How the Higgs Field works

Matt Strassler

1. The basic idea

All the elementary “particles” are waves whose amplitude
and energy are the minimum allowed by quantum mechanics,
in relativistic quantum fields Z(x,t). Such fields typically
satisfy Class 1 equations of motion (or generalizations thereof,
as we’ll see) of the form
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍
− 𝑐 2 2 =– (2𝜋𝜈𝑚𝑖𝑛 )2 (𝑍 − 𝑍0 )
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥
where Z0 is the equilibrium value, and the quantity νmin is the
minimum frequency allowed for waves in this field. The
quanta of such fields have mass
𝑚 = ℎ𝜈𝑚𝑖𝑛 /𝑐 2
And then,
2
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍 2𝜋𝑐 2
− 𝑐 2 2 =– ( ) 𝑚2 (𝑍 − 𝑍0 )
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 ℎ

Now all of this is only true to a point. Really, if all that fields
did was satisfy Class 0 and Class 1 equations, nothing would
ever happen in the universe. So let’s put in a modification that
is common, interesting, and required by what we know about
nature from experiment.
Let’s think for a moment about two fields, 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) and
𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡), and imagine that the equations of motion for 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡)
and 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡), are modified versions of the Class 1 and Class 0
equation. We’ll assume (for now) that the equilibrium values
S0 and Z0 are zero. Then
2
𝜕2𝑆 2
𝜕2𝑆 2𝜋𝑐 2
− 𝑐 =– ( ) (𝑚𝑆2 𝑆 + 𝑦 2 𝑆𝑍 2 )
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 2 ℎ
2
𝜕2𝑍 2
𝜕2𝑍 2𝜋𝑐 2
− 𝑐 =– ( ) 𝑦 2 𝑍𝑆 2
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 2 ℎ
There are additional terms in the equations involving S(x,t)
multiplied by Z(x,t). The parameter y is a number, typically
between 0 and 1, and called a “Yukawa parameter” or
“Yukawa coupling”, for historical reasons.
In almost all circumstances in particle physics, the
deviations of fields like 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) and 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) from their
equilibrium values, assuming equal to zero, are extremely
small, this means 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) and 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) themselves are extremely
small, they are typically made from a single quantum. Since y
isn’t big, the terms 𝑦 2 𝑆𝑍 2 and 𝑦 2 𝑆 2 𝑍 are small enough to
ignore under many circumstances.
Specifically, we can ignore them in figuring out the mass of
the 𝑆 and 𝑍 “particles” (i.e., quanta). To figure out what an 𝑆
particle is like, we need to consider a wave in 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡), with
𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) assumed to be very small. To figure out what an 𝑍
particle is like, we need to consider a wave in 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡), with
𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) assumed very small. Once we ignore the extra 𝑦 2 𝑆𝑍 2
and 𝑦 2 𝑆 2 𝑍 terms, the 𝑆 and 𝑍 fields then both satisfy the
simple Class 0 or 1 equations of motion we started with, from
which we deduce that the 𝑆 particles have mass 𝑚𝑆 and the
𝑍 particles have zero mass.
But now imagine a world in which 𝑍0 is zero but 𝑆0 is not
zero. We change the equations just slightly:
2
𝜕2𝑆 2
𝜕2𝑆 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐 =– ( ) [𝑚𝑆2 (𝑆 − 𝑆0 ) + 𝑦 2 𝑆𝑍 2 ]
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 2 ℎ
2
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐 2 2 =– ( ) 𝑦2 𝑆2 𝑍
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
Again, the 𝑆 and 𝑍 fields are functions of space and time, but
everything else, including 𝑆0 , is a constant. In this case 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡)
itself very small, but 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) is not! Instead it is useful to write
 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑆0 + 𝑠(𝑥, 𝑡)
where 𝑠 is the variation of 𝑆 away from its equilibrium value
𝑆0 . We can say that s(x,t) is a shifted version of the S(x,t) field.
The statement that fields in particle physics stay very near their
equilibrium values most of the time is the statement that 𝑠(𝑥, 𝑡)
is very small, and not that 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) is small. Substituting the red
equation above into the equations above for 𝑆 and 𝑍, and
remembering that 𝑆0 is constant so 𝑑𝑆0 /𝑑𝑡 = 0 and
𝑑𝑆0 /𝑑𝑥 = 0, we find the equations become
2
𝜕2𝑠 𝜕2𝑠 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐 2 2 =– ( ) [𝑚𝑆2 𝑠 + 𝑦 2 (𝑆0 + 𝑠)𝑍 2 ]
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
2
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐 2 2 =– ( ) 𝑦 2 (𝑆0 2 + 2𝑠𝑆0 + 𝑠 2 ) 𝑍
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
As before, if we want to know the masses of the quanta of the
𝑆 and 𝑍 fields, we can drop any term in these equations that
involves a product of two or more small fields — terms like 𝑍 2
or 𝑠𝑍 2or 𝑠𝑍 or 𝑠 2 𝑍. I’ve marked all the fields in purple so you
can count them easily. So let’s look at what remains if we only
keep the terms involving one field:
2
𝜕2𝑠 𝜕2𝑠 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐 2 2 =– ( ) 𝑚𝑆2 𝑠 + ⋯
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
 2
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐 2 2 =– ( ) 𝑦 2 𝑆0 2 𝑍 + ⋯
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
Note that there is no significant change in the 𝑠 field’s
equation, because the new terms, 𝑦 2 [𝑆0 + 𝑠]𝑍 2 all contain at
least two powers of 𝑍. But for the 𝑍 field’s equation, we could
not ignore entirely the term 𝑦 2 [𝑆0 + 𝑠]2 𝑍 entirely, because it
contained a term of the form 𝑦 2 𝑆0 2 𝑍, which contains only
one field. Consequently, although a quantum of the 𝑆 field still
satisfies a Class 1 equation and has mass 𝑚𝑆 , a quantum of the
𝑍 field no longer satisfies a Class 0 equation! It now satisfies
a Class 1 equation:
2
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐 2 2 =– ( ) 𝑦 2 𝑆0 2 𝑍
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
Consequently the quanta of the 𝑍 field now have a mass 𝑚𝑍 =
𝑦𝑆0 !
Because of the simple interaction between the 𝑆 and 𝑍 fields
with strength 𝑦, a non-zero equilibrium value 𝑆0 for the 𝑆 field
gives the 𝑍 quantum a mass proportional both to 𝑦 and to
𝑆0 .The 𝑆 field’s non-zero value has given mass to the particle
of the Z field!
Even if for some reason the mass 𝑚𝑍 of the 𝑍 particle had
been non-zero to start with, then the mass of the 𝑍 particle
would still be shifted.
𝑚𝑍𝑛𝑒𝑤 = √𝑚𝑍2 + 𝑦 2 𝑆02

