From: g.scholten@gmx.de   
      
   Edward Prochak wrote:   
      
   > I am looking for opinions from the more experienced physicists here.   
   >   
   > Inertial mass is considered to arise from the Higgs particle.   
   > Since the Higgs particles are supposed to permeate all of space,   
   > have we come full circle in defining something similar to the   
   > aether?   
      
   It's the Higgs field that permates all of space, not the Higgs bosons.   
   Higgs bosons are a rather rare thing in the universe, unless the   
   temperature is some 10^15 K. The masses of particles are generated by   
   coupling to the Higgs field, not by Higgs bosons.   
      
   What is a crucial difference between the Higgs field and an aether is   
   that an aether would define a preferred frame of reference, since one   
   could find out whether oneself is moving with respece to the aether or   
   not, whereas the Higgs field does not. The Higgs field is   
   Lorentz-invariant, it looks the same in all frames of reference. So, it   
   is not defined if one is moving with respect to the Higgs field or not.   
      
      
   > Aether was a fixed reference frame   
   > Higgs particles move(?)   
      
   If Higgs particles permeated the all of space (what they do not), they   
   would define a preferred frame of reference, like an aether would do.   
   Even if they moved with respect to each other, there would be a frame of   
   reference defined in which their average velocities would be minimal.   
      
   But since it is the Higgs field that permeates all of space and not the   
   Higgs bosons, there is no preferred frame defined.   
      
      
   > For example, is the Higgs related to the   
   > relativistic length contraction?   
      
   The field equation for the Higgs field is Lorentz-invariant, i.e. it is   
   related to Lorentz transformation, and by this, to Lorentz contraction.   
      
   The Higgs field is not responsible for the Lorentz Contraction of   
   material bodies, though.   
      
      
   > relativistic mass increase?   
      
   First, we should note the relativistic mass increase is an obsoleted   
   concept. According to modern terminology, the mass of a body does not   
   increase when the body is moving. The energy increases (and approaches   
   infinity for v -> c), but not the mass. So, what we call mass today is   
   what was called rest mass in the early days of Special Relativity.   
      
   Second, even if we use the obsoleted terminology of relativistic mass   
   increase, the Higgs mechanism is responsibly for the rest mass only, not   
   for mass increase.   
      
   Let's go more into mathematical detail. Let m denote the (rest) mass of   
   a particle, p its momentum und E its energy, then we have   
      
   E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2   
      
   What Higgs mechanismus is responsible for is the term (mc^2)^2. One   
   could re-write this term to (h phi)^2, where phi is the local value of   
   the Higgs field and h the coupling constant between the considered   
   particle and the Higgs field.   
      
   What was called mass increase in earlier days was that one defined a   
   dynamic mass m' that obeys E = m' c^2, so that   
      
   E^2 = (m' c^2)^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2   
      
   <=> m' = (m^2 + (p/c)^2)^(1/2)   
      
   So, the Higgs mechanism relevant only in that way that it generates a   
   non-zero (rest) mass m that can be increased (according to the obsoleted   
   terminology).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)