# Could the Higgs Boson be the genesis for artificial gravity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883 "2012-07-11T09:53:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2012, 9:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/1 "2012-07-11T09:53:32Z")
When I say artificial gravity, I’m speaking of the sci-fi variety. (Gravity plating) If we could manipulate the BH, to simulate large amounts off mass; wouldn’t gravity come right along with it? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/2 "2012-07-11T15:34:13Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > When I say artificial gravity, I’m speaking of the sci-fi variety. (Gravity plating) > > If we could manipulate the BH, to simulate large amounts off mass; wouldn’t gravity come right along with it? That’s not really “artificial gravity”, that’s “artificial mass”. Horse of a different color, if you ask me. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2012, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/3 "2012-07-11T15:42:33Z")
> [@Shakes](#): > > When I say artificial gravity, I’m speaking of the sci-fi variety. (Gravity plating) > > If we could manipulate the BH, to simulate large amounts off mass; wouldn’t gravity come right along with it? Sure if we had unlimited energy maybe. The LHC uses 92 megawatts per hour to run according to this page: > **[How the Large Hadron Collider Works](https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/large-hadron-collider.htm#pt3)** > > To understand the universe better, scientists from all over the world are going to harness the power of an enormous machine -- the Large Hadron Collider. and according to wiki it will produce “a single higgs boson every few hours”. > **[Large Hadron Collider](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider)** > > The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the world's largest and highest-energy particle accelerator. It was built by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) between 1998 and 2008, in collaboration with over 10,000 scientists, and hundreds of universities and laboratories across more than 100 countries. It lies in a tunnel 27 kilometres (17 mi) in circumference and as deep as 175 metres (574 ft) beneath the France–Switzerland border near Geneva. > The first collisions were achieved in ... You’d need the energy output of a star to manipulate gravity in any meaningful way. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/4 "2012-07-11T16:40:29Z")
More mass means more force needed to accelerate. That would make it a fairly useless technology for travel. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/5 "2012-07-11T17:04:22Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > More mass means more force needed to accelerate. That would make it a fairly useless technology for travel. What if it were **less** mass? Then we’d have something approaching an [inertialess drive.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertialess_drive) Assuming, of course, that this discovery leads to some practical way to (1) extract the mass from matter (2) without destroying it. Don’t look for that this century if ever. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/6 "2012-07-11T23:18:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What if it were **less** mass? Then we’d have something approaching an [inertialess drive.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertialess_drive) Assuming, of course, that this discovery leads to some practical way to (1) extract the mass from matter (2) without destroying it. Don’t look for that this century if ever. So now you’re talking about not “adding” Higgs bosons to objects to create extra mass and therefore artificial gravity, but taking them away to create a craft with almost zero mass that requires only a tiny amount of force to accelerate? Maybe then you’d need some Higgs boson dump where you put all your leftover ones? Or you could use them for something else, like making phones feel more expensive! ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/7 "2012-07-12T00:38:17Z")
Look for science fiction stories to mention the “Higgs decoupler” drive. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/8 "2012-07-12T00:52:23Z")
IIRC the Higgs Boson is an artifact of the Higgs Field. It is the Higgs Field that gives things mass. The Higgs Boson is merely a byproduct that tells us the Higgs Field is there (which we cannot measure directly). Thus manufacturing Higgs Bosons gets you nothing. Hell, the LHC did not even see a Higgs Boson. They decay far too rapidly to be observed. What they see is a teeny (and I am talking factions of a fraction of a percent) variation in the stuff it decays into to deduce it was even there in the first place. In short, we cannot make any use of the Higgs Boson directly. Even if we could hang on to one for any length of time beyond micro-fractions of a second I am not sure you could make any use of them. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/9 "2012-07-12T08:57:19Z")