Well, this is basically how the Higgs field 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) gives

mass to particles. It turns out that for each known particle 𝜎,
except the Higgs itself, the equation of motion for its
corresponding field 𝛴(𝑥, 𝑡) is a Class 0 equation, which
naively would imply the 𝜎 particle is massless. But for many
of these fields there are extra terms in the equation of motion,
including a term of the form
𝑦𝜎2 [𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡)]2 𝛴(𝑥, 𝑡)
where 𝑦𝜎 is a Yukawa parameter, different for each field, that
represents the strength of the interaction between the 𝐻 field
and the 𝛴 field. In such a circumstance, a non-zero average
value for the Higgs field, 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝐻0 , shifts the minimum-
frequency of 𝛴 waves, and thus the mass of 𝜎 particles, from
zero to something non-zero: 𝑚𝜎 = 𝑦𝜎 𝐻0 . Diversity among
the Yukawa parameters for the various fields of nature leads to
the diversity of masses among the “particles” (more precisely,
the “quanta”) of nature.
Notice, by the way, that the Higgs particle has nothing to
do with this. A Higgs particle is a quantum of the Higgs field,
a ripple of minimum energy in 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡), a little wave that
depends on space and time.
What gives mass to the other known particles of nature is the
non-zero equilibrium constant value for the Higgs field,
𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝐻0 , all across the universe; this timeless and
universally present constant is very different from Higgs
particles, which are ripples that vary over space and time, and
are both localized and ephemeral.
That’s the basic idea. I’ve left lots of obvious questions
unanswered here: why should we expect there to be terms in
the equations that involve the product of two or more fields?
Why would the known particles be massless if there were no
Higgs field? Why is the Higgs field’s equilibrium value non-
zero while this is not true of most other fields? How does the
Higgs particle enter the story? The ensuing articles will try to
address these and other issues.
2. Why the Higgs field is non-zero in average
How does it happen that the Higgs field has a non-zero
average value in nature, while the other (apparently)
elementary fields of nature that we know about so far do not?
First, it is impossible for fermion fields to have a large
constant non-zero average value in nature. This is related to
the difference between fermions and bosons; bosons can be
non-zero on average, but fermions really can’t. So we can
forget about electrons (and their cousins the muons and the
taus), about neutrinos, and about the quarks. [Fine point:
Fermions can pair with each other or with anti-fermions to
make composite bosons, and those composite bosons can be
non-zero on average. In fact this is true of the up and down
quarks and their antiquarks, and it is true of electrons in a
superconductor. But that's a long story, and not our immediate
concern.]
What about the photon field, the gluon field, the 𝑊 and the
𝑍 field? These are all bosons. In principle these fields could
have a constant non-zero value on average throughout the
universe. It is experiment, not theory, that says this isn’t the
case. A large non-zero value for the electric field would have
all sorts of effects that we do not observe, including most
significantly an apparent violation of rotational invariance at
large distance scales. The electric field is a vector (spin-1), it
points in a particular direction, so if it were non-zero, the
direction in which its non-zero value points would be different
from the other directions.
By contrast the Higgs field is a scalar (spin-0) ,it does not
point anywhere. Other (non-elementary and non-relativistic)
scalar fields include the density field of the air, the pressure
field inside the earth, the temperature inside the ocean; at every
point in space and in time, the density or pressure or
temperature is just a number, whereas the electric field is a
number and a pointing direction. So if the Higgs field has a
non-zero value, it does not result in a preferred direction. More
