth of a metre. These rubber bands between the quarks are formed by gluons that possess the strong nuclear force. The quarks and the gluons have a very strong interaction. However, scientists have not yet been able to discover how this interaction takes place.

The name “physics” came from Greek, meaning “nature”. Indeed, physics could explain the whole universe with its complicated string theory. To me, chemistry and biology are actually physics. At the end of the day, substances and all reactions are made of particles and the forces among them.
This is a talk by Professor Michio Kaku which could give anyone inspiration for the science
Bonus for anyone interested in string theory:
It would be amazing to think that the smallest particles are not particles but “dancing” filaments of energy. Different dancing patterns will give us different recipes to make particles, then we have different things in the world. Generally, things are energy and energy are things!
To me, the statement is so true because of two reasons:
– It is actually isomorphic with the formula E=mc2 by Einstein.
– The number of Dancing patterns is unlimited and that’s why scientists keep discovering lots of new particles.
And I have a couple of thinking:
– The Universe (in capital, meaning the universe that we are living in) is made of energy! Then is it possible that our Universe is just a dancing filaments in other universes?
– Dancing filaments make particles, is it true to say if they dont dance, they make “the dark energy”?
– What make them dance? (or easier, what can we do to change the dance patterns, so we will be able to transform particle)
– Do the filaments have anything to do with Higgs Boson?
You might have more questions than me after watching this talk by Bryan Greene
and Introduction of String theory by Michio Kaku:
P/S: non-matter “dark energy” is different to “dark matter”.
These are some assumptions about dark matter:
How we know that the universe is expanding:

TL;DR – Matter is seen as a result of energy field interactions in the Universe and in order to get rid of matter, fields need to stop existing first.
If someone would ask you to describe matter, you’d probably say that anything which occupies space and has some volume is called matter.
But what if you were asked to define mass? Well, the most general answer found in every school’s textbook is that mass is the matter contained in an object.
It’s funny how we describe mass as ‘matter’ and matter as ‘something’. Ever wondered what actually that ‘something’ is?
Higgs Boson: The Internet’s Darling
There are a lot of fields swarming around us. Every particle we know so far has its own field. So we have both types of particles: with mass (electrons etc.) and without mass (photons etc.).
If you know how relative velocity works and how friction plays its role, you might get a hang of it. See, every field exists even when we cannot feel its presence. That’s because whenever we experience a field, we are actually interacting with its respective particle which is nothing but an excitation or concentrated energy in that field.
From the recent observations, we know that the Higgs Field is never null, it is always excited with a positive value. So it exists everywhere and always has its effect on everything.
To know how things get their mass, we need to understand:
How Fields Interact
One field can penetrate and interact with the other with the help of its excitation. Basically, their respective excitations are their means of communication. Ever noticed why atoms weigh more than the masses of their subatomic particles combined? That’s because not all the energy is coming from the particles that we notice in there: the protons, neutrons and the electrons.
Coming back to our concept of relative velocity, whenever a particle passes through another field, it experiences a sort of a drag (like friction) in its way. This slowing down in its speed is what the particle perceives as mass. The original speed would have, otherwise, been the speed of light of the particle that now has a mass. And more specifically, a rest mass (because we can measure it). But we know that particles like photons have no rest mass and they travel at the speed of light. That’s probably because they don’t feel any drag from other fields.

The equation says that just as Space and Time are not the separate things they appear to be Mass and Energy are also two sides of the same coin. When we look at it in one way we see Mass when we look at it another we see Energy. Likewise when we look at it in one way we see Space, when we look at it another way we see Time. This lead to the concept of the Spacetime Continuum.
The Standard Model of quantum mechanics classifies particles based on their basic properties: Mass, Charge, and Spin. Spin is related to the angular momentum of a particle. The first classification is based on Spin. Particles fall into two classes:
When a particle and its antiparticle meet they mutually annihilate one another and convert all their mass into energy producing a photon having the exact energy of the combined particles (via E = mc2). The process can actually happen in reverse. A high energy photon can turn into a particle-antiparticle pair. The antiparticle will generally soon find a particle to annihilate with again to create another photon of the same energy. This is called pair production.
The fact that matter exist at all in the Universe means that there is very little antimatter present in the Universe. Else there would be constant annihilation and the Universe would be full of gamma-rays.

well i am trying to understand the basic of mass and i got myself into a deadlock of questions firstly the definition of mass as i know is :quantitative measure of an object's resistance to the change of its speed. assumption:particle have charge but no mass and they just fall into the significant field of each other,there is nothing they interact with except each other and a force F. now consider a situation where a particle with charge say -q comes into significant field influence of another particle with charge +Q,it then follow a particular path P,suppose a force F is used to the bring a change in path of -q,the force F does so in two ways:at first it tries to change the path of -q by change it's state of motion(either by accelerating or deceleration him) ,thus the resistance offered to F relative to him appeared because of the electromagnetic interaction between the charges. In the second case the force F tries to change the trajectory of -q but by not changing it's state of motion(maintaining it's velocity),in this case also the resistance offered was due to the electromagnetic interaction. so according to the definition of mass the resistance offered in first scenario should add to mass but not second,though it can be clearly seen that the resistance offered is because of the electromagnetic interaction under action. SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PICTURE DEPICTED?

