What is the difference, if any, between a Higgs boson and a graviton? Are they not the same thing?
103375
You know, this is so easy to answer with a simple web search that I somewhat annoyed that you bothered to ask it here. Do you not know how to use google or yahoo or altavista?\n\nThese two postulated but undiscovered particles are completely different and have completely different properties. For example:\n\nThe postulated Higgs Boson produces mass.\nThe postulated graviton transmits gravitational force between things with mass.\n\nThe Higgs Boson has spin 0.\nThe graviton has spin 2. \n\nThe Higgs Boson has a nonzero rest mass. \nThe graviton has a rest mass of zero. \n \n\nAnd so on.
934539
Space, outer space, is a something.  It is not a nothing as many people might imagine.  Because it is a something, it can be and is affected by gravity.  It is warped by it.\n\nThe presence of observable mass, like hydrogen atoms, is not necessary for space to warp because it is space itself that warps.  Thus, the warp has no dependency on or affect on the temperature and pressure of hydrogen or any other distributed mass throughout space.\n\nIt is affected by accumulated mass, like stars and the planets, however.  These are the bodies that create the gravity that bends the space (and time).\n\nThere is a theory that space is made up of something called the Higgs Field.  [See source.]  As a field, the Higgs Field has direction, but the direction may be over higher dimensions than the 4 dimensions we can observe.  What is of interest in the Higgs Field is that, theoretically at least, it determines if quanta (like bosons, muons, photons, etc.) have inertia or not.  \n\nIf the quanta are aligned with the Higgs Field (in these multiple dimensions), they exhibit no inertia.  If they align against the force field, they exhibit inertia in our 4D universe.\n\nIf a quantum has inertia, we say it has inertial or, equivalently, rest mass.  And rest mass (m0) is that mass we find in E = mc^2, F = GmM/r^2, F = ma, and all those other force and energy equations that have mass in them.  So the quanta making up that mass (m) are aligned against the direction of the Higgs Field.
956806
The existence of gravitons has not been proven.   \n\nThe existence of gravitons is postulated by quantum theory.  For them to exist, they must be massless.  Assuming that they massless, they are unaffected by gravity.  Thus, they can escape from a blackhole.
729210
They have energy, and gravity depends on stress-energy not simply mass. However, the gravitational interaction would be exceedingly week.\n\nThey also polarise the vacuum state and so can scatter via the electrostatic interaction. This again would be a very tiny effect and has never been detected, though proposals for experiments exist - see link.
425701
No. You can understand the difference by going back to its source: the Newton's Second Law.\n\nF = ma\n\nThe weight of an object is the attractive force (F) exercised by the Earth on that object.\n\nAs the above equation shows, the mass (m) of an object is the constant of proportionality that links any force exercised on the object with the consequent acceleration (a).\n\nSo you see that the weight is a special case of force, that you have when a is the Earth's gravity acceleration. \n\nNow suppose you bring the same object on another planet, say Mars, where the gravity acceleration is different. Its mass doesn't change, but the weight does!\n\nThe weight of an object is an Earth accident, while its mass is a more fundamental concept because its value remains constant (at least within the non-relativistic limit, but this is another story).