bizarre is the fact that (because it is a relativistic field) it
produces no preferred frame at all. For the density of the air,
there is a preferred frame, because one is either at rest with
respect to the air or moving through it. But this isn’t true for
the Higgs field; all observers are at rest with respect to the
Higgs field. Therefore the success of Einstein’s special
relativity in describing all sorts of phenomena is not
inconsistent with the presence of a non-zero value for a
relativistic scalar field, such as the Higgs. In short the non-
zero value of the Higgs field leaves the vacuum behaving
much the way it does even when 𝐻 = 0; remarkably, you can
only tells it’s there through its effects on the masses of particles
(or by doing something dramatic, such as using the Large
Hadron Collider to make Higgs particles.)
The simplest way for the Higgs field to end up with a non-
zero value throughout the universe would be if has a non-zero
equilibrium value 𝐻0 that appears in its Class 1 equation of
motion:
𝜕2𝐻 𝜕2𝐻
− 𝑐 2 2 =– (2 𝜋 𝜈𝑚𝑖𝑛 )2 (𝐻 − 𝐻0 )
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥
It has to be Class 1, not Class 0, for reasons that we’ll see when
we discuss the Higgs particle. In fact, the situation is a bit more
complicated. The correct equation turns out to be
𝜕2𝐻 𝜕2𝐻 𝑎 2
− 𝑐 2 2 = 𝑎2 𝐻 − 𝑏 2 𝐻 3 = −𝑏2 𝐻 [𝐻 2 − ( ) ]
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 𝑏
where 𝑎 and 𝑏 are constants which we’ll learn some-thing
about in a minute. Now if 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) is a constant over space and
time, then 𝑑𝐻/𝑑𝑡 = 𝑑𝐻/𝑑𝑥 = 0, and so
 𝑎 2
0 = −𝑏2 𝐻 [𝐻 2 − ( ) ]
𝑏
which has the solutions (slightly oversimplifying for now)
𝑎 𝑎
𝐻 = 0; + ; −
𝑏 𝑏
In other words, it has three equilibria rather than one.
It isn’t instantly obvious, but the solution at 𝐻 = 0 is unstable.
The situation is analogous to the equation of motion for a ball
in a bowl shaped like the bottom of a wine bottle. This also has
three equilibria, one at 0 and ones at ±𝑥0 . But clearly the
equilibrium at 0 is unstable, in that even a tiny push will cause
the ball to roll far from 𝑥 = 0, a dramatic change. By contrast
the equilibrium at 𝑥 = 𝑥0 is stable, in that any little push will
just cause the ball to oscillate with small amplitude around the
point 𝑥 = 𝑥0 , a not very dramatic change. In a similar way,
although 𝐻 = 0 is a solution to the Higgs field’s equation, our
universe’s history has been complex enough to assure that the
Higgs field has been knocked around a bit, and so it can’t
possibly be sitting there. Instead, the Higgs field ends up in a
solution with a non-zero value, a situation which is stable.
We have known for decades, from a combination of
experiment and theory, that the Higgs field’s value (which we
traditionally call “𝑣”) is 246GeV. That tells us something
about those two constants 𝑎 and 𝑏: in particular

𝑎 = 𝑣𝑏 = (246 𝐺𝑒𝑉) 𝑏

So that determines 𝑎 in terms of 𝑏, and we can rewrite the

Higgs equation of motion as
𝜕2𝐻 𝜕2𝐻
− 𝑐 2 2 = −𝑏2 𝐻(𝐻 2 − 𝑣 2 )
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥

But it doesn’t tell us what 𝑏 itself is. We’ll learn more about
the quantity 𝑏 in the next article.
Now, although I’ve set things up so that 𝐻 could be either 𝑣
or −𝑣, it doesn’t matter whether the value of the Higgs field is
positive or negative (actually there are even more possibilities,
see below); the world comes out looking the same, with the
same physics, because nothing depends on the overall sign of
𝐻. This isn’t instantly obvious, but it’s true; one hint is that
wherever you find 𝐻 in the equations described in my
overview of how the Higgs field works, it’s always 𝐻 2 that
appears, not 𝐻 alone, and 𝐻 2 doesn’t depend on whether 𝐻 =
𝑣 or 𝐻 = −𝑣. In fact, 𝐻 is a complex field, with a real and an
imaginary part, so 𝐻 can be 𝑣 times any complex number 𝑧
with |𝑧| = 1; and in fact it's always 𝐻 ∗ 𝐻 = |𝐻|2 that
appears in the equations, which is independent of 𝑧. Even that's
not the whole story! but it's good enough for today.
If you find a way, perhaps using the proton-proton collisions
at the Large Hadron Collider, to push or disturb the Higgs field
a little bit somehow, it will wiggle back and forth, waves will
develop, of the form