These fluids,
again, can be imagined in two different ways: we may imagine that
they consist of a substance uniformly occupying the whole of the
space where the fluid is; or we may imagine that they consist of
clouds of little corpuscles each of which is a minute sphere of elec
tricity. Experiment, however, has decided in favour of the second
view, and some thirty years ago it showed that negative electricity
consists of minute corpuscles which are all identical, and have a
22 MATTER AND LIGHT
mass and an electric charge of extremely small dimensions, called
electrons. These have been successfully segregated from Matter in
bulk, and their behaviour when moving in empty space has been
observed; and it has been found that in fact they move in the way
in which small particles, electrically charged, ought to move in
accordance with the Laws of classical Mechanics; while by observing
their behaviour in the presence of electrical or magnetic fields it
has proved possible to measure both their charge and their mass
which, I repeat, are extremely small. The demonstration of the
corpuscular structure of positive electricity, on the other hand, is
less direct; nevertheless physicists have come to the conclusion that
positive electricity, too, is subdivided into corpuscles which are
identical with each other, today known as protons. 1
The proton has a mass which, though still extremely small, is
nearly 2,000 times greater than that of the electron, a fact indicative
of a curious asymmetry between positive and negative electricity.
The charge of the proton, on the other hand, is equal to that of the
electron in absolute value, but of course bears an opposite sign,
being positive and not negative.
Electrons and protons, then, have extremely small mass. This
mass, however, is not equal to zero, and a really vast number of
protons and electrons may make up a fairly considerable total
mass. Hence it is tempting to assume that all material substances
whose essential characteristics consist in the fact that they possess
weight and inertia, in other words, that they have mass consist
in the last analysis exclusively of vast numbers of protons and
electrons.

Probabilities are the best you can do with subatomic processes. Take for example the decay of radium. If we lock it away in a vault for 1600 years, when we open the vault half of the original sample will be there. If we wait another 1600 years, half of that half. Every 1600 years, half of all the radium atoms in the universe decay. We can know with great precision the bulk statistical properties but we can not know which atoms will undergo decay or when an atom will decay. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is that, for any given atom, it is pure chance. We can only predict the state of the system, not of an individual atom.
When you look at these particles, they aren’t exactly like a particle at all, they don’t seem to be solid with defined edges, rather we determine what is known as a nuclear cross-section by firing other particles and look at how things bounce to deduce the effective size of the particles. Their actual boundaries seem rather fuzzy and undefined.
In reality particles might not be physical at all, possibly some sort of standing wave. Then you have to ask yourselves waves of what. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics says they are probability waves. Matter doesn’t really exist until we observe it under this interpretation. Some people have taken this to the extreme and suggest that nothing in our reality exists until we observe it.
So what you have then is not really matter at all, but more of an idea or thought. A potential for something to exist, not something. At one point I had become convinced that an intelligent consciousness was an elementary property of matter, just as mass, charge, and spin. I have changed my view on this however to where I now believe matter is consciousness. Everything is thought.
“In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
The word wasn’t spoken for in the beginning there was no air to propagate sound. The word could have only been thought. The thought didn’t bring the universe into existence, it is the universe. God, in this interpretation isn’t something that is separate from the universe, God is the all that is.
We are part of that, a drop of water from the ocean, a tiny fraction of God’s thought.

And we can’t measure their mass at such a high speed of light.
Virtual and Real Particles
Virtual particles are the excitations in the fields which we can’t notice because they interact with each other very swiftly to give rise to noticeable dense excitations called real particles. Thus, the real particles are actually the best approximations of all the possible virtual states of that particle. And we usually measure the mass of the real particle. This doesn’t mean that the virtual particles don’t contribute to the actual overall mass of any system. A real particle still spends some time in its virtual states (for a very very short time though). So, we can measure the approximated effect of these virtual particles time-to-time as an additional mass.
The Quantum Vacuum
The Quantum Vacuum is the most stable state or maybe the ground state of the Universe. It is the place where virtual particles are in action, appearing and disappearing in fractions of fractions of seconds. The Quantum Vacuum is what gives rise to the real particles with the most stable and long approximations of its virtual particles. The Quantum Vacuum has still some measurable energy due to the existence of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. In order to get rid of all the energy and matter, we need to clear up the fields in the Quantum Vacuum which is ultimately next to impossible.