Apart from what **Whack-a-Mole** said, it also doesn’t work like that. Mass (of elementary fermions, i.e. matter particles) is given by the coupling of the fermion to the Higgs field, so we’d need to figure out a way of ‘tuning’ this coupling in order to produce any effect. And even if we knew how to do that, it wouldn’t do much – actually, the Higgs mechanism is only responsible for the masses of the elementary particles; the masses of composite particles – such as protons and neutrons, which make up the atomic nuclei – are predominantly given by the interactions (i.e. the binding energy) of those elementary particles (quarks). Frank Wilczek has created a toy theory of the strong interaction (the interaction that holds the nuclei together) he calls ‘QCD lite’, in which the masses of the lightest quarks (up, down, and strange, where up and down are the constituents of the nucleons) are set to zero – i.e. the Higgs field is either ‘turned off’ or they don’t couple to it --, which does not affect the masses of everyday objects terribly much. (For technical reasons – in order to have them effectively decouple – the masses of the heavy quarks, charm, bottom, and top, are set to infinity in the toy theory.) If you’ve got a bit of a background in physics/are willing to overlook a few equations, Frank Wilczek’s article ‘[Origins of Mass](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.7114)’ gives a good overview. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/10 "2012-07-12T16:40:50Z")
My physics is fuzzy here, but it sounds to me as if to make artificial gravity – or, better still, **anti** gravity – then, we don’t need to decouple **matter** from **mass;** we need to decouple **mass** from **gravity.** Is that theoretically possible? There are hypothetical “gravitons,” and maybe identifying the Higgs boson could give us a handle on gravitons, which are presumably another type of boson. But, as I very imperfectly understand it, gravitons, if they exist, mediate gravity only at subatomic distances; gravity at any greater distance or scale is purely a matter of spacetime-curvature induced by the presence of fermion-mass-in-the-aggregate – therefore, manipulating gravitons would not allow us to, say, cancel out or reverse a planet’s gravitational field at the level necessary to launch a spaceship, or even to keep Luke Skywalker’s landspeeder hovering above the ground. Am I wrong? Artificial gravity(as distinct from antigravity) is something we easily can make already, just by spinning the spaceship like a tilt-a-whirl. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2012, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/11 "2012-07-12T23:00:56Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > My physics is fuzzy here, but it sounds to me as if to make artificial gravity – or, better still, **anti** gravity – then, we don’t need to decouple **matter** from **mass;** we need to decouple **mass** from **gravity.** Is that theoretically possible? There are hypothetical “gravitons,” and maybe identifying the Higgs boson could give us a handle on gravitons, which are presumably another type of boson. But, as I very imperfectly understand it, gravitons, if they exist, mediate gravity only at subatomic distances; gravity at any greater distance or scale is purely a matter of spacetime-curvature induced by the presence of fermion-mass-in-the-aggregate – therefore, manipulating gravitons would not allow us to, say, cancel out or reverse a planet’s gravitational field at the level necessary to launch a spaceship, or even to keep Luke Skywalker’s landspeeder hovering above the ground. Am I wrong? We don’t even know what gravity _is_. The best theory we can produce so far basically says, “Screw it, and assume a bunch of unproven ideas in the process.” 😃 There may or may not be gravitons, _gravity may or may not actually exist_, and if it does we probably can’t generate or destroy it. The problem is that our means of testing is rather limited. We know less about gravity than any of the other forces (which are probably a single force). Gravity exists - we can measure and predict it. But we don’t know _why_ it exists at all. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/12 "2012-07-13T01:02:50Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > We don’t even know what gravity _is_. The best theory we can produce so far basically says, “Screw it, and assume a bunch of unproven ideas in the process.” 😃 > > There may or may not be gravitons, _gravity may or may not actually exist_, and if it does we probably can’t generate or destroy it. The problem is that our means of testing is rather limited. We know less about gravity than any of the other forces **(which are probably a single force).** Gravity exists - we can measure and predict it. But we don’t know _why_ it exists at all. On what are you basing the bolded part? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/13 "2012-07-13T01:29:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > My physics is fuzzy here, but it sounds to me as if to make artificial gravity – or, better still, **anti** gravity – then, we don’t need to decouple **matter** from **mass;** we need to decouple **mass** from **gravity.** Is that theoretically possible? I doubt it is possible. Of the four fundamental forces gravity is the holdout. Quantum Mechanics is perhaps the most successful theory ever put forward by man. It has been tested repeatedly to insane levels of precision and so far it has never failed. Never failed that is till you mix gravity into the equation then it all goes to hell in a big way. Relativity, which deals with gravity, is likewise a hugely successful theory and been proven over and over again. But the two do not play nice together at all. The theory of the very large and the theory of the very small are anathema to each other. So, in a sense we do not know what to make of gravity. It is the only one of the four fundamental forces you cannot shield yourself against. It is by FAR the weakest of the forces (by orders of magnitude) yet in some cases it can overwhelm everything else (think black holes). Relativity says gravity is essentially the curvature of space. Mass curves space and we follow that curve akin to a marble rolling across a sheet with a bowling ball in the middle. In order to “make” gravity you need mass. Want 1g of gravity on your spaceship? Then you need the mass of the earth to generate it. Anti gravity would be reversing the curvature which would need negative matter (not antimatter…antimatter is real). We’ve never seen negative matter though and haven’t a clue how to make it and it probably isn’t even possible. So, in short, gravity is the fly in the ointment. The Higgs Boson discovery is cool and a step forward but we have a long way to go yet. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/14 "2012-07-13T01:34:08Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > In order to “make” gravity you need mass. Want 1g of gravity on your spaceship? Then you need the mass of the earth to generate it. > > Anti gravity would be reversing the curvature which would need negative matter (not antimatter…antimatter is real). Well, that’s another thing. To make gravity on your ship you **don’t** need mass, you can use motion. You can spin the ship on its long axis. Or, you can simply accelerate the ship at 1g (not so simply, actually, your onboard supply of fuel/reaction-mass severely limits how long you can keep that up, but you know what I mean). In either case, the onboard effect is, AFAIK, by any test indistinguishable from the same amount of mass-gravity – but, how can that be? How does spinning/accelerating your ship curve space, **or** involve gravitons? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/15 "2012-07-13T01:59:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Well, that’s another thing. To make gravity on your ship you **don’t** need mass, you can use motion. You can spin the ship on its long axis. Or, you can simply accelerate the ship at 1g (not so simply, actually, your onboard supply of fuel/reaction-mass severely limits how long you can keep that up, but you know what I mean). In either case, the onboard effect is, AFAIK, by any test indistinguishable from the same amount of mass-gravity – but, how can that be? How does spinning/accelerating your ship curve space, **or** involve gravitons? Spinning your ship is NOT gravity. It merely simulates gravity. Acceleration in a straight line (think of going up in an elevator) is indistinguishable from gravity according to Einstein’s [Equivalence Principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle). It is still not gravity though (the mechanism is different)…just indistinguishable from it. For instance if the wheel you were in is small (say a dozen meters in diameter) the difference in acceleration at you feet sufficient to feel 1g would be different enough from the acceleration at your head to make you notice something is not right (probably be very disorienting). If it were actually gravity then that problem would not exist. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/16 "2012-07-13T02:14:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Anti gravity would be reversing the curvature which would need negative matter (not antimatter…antimatter is real). We’ve never seen negative matter though and haven’t a clue how to make it and it probably isn’t even possible. Or you could just hang another Earth-sized mass right above your head. Hey presto! Near-zero g! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/17 "2012-07-13T02:23:53Z")
In addition to not being useful for dealing with gravity wells, reducing your mass is probably toxic. Consider: [The Straight Dope: Is “heavy water” dangerous?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2135/is-heavy-water-dangerous) > [@](#): > > Despite the fact the light water and heavy water are chemically identical, heavy water is mildly toxic. How can this be? Since heavy water is heavier than normal water, the speed of chemical reactions involving it is altered somewhat, as is the strength of some types of bonds it forms. This affects certain cellular processes, notably mitosis, or cell division, due to the difference in binding energy in the hydrogen bonds needed to make certain proteins. Wonder what happens to your biology if some nutter scientists goes fucking around with ALL your element’s masses? Craziness, I bet. ---
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/18 "2012-07-13T02:29:52Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > In addition to not being useful for dealing with gravity wells, reducing your mass is probably toxic. > Wonder what happens to your biology if some nutter scientists goes fucking around with ALL your element’s masses? Craziness, I bet. Our bodies can function in zero g. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/19 "2012-07-13T02:32:27Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > Our bodies can function in zero g. He (or she as the case may be) is talking about changing your mass and not about changing gravity. The Higgs Boson is what gives things mass. Mass in turn creates gravity. But the Higgs Field is not gravity. In zero g you still have the same mass. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883/20 "2012-07-13T02:38:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Higgs Boson is what gives things mass. Missed edit: Should read, “The Higgs _Field_ is what gives things mass.” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-higgs-boson-be-the-genesis-for-artificial-gravity/627883.md?page=2)