𝐻 = 𝑣 + 𝐴 𝑐𝑜𝑠[2𝜋(𝜈𝑡 − 𝑥/𝜆)]

where 𝐴 is the amplitude of the wave, 𝜈 and 𝜆 are the frequency

and wavelength, and the relationship between 𝜈 and 𝜆 depends
on the precise form of the equation of motion, in particular on
𝑏 and 𝑣. Since the Higgs field is a quantum field, these waves
have a quantized amplitude, and quanta of these waves are
what we call Higgs particles. We’ll look at the properties of
these particles next.
3.How the Higgs particle arises
In the previous article I described how and why the Higgs
field has a non-zero equilibrium value. Now I want to describe
what the Higgs particle is and how its mass emerges from the
equations.
I should remind you that except where I state otherwise, I’m
always covering the simplest possible form of the Higgs field
and particle, the so-called “Standard Model Higgs”, in this set
of articles. More complicated forms are possible; for instance
there might be several Higgs fields rather than just one. I’ll
perhaps briefly describe that more complicated case in a later
article, if time permits; but for now let’s just keep it simple.
I didn’t emphasize it in the last post, but among the
(apparently) elementary fields that we’ve discovered so far in
nature, the Higgs field is unique. All of the fields except the
Higgs satisfy Class 0 or Class 1 equations of motion. In fact,
though this is likely not true of all fields in nature, all of the
ones we know about that satisfy Class 1 equations do so only
because the Higgs field is non-zero; were the Higgs field zero,
they would all satisfy Class 0 equations, as I explained in the
first article in this series. Instead, the Higgs field satisfies what
we might call a Class -1 equation.
For a field 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) the classes I’ve defined are:
Class 1 (gives particles with mass)
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍
− 𝑐 2 2 = −𝐵 2 𝑍
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥

Class 0 (gives particles with no mass)

𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍
− 𝑐2 2 = 0
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥

Class -1 (unstable)
𝜕2𝑍 𝜕2𝑍
− 𝑐 2 2 = +𝐵 2 𝑍
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥

where in these equations I assume that 𝐵 2 > 0.

The relative minus sign between Class 1 and Class -1 is
crucial. In both cases, the solutions to the field equation
includes 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) = 0 as a particular case, but for Class 1,
𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) = 0 is stable, which means 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) can oscillate around
zero: there are nicely behaved waves whose quanta have a
mass. By contrast, for Class -1, 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) = 0 is unstable, which
means that 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡), rather than oscillating, will grow to larger
and larger values of 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡). In fact, unless the equation is
modified, the field’s value will fly off to 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) → ∞.
More precisely, while the solution to a Class 1 equation is a
oscillation of 𝑍, the solution to a Class -1 equation is
exponential growth of 𝑍.
For the Higgs, as for any field we would find in nature, the
Class -1 equation is modified by terms that limits the
exponential growth and prevents the field from going off to
infinity. As we saw in the previous article, the Higgs field
obeys the equation of motion
𝜕2𝐻 𝜕2𝐻
− 𝑐 2 2 = −𝑏2 𝐻(𝐻 2 − 𝑣 2 ) = 𝑏 2 𝑣 2 𝐻 − 𝑏2 𝐻 3
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥

which is Class -1 for 𝐻 near zero, but has an important 𝐻 3

term. (Here 𝑏 [times Planck's constant] is a positive number,
and 𝑣 is the equilibrium value for 𝐻.) This equation ensures
that if the 𝐻 field starts at 𝐻 = 0 and moves off its unstable
equilibrium to positive 𝐻, it will end up oscillating around its
stable equilibrium at 𝐻 = 𝑣.
Over time, these oscillations will die away, due to terms in
the equation of motion that I haven’t written down (for
brevity), which allow some of the energy in the 𝐻 field’s
oscillations to be transferred to waves in other fields (these are
the same types of nonlinear terms that allow Higgs particles to
decay, see this article). So, over time , the field 𝐻 will settle
down to 𝐻 = 𝑣.
If some physical process then kicks the field away from H =
v in some small region of space, the field will exhibit waves,
of the form