It seems from above, the scientific community has continued to proceed on the basis of mass and energy being two separate realities.
PicoPhysics do not distinguish between mass and energy. The thought process in Pico-Physics is to unify divergence experiences of nature. Mainstream physics moves ahead with coding the experiences into mathematics equation for un-ambiguous communications.
The mathematical equations continue to represent the nature but interpretations may not. We can see this in interpreting ‘E=Mc2‘ from where originates the thinking of mass less particles of energy as well as Higgs Bosons. This thinking was exposed in blogs at http://blog.vixra.org/2012/07/04/higgs-live-vixra-combinations/ and http://blog.vixra.org/2012/07/04/congratulations-its-a-boson/ .
A photon, that represent natural unit of Knergy, is the particle that exists. The self inflicted confinement due to gravitation, bundles multiple photons into a confined region identified as particle in mainstream physics. Photon is sometimes refered as UCO – unit conserved object in PicoPhysics. Integer number of UCOs are confined into main stream particles. These particles have the limitation on observed speed being less that light speed due to vortex like flow of UCO inside the particle. So particles with mass have the speed of light as limit. Other feasibility on particle is to capture singularities in space as a particle. These particles have limited life time, and have no limitation of speed of light. Neutrino is one such particle that shall have no limit on speed.
Thus mass and energy are simultaneous in PicoPhysics. Property of inertia and gravitation is directly attributed to Knergy. Energy is a measure of these properties.
Understanding CERN results
PicoPhysics is sought to be presented in four parts. The first part covering basic concepts is now fully spelt out on site. Part two prepares ground and explains creation (Re-arrangement of energy into vortexes, with self-inflicted refraction) of elementary particle. Part three will cover extra nucleus part (Atomic structure) and electrodynamics.
The part four comes back to foundations. We need three units of measure to express physical identities. Plank’s constant as natural unit for Knergy is one of them.

So, if I must measure the mass of a iron bar relatively to the sample mass of a second iron bar, I can use as a instrument of measure the same sample bar, trowing it with a known force against the other and measuring the acceleration impressed to this. In such case, however, the resulting will differ widely depending on the fact that the two bars are both magnetic (and that homologous or opposite poles are facing), or only one, or none. This because the method and the instrument of measure are sensible, in the interaction at a very short distance, at the gravitational magnetic effect.
For the same calculation I will also be able to use the Earth as instrument of measure, putting on a scales the two bar. The magnetic characters of the bars in front of the gravitational terrestrial field will then become almost irrelevant, enormous as a value of mass, but relatively weak for the value of dipolarity (magnetism): the scales will give me in any case the relation almost exact between the two masses. Naturally, using this method, I will take note of the practice proportionality of the force to the masses; using the other, of the almost non proportionality of the force applied to the masses.
Moving to the world of particles, we will meet completely analogue situations. Making the particles interact between them, we will mainly take over the gravitational effects perceptible at the shortest distances – density and magnetism – and we will pull out “charges”, mythological signs of “plus”, “minus” and “anti-”, nuclear forces of binding and exchange, and so on. Made the tare of all this ingredients, we will calculate the masses. It is the method of the two iron bar. Or we will use the electromagnetic fields, which are the equivalent – made the proportion with the particles – of the terrestrial gravitational field used in the method of the scales. And here is the “spectrograph of mass”, which will give values of mass closer to the naked ones of the quantity of matter, being sufficient for calculating them having at the beginning in the particles an equal condition of “charge”.
But in the reading of the results a coarse gap takes over respect to the measure of macro cosmic masses: presuming that the forces in play in the electric and magnetic fields are not of gravitational type, they become absolutely considered non proportional to the particles masses, so as the electromagnetic forces manifest if applied to macro cosmic masses.

(Note: in the Theory of Absolutes, the Strong and Weak forces will be developed in a manner to show that they are both subsets of the electrical and magnetic forces. Likewise, gravity may be a subset of these two, or possibly a third fundamental force. The larger point is that field forces (e.g. Electrical and magnetic), are actually the action of Conscious Particles. Their movement in response to the presence of other particles gives the appearance of a force. When in actuality, all particulate movement is self-directed, chosen, willful, and lawful, and in relationship to information received by other particles both near and far.)
The Subatomic Particles and the Conscious Particles:
The aggregations of Conscious Particles that form subatomic particles are held together by electrical and magnetic forces in a dynamic harmonic stability. The common subatomic particles (i.e. electrons, neutrons, and protons – the rudimentary constituents of the atom) and the exotic subatomic particles (e.g. pions, kaons, muons... formed by high energy collisions or by decay of larger particles) are the smallest level of particulate aggregations visible by force and energy type experiments (i.e. bubble chambers).
Each particle of the subatomic zoo forms from a unique configuration of Conscious Particles. And, the larger subatomic particles assemble from aggregates of these smaller subunits. Each unique subatomic particle forms as an aggregate dynamic assembly of a specific conformation of many Conscious Particles and particle groups. Each subatomic particle forms as a dynamic, resonant, equilibrium assembly of attractive and repulsive magnetic and electrical forces. The periodic relationship of stable configurations results in the ability to predict the existence of new, unseen, subatomic entities. The full list of all the subatomic particles in the subatomic zoo is called the Standard Model.
Implications of the Theory
Science versus Creationism:
We shall assume as an axiomatic hypothesis that God is an existent entity, and assume He has the ability to create law abiding particles using the force and abilities of His consciousness.
The question is thus, “What are the laws that govern the Conscious Particles?” The answer to this question is the ultimate physics theory. In it lies the unification of all physical phenomena. Its answer may also govern, or at least largely influence, the processes of what we recognize as life.

