Is higgs boson an elementary particle? If so why does it decays?












2












$begingroup$


Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?






standard-model higgs elementary-particles







share|cite|edit









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?






    standard-model higgs elementary-particles







    share|cite|edit









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?






      standard-model higgs elementary-particles







      share|cite|edit









      $endgroup$




      Higgs boson is excitation of higgs field and is very massive and short lived, it also interact with the higgs field and thus is able to experience mass. My question is if according to standard model it is supposedly to be an elementary particle then why can it decays?






      standard-model higgs elementary-particles




      standard-model higgs elementary-particles






      share|cite|edit













      share|cite|edit











      share|cite|edit




      share|cite|edit










      asked 1 hour ago









      user6760user6760

      2,53111738




      2,53111738






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



          Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            16 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            14 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
            $endgroup$
            – safesphere
            2 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            1 min ago



















          2












          $begingroup$

          Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



          Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            10 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            6 mins ago





















          0












          $begingroup$

          A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



          This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "151"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f454292%2fis-higgs-boson-an-elementary-particle-if-so-why-does-it-decays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2












            $begingroup$

            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              16 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              14 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              2 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 min ago
















            2












            $begingroup$

            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              16 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              14 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              2 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 min ago














            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Most fundamental particles in the standard model decay: muons, tau leptons, the heavy quarks, W and Z bosons. There’s nothing problematic about that, nor about Higgs decays.



            Your question may come from a misconception about particle decay: that it’s somehow the particle ‘coming apart’ into preexisting constituents. It’s not like that. Decays are transformations into things that weren’t there before.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 1 hour ago









            Bob JacobsenBob Jacobsen

            4,396616




            4,396616












            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              16 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              14 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              2 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 min ago


















            • $begingroup$
              Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              16 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
              $endgroup$
              – Bob Jacobsen
              14 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
              $endgroup$
              – safesphere
              2 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              1 min ago
















            $begingroup$
            Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            16 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            Hi I'm still not clear about this transformation, I just read it is probabilistic so higgs boson can in fact decay into many things including 2 photons so can the same 2 photons cannot transform back into higgs boson? I highly doubt so but dunno why?
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            16 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            14 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            Generally, particle physics reactions can go either way. Yes, if you had sufficiently energetic photons appropriately arranged, the SM says they could combine to form a Higgs particle.
            $endgroup$
            – Bob Jacobsen
            14 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
            $endgroup$
            – safesphere
            2 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            "they could combine to form a Higgs particle" - This is incorrect. Let's take a simpler example, an annihilation of electron and positron into two photons. This happens nearly every time an electron meats a positron. Now, let's try turning this around. Please show a single evidence where two free photons in an otherwise empty space hit each other to produce an electron-positron pair. This never happens. Photons don't interact with each other, because photons interact only with electrically charged particles. (I will leave the two-photon physics and the Atlas experiment out of scope here.)
            $endgroup$
            – safesphere
            2 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            1 min ago




            $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            1 min ago











            2












            $begingroup$

            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              10 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              6 mins ago


















            2












            $begingroup$

            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              10 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              6 mins ago
















            2












            2








            2





            $begingroup$

            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Another way to answer this question is that particles are not "elementary," not even in a given quantum field theory. Quantum field theories (like the Standard Model) are expressed in terms of fields, not particles. Particles are phenomena that the model predicts; some of them are stable, some are transient (they decay). The Standard Model is constructed using an elementary Higgs field, and it predicts a Higgs particle, which is unstable.



            Although the language "elementary particle" is very common and probably can't be revised at this point, it might be less confusing and more accurate to talk about the elementary fields used to express a model. Even that language isn't perfect, though, because some models can be expressed in more than one way, using seemingly-unrelated sets of fields. Quantum field theory is a rich subject with many surprises!







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 48 mins ago









            Dan YandDan Yand

            8,30211234




            8,30211234












            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              10 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              6 mins ago




















            • $begingroup$
              are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              10 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
              $endgroup$
              – Dan Yand
              6 mins ago


















            $begingroup$
            are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            10 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            are u saying the excitation of the field can disturb other fields too? So the reality is just fields interacting with one another.
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            10 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            6 mins ago






            $begingroup$
            @user6760 I'll shy away from using the word "reality" here (because different-looking descriptions can make equivalent predictions), but yes: The way quantum field theory describes things is as quantum fields interacting with each other. A particle is one manifestation of all those fields interacting with each other. The Higgs particle involves more than just the Higgs field.
            $endgroup$
            – Dan Yand
            6 mins ago













            0












            $begingroup$

            A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



            This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



              This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



                This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                A particle is elementary when there aren't subcomponents that we can identify.