𝐻 = 𝑣 + 𝐴 𝑐𝑜𝑠[2 𝜋 (𝜈 𝑡 − 𝑥 / 𝜆)]

where 𝐴 is the amplitude of the wave, 𝜈 and 𝜆 are its frequency

and wavelength, and the relationship between
𝜈 and 𝜆 depends on the precise form of the equation of
motion, in particular on 𝑏 and 𝑣. And the quanta of these
waves are Higgs particles. The billion dollar question is: what
is the mass of a Higgs particle?
To figure this out, we need, as always for particles, which
are quanta of waves in relativistic fields, to determine the
relation between the frequency ν and the wavelength 𝜆 of the
waves of the corresponding field, and then multiply the result
by factors of Planck’s constant ℎ to get a relation between the
energy and momenta of a quantum of those waves, which tells
us the mass of the quantum (i.e. of the particle).
We proceed as described for the field 𝑆(𝑥, 𝑡) in the overview
article that begins this series. We write a shifted version of the
Higgs field, expressing it as 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑣 + 𝒽(𝑥, 𝑡), and
substitute that back into the equation of motion for the 𝐻 field.
The example of the 𝑆 field given in overview article had a
simple equation of motion, so the shift didn’t change the mass
of the 𝑆 particle. But that’s not true here! The Higgs field’s
equation of motion is more complicated, so the 𝒽 equation is
quite different from the original 𝐻 equation:
∂2 𝒽 ∂2 𝒽
− c 2 2 = – b2 (v + 𝒽) (2 v𝒽 + 𝒽2 )
∂t 2 ∂x

where I used the fact that 𝑣 is a constant and doesn’t depend

on space or time. Next, we remember that the quanta of the
Higgs field have small amplitude, so in studying one Higgs
particle on its own (which is what we need to do to determine
its mass) we can drop all terms proportional to h2 and h3 :
∂2 𝒽 ∂2 𝒽
− c 2 2 = – 2𝑏2 𝑣 2 𝒽 + ⋯
∂𝑡 2 ∂𝑥
terms. Notice this equation for 𝒽(𝑥, 𝑡) is a Class 1 equation,
whereas we started with a Class -1 equation for 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡); that’s
because 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) was unstable around 𝐻 = 0, whereas 𝒽(𝑥, 𝑡)
is stable around 𝒽 = 0, which is where 𝐻 = 𝑣. And so we can
read off the mass mh of the Higgs particle h from the form of
this Class 1 equation:
ℏ𝑏𝑣
𝑚𝒽 = √2
𝑐2

If indeed the Higgs-like particle that’s been recently

observed at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] is a Standard
Model Higgs, then we now know, for the first time, what 𝑏 is
(recall that we’ve known 𝑣 = 246𝐺𝑒𝑉 ) and therefore we also
finally know the quantity 𝑎 = 𝑏 𝑣.
If the new particle is a Higgs, then 𝑚𝒽 ≈ 125 𝐺𝑒𝑉/𝑐², and if
the new particle is a Standard Model Higgs, 𝑏 ≈ 0.35 (2 𝜋/
ℎ) , and 𝑎 = 𝑏 𝑣 ≈ 87 GeV (2 𝜋/ ℎ).
Again, the last three are things we didn’t know until this year’s
discovery.
Now, if it turns out that the Standard Model isn’t what’s in
nature, if additional fields, beyond just a single field 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡),
have to be added to the other known fields in order to explain
the properties of the newly discovered particle with a mass of
125 GeV/c², if for instance this particle is just one of several
types of Higgs particles, then it will take some years for us to
unravel this more complex situation at the LHC.
There are many possibilities that one can imagine, so it
doesn’t make sense for me to explain them all to you here, but
I did describe some of them roughly here; and if the data from
the LHC ever seems to point us in a particular direction, I’ll
certainly give you a detailed explanation at that time.
4.Why the Higgs Field is necessary
Up to this point I haven’t explained to you why there’s no
alternative to introducing something like a Higgs field, why
there’s a fundamental impediment to introducing masses for
the known particles in the absence of this field. That’s the goal
of this article.
I’ve explained that all the elementary “particles” (i.e.
quanta) of nature are quanta of waves in fields. And naively,
all of these fields satisfy Class 1 equation of the form
2
𝜕 2 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) 𝜕 2 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐2 =– ( ) 𝑚2 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡)
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 2 ℎ

where 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) is a field, 𝑚 is the corresponding particle’s mass,

𝑐 is the speed of light, and ℎ is Planck’s quantum mechanics
constant. If the particle is massless, then the corresponding
field satisfies the same equation with 𝑚 = 0, which I called a
Class 0 equation.
Cases with 𝑚 = 0 include photons and gluons and
gravitons, which are the quanta of the electric, chromoelectric
(or “gluon”) and gravitational fields; they are all massless
quanta (“particles”) traveling at the universal speed limit 𝑐. For
electrons, muons, taus, all the quarks, all the neutrinos, and the
𝑊, 𝑍 and Higgs bosons, each one with its own mass, the
corresponding field satisfies a Class 1 equation with the
corresponding mass inserted.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the full story. You see, for all of the
known elementary fields of nature that correspond to massive
quanta, the last equation that I’ve written above is illegal, at
least as I’ve written it so far. Why? The problem is that we
haven’t put in the weak nuclear force into our equations. And
when we do, as we’ll see now, these simple equations can’t be
used. More clever equations that lead to the same physical
result are needed instead. Why?
The problem is this; the equation we have just written is
necessary but not sufficient. We need it to be true, but it’s not
the only thing we need to be true. We’re leaving something
out: the weak nuclear force. And the weak nuclear force and
the violet equation above are not going to get along.
Now this could get rather technical if I went into it in detail,
so I won’t. I’m going to explain this using equations that are
similar to the ones that are actually used, but without giving
the full story.
The electron’s more elaborate equations
To see the problem, let’s consider it in the context of a
particular field, we will take the electron field as an example.
The problem is that the electron field doesn’t quite satisfy the
equation I wrote above. An electron is a spin-1/2 particle,
which means it not only moves but also incessantly rotates, in
a way that is impossible to visualize, and it turns out the
previous equation is only enough to describe how its position
is changing, but not enough to describe what can happen to its
spin. In the end it turns out the electron is actually formed from
two fields 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑡) and 𝜒(𝑥, 𝑡) satisfying two equations, of the
form
𝜕𝜓 𝜕𝜓
−𝑐 = 𝜇𝜒
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥
𝜕𝜒 𝜕𝜒
+𝑐 = −𝜇𝜓
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥

where I’ve introduced the constant 𝜇 = 2𝜋 𝑚𝑐²/ℎ to keep the

equations short. Again, I’m lying to you slightly, because this
is the equation for motion only along one direction of space,
the 𝑥 direction; the full form of the equations is more
complicated. But the point is right; we’ll check in a moment
that these two equations imply the equation at the beginning of
this article. 𝜓 and 𝜒 are often called the "left-handed electron"
and "right-handed electron" fields, but without more math, this
nomenclature is more confusing than illuminating, so I'm
avoiding it for now.
Now the sense in which these two fields jointly make up the
electron field is that in an electron wave, the amplitude of χ
and ψ have to be proportional to one another. In fact you can
check that if you make a wave in both of them

𝜓 = 𝜓0 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (2𝜋 [𝜈 𝑡 + 𝑥/𝜆])

𝜒 = 𝜒0 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (2𝜋 [𝜈 𝑡 + 𝑥/𝜆])

where 𝜓0 and 𝜒0 are the amplitudes of the waves, and 𝜈 and 𝜆

are their frequency and wavelength (which I’ve assumed are
equal), we get the equations
𝑐 𝑥 𝑥
2𝜋 (𝜈 − ) 𝜓0 𝑠𝑖𝑛 [2𝜋 (𝜈 𝑡 + )] = 𝜇𝜒0 𝑠𝑖𝑛 [2𝜋 (𝜈 𝑡 + )]
𝜆 𝜆 𝜆
𝑐 𝑥
−2𝜋 (𝜈 + ) 𝜒0 𝑐𝑜𝑠 [2𝜋 (𝜈 𝑡 + )]
𝜆 𝜆
𝑥
= − 𝜇𝜓0 𝑐𝑜𝑠 [(2𝜋 (𝜈 𝑡 + )]
𝜆
which means
𝑐 𝜇
(𝜈 + ) 𝜓0 = 𝜒
𝜆 2𝜋 0
𝑐 𝜇
(𝜈 − ) 𝜒0 = 𝜓
𝜆 2𝜋 0
These equations show 𝜓0 and 𝜒0 are proportional; generally,
if one is non-zero, so the other must be too, and if you make
one larger, the other has to become larger too.
But look carefully: there are two equations, giving two
relations that could easily contradict each other. The only way
the two equations can be consistent is if there is an additional
relation between 𝜈, −𝑐/𝜆 and 𝜇. What is that relation?
Multiply the two equations together and divide by 𝜓0 𝜒0 and
we find

𝜈 2 – (𝑐/𝜆)2 = (𝜇/2𝜋)2

What is the implication of this equation? Suppose that we have

a single quantum of a wave in the 𝜓 and 𝜒 fields, a wave of
minimal amplitude, in other words, an electron! Then the
energy 𝐸 = ℎ𝜈 and momentum 𝑝 = ℎ/𝜆 of that quantum can
be obtained by multiplying this equation by ℎ² and substituting
𝜇 = 2𝜋 𝑚𝑐²/ℎ, giving
 𝐸 2 – (𝑝𝑐)2 = (𝑚𝑐 2 )2

which is Einstein’s relation between an object’s energy,

momentum and mass, which of course an electron of mass 𝑚
should satisfy.
This is no accident, because Einstein’s relation is true for a
quantum of a wave that satisfies a Class 1 equation, and the
two equations for 𝜓 and 𝜒 secretly imply that both 𝜓 and 𝜒
satisfy a Class 1 equation! To see this, multiply the first
equation by −𝜇 and substitute the second equation
𝜕𝜓 𝜕𝜓 𝜕 𝜕 𝜕𝜒 𝜕𝜒
−𝜇 ( − 𝑐 ) = ( − 𝑐 ) ( + 𝑐 ) = −𝜇 2 𝜒
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥

which gives [using 𝜕/𝜕𝑥(𝜕𝜒/𝜕𝑡) = 𝜕/𝜕𝑡(𝜕𝜒/𝜕𝑥)] a Class 1

equation for 𝜒 (and a similar trick gives a Class 1 equation for
𝜓):
𝜕 𝜕𝜒 𝜕 𝜕𝜒
− 𝑐2 = −𝜇 2 𝜒
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑥

Having two equations instead of one is a clever way

(invented by Dirac) of having spin-1/2 particles that satisfy
Einstein’s relation for energy and momentum and mass. An
electron is a quantum of a wave in the 𝜓 and 𝜒 fields, which
jointly make up the electron field, and that quantum acts as a
particle with mass 𝑚 and spin 1/2. The same is true for the
muon, the tau, and the six quarks.