Only about one collision per trillion will produce a Higgs boson in the giant atom collider, and it took CERN several months after the discovery of a new "Higgs-like" boson to conclude that the particle was, in fact, very much like the one expected in the original formulation.
The phrase "God particle" was coined by Nobel-winning physicist Leon Lederman, but it's disliked by most physicists because it connotes the supernatural. Lederman said later that the phrase—mostly used by laymen—was really meant to convey that he felt it was the "goddamn particle," because it proved so hard to find.
Michael Turner, president of the American Physical Society, an organization of physicists, said the Higgs particle captured the public's imagination.
"If you're a physicist, you can't get in a taxi anywhere in the world without having the driver ask you about the Higgs particle," said Turner, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago.
Turner said the Higgs is the first in a class of particles that scientists think played a role in shaping the universe. That means it points the way to tackling mysteries such as the nature of dark energy and dark matter, he said.
The physics prize was the second of this year's Nobels to be announced. On Monday, the Nobel in medicine was given to U.S. scientists James Rothman, Randy Schekman and Thomas Sudhof for discoveries about how key substances are moved around within cells.
The Nobel Committee Prize Announcement
François Englert and Peter W. Higgs are jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 2013 for the theory of how particles acquire mass. In 1964, they proposed the theory independently of each other (Englert together with his now deceased colleague Robert Brout). In 2012, their ideas were confirmed by the discovery of a so called Higgs particle at the CERN laboratory outside Geneva in Switzerland.
The awarded theory is a central part of the Standard Model of particle physics that describes how the world is constructed. According to the Standard Model, every thing, from flowers and people to stars and planets, consists of just a few building blocks: matter particles. These particles are governed by forces mediated by force particles that make sure everything works as it should.The entire Standard Model also rests on the existence of a special kind of particle: the Higgs particle. This particle originates from an invisible field that fills up all space.

See The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity page 185 where Einstein said "the energy of the gravitational field shall act gravitatively in the same way as any other kind of energy". Also see this paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.0563 . I wouldn't say it gets everything right, but I do think it's barking up the right tree.
John, you're jumping a gun to try and beat science and you're making an arse of yourself.
According to QM, anything will be a particle.
Mass: Higgs boson.
and so on.
So, yes, we do "know" that there will be a particle associated with it unless the physics is entirely broken and in ways that don't show up except here.
Wow: everything isn't a particle. The messenger particles of QED are virtual photons. They aren't actual particles. Hydrogen atoms don't twinkle., magnets don't shine. It's like you divide the field up into little squares and say each is a virtual particle. See comment #25 onwards in Ethan's weak-force blog entry:
A gravitational field doesn't literally consist of particles called gravitons flying around. That's why you can detect a gravitational field quite easily by dropping your pencil, but you can't detect gravitons. Because they're virtual particles. Like you've divided the field up into little squares and said each is a virtual particle. And note that the Higgs mechanism is thought responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter. The rest is down to E=mc². So you don't "know" that dark matter consists of particles. OK? And by the way, Matt Strassler agrees with me on that.
"The messenger particles of QED are virtual photons."
Photons are particles, John.
Even when virtual, they are particles.
@ 20 John
The fundamental postulate of QM is that EVERYTHING (except maybe spacetime itself) in the Universe can be quantized into discrete packets of energy. Those packets being called particles.
Thus any field, force, energy, matter... whatever is that makes up our material world can be quantized. Thus DM.. whatever it is, can be quantized. It does have it's discrete energy packet value... it's particle
Sinisa: honestly, it doesn't work like that.

These’re stable so no need to combine itself.
Therefore the Heisenberg uncertainty principle predict about such particle which exist without any cause.
Because there’s probability to exist these particles. So these types of particles are called virtual particles.
And these types of particle are already seen. whereas they looks very stranger but follow a particular pattern.
So actually they always appear in a pair in which one is regular matter and other is Anti matter.
Therefore whenever electron is made then it made with its anti matter always.
Which’s known as positron. its mass is same but charge are opposite.
How Does Quantum Physics Work Actually ?
It’s made due to energy so when they collide then release pure energy in large amount.
Hence like electron, all Lepton has ant particles.
Now you’ve know Fermions are responsible to make matter in the universe.
But which force how will work it has no any role about this.
This’s only responsibility of Bosons.
Now it’s best time to know about types of Bosons.
- Photons (Electromagnetic force)
- W/Z Boson (weak nuclear force)
- Gluons (Strong nuclear force)
- Gravitons (Gravitational force)
Before this you were assuming electric and magnetic force differently.
But now it’s combine together as electromagnetic force.
So electromagnetic force work due to photons.
Because it’s clear that without photons neither magnet will attract iron towards it.
As well as without photons electricity will work.
And you experience about these forces in your daily life.
So the best story is that unfortunately there’s no any particle found for Gravitational force cause on quantum level.
But it’s predicted that there must be a particle responsible for Gravitational force.
Therefore for the time being this gravitational particle name is given as Gravitons.
Quantum Mechanics Vs Quantum Physics
Well, it’s combination of Quantum Mechanics and field theory.
So in classical Physics this world look likes very simple.
You’re able to predict present event on the basis of past. As well as future event on the basis of present event.
But quantum Physics tell us how much the world look simple is not really simple.
So in Classical Physics object is either particle or wave.
But in quantum Physics particle is neither particle nor wave.
Because it’s combination of particle and wave.
Unless you’ll not observe it’ll not change their form.
But as you observe it changes form either in particle or wave.
So in quantum Physics you’re able to predict future event probability only.