172469
Think of them not as linearly parallel but Trans-dimensionally apart/separated.   See the Inflationary Theory/Model of the Universe for more detailed explanations.   ...And if you need help with the Math/Physics of it just give me a call in Universe # 91234536544232329767543.  :-)
1104368
Hi Aaron\n\nThe W+, W- and Z particles are actually intermediate vector bosons - they're the exchange bosons for the weak force, not the strong force.  The unification of weak force with electromagnetism requires these bosons to be massive (so that the strengths reconcile at the unification energy).  A consequence of the boson mass is that the weak force is short ranged.\n\nBoth W and Z bosons have been detected at CERN.  The detected masses match those predicted by electroweak theory. The mass of these bosons is posited to occur via the Higgs mechanism, the interaction of the bosons with the Higgs scalar mass field.  The charged W bosons take part in quark decays (eg beta decay) whereas the Z boson shows influence through weaker neutral currents.\n\nStrong nuclear interactions are mediated by gluons.  There are 8 different gluon types (compare to four electroweak bosons) and all gluons are massless (like the photon).\n\nHope this helps!\nThe Chicken
442127
The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but plays a key role in explaining the origins of the mass of other elementary particles, in particular the difference between the massless photon and the very heavy W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus if it exists, the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us.\n\nAs of 2006, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson, but there is some indirect evidence for it. The Higgs boson was first predicted in 1963 by the British physicist Peter Higgs, working from the ideas of Philip Anderson, and independently by others.\nThe particle called Higgs boson is in fact the quantum of one of the components of a Higgs field. In empty space, the Higgs field acquires a non-zero value, which permeates every place in the universe at all times. This vacuum expectation value (vev) of the Higgs field is constant and equal to 246 GeV. The existence of this non-zero vev plays a fundamental role: it gives mass to every elementary particle, including to the Higgs boson itself. In particular, the acquisition of a non-zero vev spontaneously breaks the electroweak gauge symmetry, a phenomenon known as the Higgs mechanism. This is the only known mechanism capable of giving mass to the gauge bosons that is also compatible with gauge theories.\n\nIn the Standard Model, the Higgs field consists of two neutral and two charged component fields. One of the neutral and the charged component fields are Goldstone bosons, which are massless and unphysical. They become the longitudinal third-polarization components of the massive W and Z bosons. The quantum of the remaining neutral component corresponds to the massive Higgs boson. Since the Higgs field is a scalar field, the Higgs boson has spin zero. This means that this particle has no intrinsic angular momentum and that a collection of Higgs bosons satisfies the Bose-Einstein statistics.\n\nThe Standard Model does not predict the value of the Higgs boson mass. It has been argued that if the mass of the Higgs boson lies between about 130 and 190 GeV, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1016 TeV). However, most theorists expect new physics beyond the Standard Model to emerge at the TeV-scale, based on some unsatisfactory properties of the Standard Model. The highest possible mass scale allowed for the Higgs boson (or some other electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism) is around one TeV; beyond this point, the Standard Model becomes inconsistent without such a mechanism because unitarity is violated in certain scattering processes. Many models of Supersymmetry predict that the lightest Higgs boson (of several) will have a mass only slightly above the current experimental limits, at around 120 GeV or less.
335040
It is hard to explain here. \n\nIt is a hypothetical particle predicted by standard model of particle physics. And it was originally predicted by Peter Higgs.
21267
Gravity is the force of attraction between massive particles. Weight is determined by the mass of an object and its location in a gravitational field. While a great deal is known about the properties of gravity, the ultimate cause of the gravitational force remains an open question. General relativity is the most successful theory of gravitation to date. It postulates that mass and energy curve space-time, resulting in the phenomenon known as gravity.\n\nGravity is acceleration.  means that (if the mass is unvarying) there must be a force that causes a mass to accelerate. For a rocket ship, that is the rocket engine. For the earth, it is the compression of the mass between something on the surface of the earth and the earth's center of mass. The acceleration is in relation to spacetime in that the weight one feels is one's resistance to deviating from one's path in spacetime. The same holds true in the rocket ship except that a rocket engine supplies the force to accelerate an occupant from his spacetime path. There is no difference between the weight he feels because of gravity or the rocket.
207775
Mass is only one variable in an equation... what are you trying to relate it to?\n\nweight = mass x gravity would be one equation for mass...
78675
The poster before me gave an excellent answer which is that nobody really knows. I just wanted to point you to a very cool experiment about how mass warps space.\n\nAnother very profound question to ask would be why are gravitational mass and inetial mass so nearly (if not exactly) equal?
48603
In addition to Professer Beatz's answer it is good to note that it is believed that the gravitational force interacts via the graviton.  The graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that transmits the force of gravity in most quantum gravity systems. In order to do this, one theory posits that gravitons have to be always-attractive (gravity never pushes), work over any distance (gravity is universal) and come in unlimited numbers (to provide high strengths near stars). In quantum theory, these requirements define an even-spin (spin 2 in this case) boson with a rest mass of zero.  However, to date the graviton's existence is yet to be discovered by experiment.\n\nGravitons are postulated simply because quantum theory has been so successful in other fields. For instance, the electromagnetic interaction can be very well explained by the application of quantization to photons, a science known as quantum electrodynamics. In this case photons are being continually created and destroyed by all charged particles, and the interactions between these photons produce the familiar effects of electricity and magnetism. In the same way, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are mediated by gluons and by W and Z bosons, respectively.