Naive electron mass and weak nuclear force are inconsistent

But unfortunately, this beautiful set of equations, set up in
the 1930s, turns out to be inconsistent with experimental data.
What we learned in the 1950s and 1960s is that the weak
nuclear force affects only χ and not ψ! So that means the
equation
𝜕𝜒 𝜕𝜒
− = −𝜇𝜓
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥

makes no sense; the change in time of a field 𝜒 that is affected

by the weak nuclear force cannot be proportional to a field ψ
that is not affected by the weak nuclear force. A different way
to say this is that the 𝑊 field can convert the field 𝜒(𝑥, 𝑡) into
the neutrino field 𝜈(𝑥, 𝑡), but it can’t convert 𝜓(𝑥, 𝑡) into
anything, so the version of this equation that arises when a 𝑊
field is combined with it is undefined and meaningless:
𝜕𝜒 𝜕𝜒
− = −𝜇𝜓
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥
W field
𝜕𝜈 𝜕𝜈
− =? ? ?
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥
So this failing of the equations when combined with the weak
nuclear force tells you (as it told physicists of the 1960s) that
a different set of equations is needed… and the solution to this
problem is going to require a new idea. That idea is the Higgs
field.

The right equations for the electron’s mass

At this point, the equations are going to become a little more
tricky (which is why I didn’t explain this stuff right at the
beginning.) You may want to read my non-technical article on
what the world would be like if the Higgs field were zero. The
structure described there is going to appear within the
equations I’m about to write down.
We need to have equations for electrons and for neutrinos
that allow for the possibility that a 𝑊 particle turns an electron
into a neutrino or vice versa… but only by interacting with 𝜒
(the so-called “left-handed electron field”) and not with 𝜓.
To do this we need to recall a subtle point: that before the
Higgs field is non-zero, there are actually four Higgs fields,
not one, three of them disappear in the end. What’s a bit
confusing is that there are several ways to name them, each
naming convention being useful in different contexts. In my
post about the world with a Higgs field that’s zero, I called the
four fields, each of which is a real number at each point in
space and time, by the names 𝐻 0 , 𝐴0 , 𝐻 + , and 𝐻 − ; the Higgs
field 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) that I’ve referred to throughout previous articles
in this series is 𝐻 0 (𝑥, 𝑡). Here I’m going to name them as two
complex fields, functions that have a real and an imaginary
value at each point in space and time. I’ll call these two
complex fields 𝑯+ , and 𝑯0 ; the Higgs field 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) that I’ve
referred to throughout previous articles in this series is the real
part of 𝑯0 (𝑥, 𝑡). After the Higgs field becomes non-zero, 𝑯+
gets absorbed into what we call the 𝑊 + field, and the
imaginary part of 𝑯0 gets absorbed into what we call the 𝑍
field. (The complex conjugate of 𝑯+ is called 𝑯− ; and since
𝑊 + absorbs 𝑯+ , its complex conjugate 𝑊 − absorbs 𝑯− .)
Now here’s a fact about the weak nuclear force: the particles
in nature, and the equations they satisfy, have to be symmetric
under the exchange of some of the fields with each other. The
full symmetry is a bit complicated, but the part of the
symmetry we need is the following:
- 𝜓 is unchanged
- 𝜒 ⇆ 𝜈
- 𝑯+ ⇆ 𝑯0
- 𝑯− ⇆ 𝑯0∗
- 𝑊+ ⇆ 𝑊−
The fact that 𝜒 ⇆ 𝜈 reflects the fact that these fields are
affected by the weak nuclear force, while the fact that 𝜓 is
unchanged reflects the fact that it is not affected by this force.
Without this symmetry (and without the larger one of which it
is a part) the quantum versions of the equations for the weak
nuclear force simply don't make sense: they lead to predictions
that the probabilities for certain events to occur are greater than
one, or negative.
The required equations turn out to be (here 𝑦 is the Yukawa
coupling for the electron, and 𝑔 is a constant which determines
how strong the weak nuclear force is)
𝜕𝜓 𝜕𝜓 2𝜋𝑐 2
− = ( ) 𝑦 (𝑯0∗ 𝜒 + 𝑯− 𝜈)
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
 𝜕𝜒 𝜕𝜒 2𝜋𝑐 2
+ + 𝑔 𝑊 −𝜈 = – ( ) 𝑦𝑯0 𝜓
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
𝜕𝜈 𝜕𝜈 2𝜋𝑐 2
+ + 𝑔 𝑊 +𝜒 = – ( ) 𝑦 𝑯− 𝜓
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
Notice that these equations satisfy the symmetry listed above.
(Experts will note I have slightly over-simplified in multiple
ways; but I hope they will agree that the essence of the issues