It is commonly accepted as a fact now that the visible matter (made of known particles) accounts only about 5% of the mass of this universe while 95% of it is invisible. In recent years, the neutrinos although not normally visible are ruled out as the key factor on this issue. Today, most of the hopes for the answer are placed on the s-particles, postulated by many SUSY (supersymmetric theories). Yet, the recent LHC data has ruled out many standard types of SUSY. Thus, many SUSY advocators are now desperately hanging on to some bizarre theories which require many fine-turnings.
In this Axiomatic physics (AP), the above SUSY arguments are simply wrong for the following reasons.
A. The Naturalness principle (NP) --- no fine-turning is allowed in the Nature physics. See the article “Axiomatic physics, the final physics, at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/axiomatic-physics-final-physics.html “
B. The SUSY with s-particles are simply wrong in AP, see the following articles,
i. “Origin of time, the breaking of a perfect symmetry, at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/origin-of-time-breaking-of-perfect.html “.
ii. “Supersymmetry, Gone with the wind, at http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/supersymmetry-gone-with-wind.html “.
iii. No s-particle is allowed in AP --- see the article “48, the exact number for the number of elementary particles, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/48-exact-number-for-number-of.html “.
While the above articles showed that s-particles cannot be the dark matter, they do not give an answer for the issue. As the “dark matter” effect is very much the fact of our universe, it is a genuine issue also in this AP. Thus, a solution must be derived axiomatically.
I will begin this axiomatic derivation by looking the example of proton’s mass. While the proton can be written as the composite of three quarks [u, u, d], its internal structure is, in fact, very complicated according to many test data. In addition to the three quarks, there are many “quark and anti-quark” pairs and many gluons.

It has the unusual property of becoming stronger as the distance between interacting quarks increases. It eventually becomes so strong that it is impossible to separate two quarks, because the amount of energy required to do so is so great that it would immediately create a new quark-antiquark pair. Theories describing the strong force predict a whole range of exotic particles consisting of different combinations of quarks and gluons. However, these particles have never been observed. They include ‘glueballs’, composite particles consisting solely of gluons. In the PANDA experiment, scientists want to use particle-antiparticle annihilation as a ‘trick’ to create such particles, and discover which of them actually exist and what their properties are. This would greatly increase our understanding of the strong force.
How does mass arise?
In this context, scientists also want to find out how particles come to have their mass. A proton, for example, weighs 50 times more than the three quarks composing it. Hence, the mass arises because the strong force (the gluons) binds the quarks together to create the proton. If scientists can improve our knowledge about the strong force with the help of the PANDA experiment, they might also enhance our understanding how matter gets its mass.

(It's nicknamed "the God Particle," mostly to get the rest of the human race as excited as the physicists who came up with the whole concept.)
What it all means, in a nutshell, is this:
It basically explains how energy turns into elementary particles, or something to that effect. Let's just call it "the origin of the origin." All of this means absolutely nothing to me. It's far beyond the capabilities of my poor little brain. But that's okay, because what physicists don't realize is that philosophers are basically physicists who have found a shortcut to answering those kinds of questions ... and a few that haven't been asked yet. And as a trained daydreamer, I can jump into the field of philosophy without so much as taking a deep breath. So, off we go.
When I was but a kid, a thousand years ago, I had a teacher who was gung-ho on particles. The smaller the better. He would explain how they spun faster than you can imagine, broke down and reassembled elsewhere across space without wasting even a fraction of a nanosecond. How they influenced each other's behavior over long distances instantly. How they could be in two places at the same time and, wonder of wonders, could be both a particle and/or a wave. This guy could talk forever about all kinds of strange magic, and I loved it. Still do, in fact. Even if I never really understood much of it.
One day, when this teacher was talking about particles and waves, and wave particles, and I was lost in my daydreams, I woke up and raised my hand. When I got permission to speak (in those days you needed permission), I said that in my opinion it was obvious that physicists were looking in the wrong direction. "It's not about particles," I said, "it's about the space between the particles." And I collapsed right back into my daydreams.
Now, it seems that statement, rightfully denied and ridiculed by my teacher, since I just grabbed it out of thin air, appears to be on the cusp of being vindicated ... thanks to Higgs boson, Higgs Field, an obese piece of machinery, and whatever else they are messing with over there in Europe. But while smart people in white coats are busy discovering the origin of the origin, I'll jump ahead and explain why I think that the end will not be forthcoming, ever.