62175
Actually, the wiki on this one is unusually good (and right, for once):\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_string\n\nCosmic strings are sometimes confused with the strings of string theory.  There's considerably more observational evidence for the former than the latter. \n\n(I say they're different things, but every time someone like me says something like that, some party-pooper like Bohr comes along and makes a liar out of us.  There's a chance, in my mind at least, that they could be closely related somehow since, supposing either of the things even exist, they're both topological defects in space.  But, that's pure conjecture on my part).\n\nMichio Kaku of the City College of New York has written on both.  If you're looking for something on string theory, and not cosmic string theory, Barton Zwiebach has written the only introductory book worth reading.  If you really did mean cosmic strings, there are several recent journal publications listed in that wikipedia article (and they're all, for once, actually referreed journals).\n\nAs an aside, I see a lot of people posting on both of these around here as though they were somehow proven fact.  There is almost no observational evidence for cosmic strings, and there is none at all for string theory.  There isn't anything wrong with thinking about things like this -- that's where new answers come from.  It's just that I'd like to see the certainty levels turned down a bit.  In the case of string theory, the theory is in much better shape than it was a few decades ago, but it still has no real central theme, it has no real sharp predictions (like the Higgs-Boson, for example, of the standard model of particle physics), and absolutely no experimental verification or support of any kind.\n\nIt just kind of torques me a little that so many people run around on these boards decrying the theory of evolution as unproven, wild-ass conjecture (when, in fact, the evidence supporting the theory of evolution has been more exhaustively catalogued than it has been for probably any other theory in history), while still others are lauding string theory as something as sure as Maxwell's equations.  String theory is a fun idea, and probably a necessary one, but it isn't a sound idea just yet.
806332
This is a tricky question, and I think the answers are mostly good even though they disagree.  Campbelp2 is right in that the force transmitted in magnetic field lines is not conveyed by a distortion of space-time akin to gravity.  AE and others worked quite a while to come up with this trick and unify the EM force with gravity (by building extra dimensions into the framework of GR), but eventually gave up.\n\nOn the other hand,  as Jose and Steve say, the magnetic field has an associated stress/energy with it which contributes to the gravitational force.  So in this sense, the magnetic field does contribute to the space-time curvature.  \n\nBut that is not how the magnetic force is expressed, so I would say the bottom-line answer is no.  The EM force is transmitted via photons which are the quanta of the EM field.  Gravity is believed to be conveyed by gravitons.  Different force carriers.
99522
Your question can be answered with the following quote.  Basically the difference is in the fact that gravitational acceleration is proporationally the the two objects being studied, whereas inertial aceleration refers cheifly to a single object being accelerated without regard to another mass.\n\nQuestion\n\nWhat is the difference between the inertial and gravitational mass?\n\nAsked by: Raminder\n\nAnswer\n\n1) Inertial mass. This is mainly defined by Newton's law, the all-too-famous F = ma, which states that when a force F is applied to an object, it will accelerate proportionally, and that constant of proportion is the mass of that object. In very concrete terms, to determine the inertial mass, you apply a force of F Newtons to an object, measure the acceleration in m/s2, and F/a will give you the inertial mass m in kilograms. \n\n2) Gravitational mass. This is defined by the force of gravitation, which states that there is a gravitational force between any pair of objects, which is given by \n\nF = G m1 m2/r2 \n\nwhere G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between them. This, in effect defines the gravitational mass of an object. \n\nAs it turns out, these two masses are equal to each other as far as we can measure. Also, the equivalence of these two masses is why all objects fall at the same rate on earth.
829244
I know of no reputable astrophyscists who claim space is empty.  In fact, Brian Greene's "Fabric of the Cosmos" spends a lot of time talking about the stringy stuff that fills space.  The Higgs Field is also a something that fills space according to some theories.  Further, mass bends space, bent space has been observed; so it seems logical that space is a something (not a nothing) that can be bent.  So your premise that space is not empty is widely accepted.\n\nAlthough there are some short-lived massless quanta that can penetrate great distances, most cannot.  And the great distances have limits.  Even neutrinos have a limit on how deep they can penetrate a mass.  Gravity, on the other hand, is not diminished by interceding mass.  We are affected by measurable gravity in the deepest, darkest caves, for example.  So none of the known and theoretical quanta, save one, exhibit the characteristics of gravity.  \n\nThat one exception is the graviton, which is predicted by string/M theory.  The graviton has never been observed; so its existence has never been proved.\n\nSo your supposition that the effects of gravity are due to bombardments of quanta of some sort does not generally stand up to the evidence.  The one exception is the graviton, which is strictly theoretical and may not exist.