is captured by these equations.) Note again that 𝑡 and 𝑥 are
time and space (though I’m simplifying, since I’m only
keeping track of one of our three space dimensions); 𝑐, ℎ, 𝑦,
and 𝑔 are constants that don’t depend on space or time; and
𝜓, 𝜒, 𝑊, 𝑯 etc. are fields — functions of space and time.
Now, what happens when the Higgs field becomes non-
zero? The 𝑯− field and the imaginary part of 𝑯0 disappear (in
a way that I won’t explain here) from the equations, absorbed
into other fields. The real part of 𝑯0 becomes non-zero, with
an average value 𝑣 ; as described in my overview of how the
Higgs field works, we write
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑙[𝑯0 (𝑥, 𝑡)] = 𝐻(𝑥, 𝑡) = 𝑣 + ℎ(𝑥, 𝑡),
where ℎ(𝑥, 𝑡) is the field whose quanta are the physical Higgs
particles we observe in nature. And the equations then become
 𝜕𝜓 𝜕𝜓 2𝜋𝑐 2
− = ( ) 𝑦(ℎ + 𝜈)𝜒
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
𝜕𝜒 𝜕𝜒 2𝜋𝑐 2
+ + 𝑔𝑊 − 𝜈 =– ( ) 𝑦(ℎ + 𝜈)𝜓
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 ℎ
𝜕𝜈 𝜕𝜈
+ + 𝑔 𝑊 +𝜒 = 0
𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥
These are the equations that, after the Higgs field takes a
non-zero value 𝑣, describe the interactions among
- the electron field, whose quanta are electrons with
a mass 𝑚𝑒 = 𝑦𝑣;
- one of the three neutrino fields, whose quanta are
neutrinos (which are massless in these equations,
putting in their masses requires small modifications
that I won’t describe here);
- 𝑊 fields, whose quanta are 𝑊 particles, and whose
presence implies the involvement of the weak
nuclear force
- Higgs fields ℎ(𝑥, 𝑡), whose quanta are Higgs
particles
Notice the equations no longer appear to satisfy the symmetry
shown above in the red equations. This symmetry is “hidden”,
or “broken”; its presence is no longer obvious once the Higgs
field is non-zero. And yet, everything works the way it must to
match what is observed in experiments:
- if the fields h and W and ν are zero in some region
of space and time, the equations become the
original green equations for the electron field, built
as a combination of ψ and χ;
- if the W field is zero in some region, the terms
involving h show that the interaction between
electrons and Higgs particles are proportional to y,
and therefore proportional to the electron’s mass
- if the h field is zero in some region, the terms
involving 𝑊 − and 𝑊 + indicate the weak nuclear
force can convert electrons to neutrinos and vice
versa, specifically by converting χ to ν while
leaving ψ unaffected.

Summing up
Let me bring this to a close through a quick summary. For
spin-1/2 particles, the simple Class 1 equations
 2
𝜕 2 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) 𝜕 2 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡) 2 𝜋 𝑐2
− 𝑐2 =– ( ) 𝑚2 𝑍(𝑥, 𝑡)
𝜕𝑡 2 𝜕𝑥 2 ℎ
that we studied up to now have to be made more elaborate, as
Dirac realized; describing the electron and its mass requires
multiple equations that imply the Class 1 equation but have
more going on. Unfortunate-ly Dirac’s simple equations aren’t
enough, because their structure is inconsistent with the
behavior of the weak nuclear force. The solution is to make the
equations more complicated and introduce a Higgs field,
which, once it is non-zero on average, can give the electron its
mass without messing up the workings of the weak nuclear
force.
We’ve seen how this works for the mass of the electron, as
far as the equations for the electron field. Similar equations
work for the electron’s cousins, the muon and the tau, and for
all of the quark fields; a slight modification works for the
neutrino fields. The masses of the 𝑊 and 𝑍 particles arise
through different equations, but some of the same concerns,
the need to maintain certain symmetries in order that the weak
nuclear force can make sense, play a role there too.
 In any case, the behavior of the weak nuclear force, as we
observe it in experiments, and the masses of the known
apparently elementary particles, as we observe them in
experiments, would be completely inconsistent with each other
if it weren’t for something like the Higgs field. Recent
experiments at the Large Hadron Collider have provided what
appears to be good evidence that the equations that I have
described to you here, and the concepts that go with them, are
more or less correct. We await further experimental study of
the newly found Higgs-like particle, to see if there are more
Higgs fields, and/or whether the Higgs field is more
complicated, than I’ve described here.