Update: I went over this answer and clarified some parts. Most importantly I expanded the Forces section to connect better with the question.
I like your reasoning and you actually come to the right conclusions, so congratulations on that! But understanding the relation between forces and particles isn't that simple and in my opinion the best one can do is provide you with the bottom-up description of how one arrives to the notion of force when one starts with particles. So here comes the firmware you wanted. I hope you won't find it too long-winded.
So let's start with particle physics. The building blocks are particles and interactions between them. That's all there is to it. Imagine you have a bunch of particles of various types (massive, massless, scalar, vector, charged, color-charged and so on) and at first you could suppose that all kinds of processes between this particles are allowed (e.g. three photons meeting at a point and creating a gluon and a quark; or sever electrons meeting at a point and creating four electrons a photon and three gravitons). Physics could indeed look like this and it would be an incomprehensible mess if it did.
Fortunately for us, there are few organizing principles that make the particle physics reasonably simple (but not too simple, mind you!). These principles are known as conservation laws. After having done large number of experiments, we became convinced that electric charged is conserved (the number is the same before and after the experiment). We have also found that momentum is conserved. And lots of other things too. This means that processes such as the ones I mentioned before are already ruled out because they violate some if these laws. Only processes that can survive (very strict) conservation requirements are to be considered possible in a theory that could describe our world.
Another important principle is that we want our interactions simple. This one is not of experimental nature but it is appealing and in any case, it's easier to start with simpler interactions and only if that doesn't work trying to introduce more complex ones. Again fortunately for us, it turns out basic interactions are very simple. In a given interaction point there is always just a small number of particles. Namely:
- two: particle changing direction
- particle absorbing another particle, e.g.

Neutrinos have very little mass (even for leptons) and interact so weakly with the rest of the particles that they are exceptionally difficult to detect. The name is a play on words. The Italian word for neutron (neutrone) sounds like the word neutral (neutro) with an augmentative suffix (-one) tacked on the end. That is, it sounds something like "big neutral" to Italian ears. Replace the augmentative suffix -one with the diminutive suffix -ino and you have a "little neutral", which is a good description of what a neutrino is — a diminutive neutral particle. Aaaaaw, so small and precious.
Fermions belong to one of three known generations from ordinary (I), to exotic (II), to very exotic (III). (These are adjectives I selected to describe the generations.) Generation I particles can combine to form hadrons with effectively infinite life spans (stable atoms made of electrons, protons, and neutrons for example). Generation II particles always form unstable hadrons. The longest lived hadron containing a generation II quark is the lambda particle (made of an up, down, and strange quark). It has a mean lifetime less than a billionth of a second, which is long-lived for an unstable hadron. Generation III particles are divided in their behavior. The bottom quark isn't much stranger than a strange quark, but the top quark is so short-lived that it doesn't exist long enough to do anything. It falls apart before anything knows it exists. Top quarks are only known from their decay products.
Charge is the property of matter that gives rise to electric and magnetic phenomena (known collectively as electromagnetism). Charge is quantized, which means it can only exist in discrete amounts with restricted values — multiples and fractions of the elementary charge. Particles that exist independently (the electron, muon, and tau) carry multiples of the elementary charge, while quarks carry fractions of the elementary charge. Quarks always bind together in groups whose total charge is an integral multiple of the elementary charge, which is why no one has ever directly measured a fractional charge. In addition, since opposite charges attract, electrons tend to bind to protons to form atoms that are neutral overall. We don't normally notice the electrical nature of matter because of this.

In the shadows of the Jura Mountains protons are being accelerated to the highest energies ever produced by human beings. Deep underground, in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the European Center for Particle Physics, which straddles the Swiss-French border near Geneva, a beam of protons are colliding head-on with other protons at the record setting 7 trillion electron-volts (TeV). It’s a process that has been described as akin to smashing fine watches together to determine what makes them tick.
Taxpayers from the UK to Australia, Japan to Germany, China to Canada, Italy to Estonia, Vietnam to the United States who have invested over 10 billion Euro into the machine may reasonably ask: What do I get?
The expectations are clear if arcane.
What we can expect of these experiments, ATLAS (the contrived acronym for A Torioidal LHC ApparatuS) and CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) at one collision point a couple miles around the beampipe’s arc, is a great deal of new information about the universe.
The Holy Grail of the experiments is to either discover the long-sought Higgs boson or demonstrate unequivocally that the Higgs does not exist. The Higgs, which was called “The God Particle” by Nobel Laureate Leon Lederman, is a particle that was proposed by Scottish physicist Peter Higgs to answer the question: how do particles obtain mass. It’s an esoteric sounding question, but to push the frontier of human understanding farther, it must be answered. You see, in the Standard Model of Particle Physics – a model that encompasses everything experimentally verified about the basic building blocks of nature – there is no good “reason” for particles to have mass, but they obviously do. Every theory of how stuff works at the most fundamental level is predicated on this annoyingly successful model. The masses of particles don’t emerge from the theory in a satisfying burst of understanding, they have to be measured and installed by hand.
Mass is a measure of the inertia of an object. The heavier it is, the harder it is to turn or accelerate. The Higgs mechanism describes a field of particles, not unlike the gravitational fields that permeate space near things like stars and planets, that saturates the universe and constantly interacts with particles in a way that slows them down, imposing inertia on them.