                This has nothing to do with the concept of decay, and you can easily convince yourself of this fact by observing that whereas a particle (elementary or not) may decay in many different ways, the number and type of its constituents is univocally determined.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 21 mins ago









                Francesco BernardiniFrancesco Bernardini

                4345




                4345






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f454292%2fis-higgs-boson-an-elementary-particle-if-so-why-does-it-decays%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Fluorita

                    Image
                    Fluorita Fluorita (blau) amb pirita (daurat). Fórmula química CaF 2 Epònim fluor Localitat tipus Jáchymov Classificació Categoria Halurs Nickel-Strunz 10a ed. 3.AB.25 Nickel-Strunz 9a ed. 3.AB.25 Nickel-Strunz 8a ed. III/A.08 Dana 9.2.1.1 Heys 8.4.7 Propietats Sistema cristal·lí Cúbic Hàbit cristal·lí Sol presentar cubs; menys freqüentment dodecaedres. De vegades hexaoctaedres i tetrahexaedres. Per la combinació d'aquestes formes, les arestes dels cubs són sovint modificades. De vegades els cristalls poden presentar diferències de creixement entre les cares. Sovint s'observen cristalls compostos per sobrecreixement. Pot ser massiva, compacta, terrosa, columnar (poc freqüent), globular en agregats o botroïdal. Estructura cristal·lina a = 5.4626Å Simetria Classe (H-M): m 3 m (4/ m 3 2/ m ) - Hexoctaèdric; Grup espacial: Fm 3 m Color Blanc, groc, verd, violeta, vermell, rosa, blau o negre Mac...
                    Read more

                    Hulsita

                    Image
                    Hulsita Hulsita de la localitat tipus Fórmula química Fe 2+ 2 Fe 3+ O 2 BO 3 Epònim Alfred Hulse Brooks Localitat tipus mont Brooks, península de Seward, Nome Borough, Alaska, Estats Units Classificació Categoria borats Nickel-Strunz 10a ed. 6.AB.45 Nickel-Strunz 9a ed. 6.AB.45 Nickel-Strunz 8a ed. V/G.03 Dana 24.2.3.1 Heys 9.6.4 Propietats Sistema cristal·lí monoclínic Estructura cristal·lina a = 10,68Å; b = 3,09Å; c = 5,43Å; β = 94,15° Color negre Macles en [001]; un membre de la macla es troba girat 120° en relació a l'altre Exfoliació bona en {110} Duresa 3 Lluïssor vítria, submetàl·lica Densitat 4,28 g/cm 3 (mesurada); Més informació Estatus IMA mineral heretat (G) i mineral heretat (G) Any d'aprovació 1908 Referències [1] La hulsita és un mineral de la classe dels borats, que pertany al grup de la pinakiolita. Rep el seu nom en honor del nord-americà ...
                    Read more

                    Península de Txukotka

                    Image
                    Península de Txukotka Tipus Península Ubicació 66° N, 172° O  /  66°N , 172°O  / 66; -172 Mar mar dels Txuktxis La península de Txukotka a l'extrem oriental de Sibèria La península de Txukotka o península dels Txuktxis (en rus Чуко́тский полуо́стров , Txukotski poluóstrov ) és una península que es troba a l'extrem oriental d'Euràsia. Contingut 1 Descripció 2 Població 3 Vegeu també 4 Bibliografia Descripció L'estret de Bering, entre la península de Txukotka i la península de Seward a Alaska Foto de satèl·lit de la zona amb la península de Txukotka a l'esquerra El seu punt més extrem és el cap Dezhnev a la vora del nucli d'Uelen, un dels poquíssims llocs habitats de la zona. Al nord limita amb el mar dels Txuktxis i amb el mar de Bering al sud i amb l'estret de Bering a l'est. A la costa sud es troben la badia de Sant Lawrence i la badia de Kresta. La penínsu...
                    Read more