If you're feeling as if you've lost a bit of weight recently, blame physicists – recent calculations make the mass of the proton 30 billionths of a percent lighter than before.
Okay, so the sub-atomic particle hasn't changed size, but new experiments have promoted a rethink on what the proton probably weighs. Strangely, while the new figure is three times more accurate than the previous one, nobody is sure why the new number is different.
Experiments conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Germany used magnetic fields to trap a proton inside a vacuum chilled to near absolute zero, where they watched it wander around.
By determining the particle's velocity they could calculate its mass as compared to the nucleus of carbon 12 and a particle of hydrogen at a set frequency.
For those interested, a proton now happens to be 1.007 276 466 583 atomic units, slightly different to the mass of 1.007 276 466 879 atomic units the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) currently has recorded.
The difference might not seem like a big deal, but there is no clear reason for it.
"Of course, 99 percent of the time, it's an experimental issue," CODATA member Peter Mohr told New Scientist's Sophia Chen.
The research has been put onto the pre-review website arXiv.org, where the physics community can take a close look at their figures.
With an accuracy of 32 parts per trillion, the tweak is an improvement on the last number by a factor of three. The researchers now plan on implementing some changes to the experiments to try to improve on their precision.
You won't need to go fiddling with your bathroom scales, but CODATA will be required judge what to make of the difference in light of potential changes to its recommended values.
Similar to the Planck constant (which also changed recently) and the speed of light, the mass of the proton is a fundamental unit in physics.
It's used to determine a limiting value in spectroscopy called the Rydberg constant.
It could also help physicists answer a rather trivial question: "Why is there stuff instead or no stuff?"
Clearly stuff exists, but since matter and anti-matter have an annoying habit of cancelling each other out in a burst of radiation, there must be a fundamental difference in how much matter and antimatter formed early in the Universe's formation for the particles making up cows and comets to exist at all.

At the same time, the referee (Y. Nambu) mentioned that the same idea had just been proposed by R. Brout and F. Englert, with the paper “Broken Symmetry and the masses of Gauge Vector mesons”, which had been released exactly at the same date…
In 1975, John Ellis, Mary Gaillard and Dimitri Nanopoulos published “A phenomenological profile of the Higgs boson”. Today it could make for amusing reading: “ We apologize to experimentalists for having no idea what is the mass of the Higgs boson, …, and for not being sure of its couplings to other particles, except that they are probably all very small. For these reasons we do not want to encourage big experimental searches for the Higgs boson…”. Thankfully the scientists didn’t strictly follow these recommendations…
To close this historical part, here are some links to the original articles quoted above: the paper from R. Brout and F. Englert, the paper from P. Higgs, the paper from J. Ellis, M. Gaillard and D. Nanopoulos.
During the last century, many discoveries have been made, culminating in what we call today the Standard Model.
This Standard Model has been very successful, as it could both describe and predict some experimental measurements. For instance it predicted the measurement of the anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron with an accuracy of around 1 part in 1 billion (a = 0.00115965218073 !). It also describes the components of matter and 3 out of the 4 interactions, but there are many remaining questions.
One of them is to understand differences in terms of mass scales. Why an electron (911 keV at rest) has such a different mass than a proton (938 MeV)… The same for other particles? Where does mass come from? etc… To answer these questions, many ideas have been proposed over the last decades, but only the Higgs mechanism remains as a serious option. One could think that the Higgs particle comes with a field, and that this Higgs field would be responsible for giving masses to particles.
3. Summary of all searches
3.1) LEP At the previous main accelerator of CERN, called the LEP, physicists started to look for the Higgs particle.

And yet, if the teleporter was functioning correctly, you haven’t changed – there is still the same amount of ‘stuff’ (matter) in your body as there was previously. So we need another term to describe that quantity that didn’t change. This is ‘mass’.
On Earth, the two words are interchangeable for everyday use, because gravity has about the same strength everywhere on the surface of the planet. If an object has twice the mass, it will have twice the weight. But your weight changes depending on where you are in the universe. If you go to the moon, for example, you’ll weigh about one sixth of your weight on Earth. (This is due to the fact that the moon has a much smaller mass than the Earth does and so exerts a smaller gravitational force on you.) Your mass, on the other hand, won’t have changed.
Mass is a property of all matter. It has two main effects: the first is to cause objects to resist acceleration when a force is applied; the other is to experience and apply gravitational forces when other objects are nearby. Today, physicists are actively researching what may seem like an unanswerable question: why does mass exist? One part of a possible answer to this question requires the existence of a particle called the Higgs Boson (check out a great animation about the Higgs in this previous post!). The Higgs Boson has been hyberbolically nicknamed the “God Particle” because its existence would help validate the Standard Model of particle physics (to be discussed later). As I write this, scientists in Europe are busily smashing particles together at the Large Hadron Collider, hoping that the Higgs boson might pop out of the resulting collisions.
But in some ways, this line of thinking answers more of the “how” then the “why”. For now, it seems that mass is just something we all have to deal with.
There are some particles (and by “some” I mean “two”) that are currently known to have no mass at all. The most commonly known of these is the photon, which is the particle that light is made out of. Because photons are not restricted by the limitations of mass, they only ever move at one speed – the fastest speed anything can move at, the speed of light.
We beings made out of matter will never know what it’s like to be a photon – we’ll never be able to experience masslessness.

source: Big Questions Online
author: Frank Wilczek
Editors’ Note: It has been one year since scientists announced the discovery of a particle believed to be Higgs. Read this essay by a Nobel prize winner in physics and share your comments on ourFacebook page.
Imagine a planet encrusted with ice, beneath which a vast ocean lies. (Imagine Europa.)
Within that ocean a species of brilliant fish evolved. Those fish were so intelligent that they took up physics, and formulated the laws that govern motion. At first they derived quite complicated laws, because the motion of bodies within water is complicated.
One day, however, a genius among fish, call her Fish Newton, had a startling new idea. She proposed fundamental laws of motion––Newton’s laws––that are simpler and more beautiful than the laws the fish had derived directly from experience. She demonstrated mathematically that you could reproduce the observed motions from the new, simpler laws, if you assume that there is a space-filling medium that complicates things. She called it Ocean.
Of course our fish had been immersed in Ocean for eons, but without knowing it. Since it was ever-present, they took it for granted. They regarded it as an aspect of space itself––as mere emptiness. But Fish Newton invited them to consider that they might be immersed in a material medium.
Thus inspired, fish scientists set out to find the atoms of Fish Newton’s hypothetical medium. And soon they did!
That story is our own. We humans, like those fish, have been living within a material medium for millennia, without being consciously aware of it.
The first inkling of its existence came in the 1960s. By that time physicists had devised especially beautiful equations for describing elementary particles with zero mass. Nature likes those equations, too. The photons responsible for electromagnetism, the gravitons responsible for gravity, and the color gluons responsible for the strong force are all zero mass particles. Electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong force are three of the four fundamental interactions known to physics. The other is the weak force.
A problem arose, however, for the W and Z bosons, which are responsible for the weak force. Though they have many properties in common with photons and color gluons, Wand Z bosons have non-zero mass. So it appeared that one could not use the beautiful equations for zero mass particles to describe them.

||tp||5,19121 71(40)×10-44 s|
|Planck mass Planck mass or the mass of a Planck particle is the hypothetical tiny black hole whose Schwarzschild radius is equal to the Planck length. Unlike all other base units Planck and most Planck units derived the Planck mass has a more or less conceivable human scale. Tradition has it that this is the mass of the egg of the flea. The Planck mass is an idealized mass thought to have a special significance for quantum gravity. ||mp||1,672 621 71(29)×10-27 kg|
|Planck temperaturePlanck temperature is the highest temperature in the physical theories. At one end of the temperature scale was the lowest temperature possible, the absolute zero (0 K) and on the other the highest possible temperature, which is the Planck equal to 1.416 x 10 32 K. This temperature corresponds to the temperature of the Universe at the time called Planck time is 10 -44 seconds after the bigbang. ||Tp||1.41679 x 1032 K|
constant In physics, the fine structure constant, represented by the Greek letter α is a fundamental constant that governs the electromagnetic force ensuring consistency of atoms and molecules. It was proposed in 1916 by the German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld. In quantum electrodynamics, the fine structure constant serves as the coupling constant, representing the strength of interaction between the electrons and photons. Its value can not be predicted by the theory, but only determined by experimental results. This is actually one of the 29 free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics.
|Proton mass The nuclei of Atoms are composed of protons and neutrons. around these nuclei, revolves a cloud of electrons. These three elements (protons, neutrons and electrons) are practically all matter. While the electron is considered as a particle "no size", the proton, which is made up of quarks, is an "extended" object. ||mn||1,674 927 28(29)×10-27 kg|
|Electron mass The electron is an elementary particle that has a charge of negative sign. This is one of the components of the atom with neutrons and protons but the electron is rather a kind of electric point weighing, which no one knows or where he is or where it goes.

|The Standard Model of particle physics|
contains many fundamental values which
may be a result of pure accident
Physics, unlike biology or geology, was not considered to be a historical science until now. Physicists have prided themselves on being able to derive the vast bulk of phenomena in the universe from first principles. Biology - and chemistry, as a matter of fact - are different. Chance and contingency play an important role in the evolution of chemical and biological phenomena, so beyond a point scientists in these disciplines have realized that it's pointless to ask questions about origins and first principles.
The overriding "fundamental law" in biology is that of evolution by natural selection. But while the law is fundamental on a macro scale, its details at a micro level don't lend themselves to real explanation in terms of origins. For instance the bacterial flagellum is a product of accident and time, a key structure involved in locomotion, feeding and flight that resulted from gene sharing, recombination and selective survival of certain species spread over billions of years. While one can speculate, it is impossible to know for certain all the details that led to the evolution of this marvelous molecular motor. Thus biologists have accepted history and accident as integral parts of their fundamental laws.
Physics was different until now. Almost everything in the universe could be explained in terms of fundamental laws like Einstein's theory of general relativity or the laws of quantum mechanics. If you wanted to explain the shape and structure of a galaxy you could seek the explanation in the precise motion of the various particles governed by the laws of gravity. If you wanted to explain why water is H20 and not H30 you could seek the explanation in the principles of quantum mechanics that in turn dictate the laws of chemical bonding.
But beyond this wildly successful level of explanation seems to lie an impasse. The problem arises when you try to explain one of the most profound facts of nature, the fact that the fundamental constants of nature are fine-tuned to a fault, that the universe as we know it would not exist if these constants had even slightly different values. For instance, it is impossible to imagine life existing had the strength of the strong force binding nuclei together been even a few percent smaller or larger. Scientists have struggled for decades to explain why other numbers like the value of Planck's constant or the electron's mass are what they are.