how does the supposed higgs boson generate or cause matter?
438296
The Higgs boson is supposed to explain inertial mass, not necessarily matter (unless you equate matter with inertial mass). There was a contest a while back for a one-page  layman's explanation of the search for the Higgs boson. Read the best entries here: http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/higgs.html .
205397
It is the theory that this universe was cause by a large explosion from which hydrogen atoms where release forming different elements and what not. I have no idea, but I don't know how they came up with such theory. I believe it's plausible, but I doubt it's accurate.
86810
When you talk of the possibilities of Matter and Anti-Matter...we already have them.\n\nProblem in lies that if you seperate matter and anti-matter and combine them to forn energy, you have to find a way to contain the energy (there is alot from a small cumbustion)  There is the problem.  So my thoughts are not yet ready for warp technology.
757860
One of the latest theories (not widely accepted) is that it was caused by the interaction of two other universes at the sub-atomic super-string level. This collision caused a catclysmic explosion at a  point of singularity, creating all the matter and energy we now have in our universe, which then began to expand and cool. \nSimple isn't it?\n\nAnother theory is that the universe is a state of perpetual pulsation. It expands, and then crashes in on itself to a singularity point, and then explodes again, this has been going on forever.\nEven simpler isn't it?\n\nThis could explain why so many people believe in God. It is simpler to understand. \n\nWhich theory you believe is up to you.
33889
Oh boy, you stumbled on to a topic that frustrated me to no end last year.\n\nIn my personal opinion (though I don't have much of a reason to say so), the answer is no.  Last year, I thought it was because they violate the conservation of energy principle, but it turns out my logic was flawed.\n\nOne professor I talked to (a particle physicist) said he doesn't believe monopoles can exist, though I wasn't able to ask him why.  Another professor didn't state his own opinion, but he did tell me some of the evidence that monopoles could exist.  First, Maxwell's equations are practically begging to include monopoles.  If monopoles exist, there is a beautiful symmetry between the electric and magnetic Maxwell equations.\n\nAlso, if monopoles are flying through space, they should create a magnetic flux as they pass us.  My professor told me that they essentially created a super-cooled coil of wire and sat around waiting for a monopole to pass through it.  In 1982, they found exactly the signature they were looking for, seemingly verifying the existence of monopoles.  Exact evidence couldn't appear by chance, could it?  Well, as it turns out, (in my physics professor's elegent words) by a cruel trick of nature, monopoles happen to produce the exact same voltage in super-cooled wire as a "quantum glitch" (I'm not sure if that's a scientific term).  No monopoles have been detected since then and it seems unlikely that we will find them by that method without improved equipment.\n\nLastly, I asked my professor why monopoles could exist if we've never observed them.  He pointed out that I probably believe that antimatter exists even though I've never observed it.  He did a very good job of explaining why monopoles might exist.\n\nI still believe monopoles aren't out there.  Magnetism strikes me as a consequence of electricity, not a partner to it.  As for creating monopoles, I wouldn't have the slightest clue.  I would have to research some elementary particle physics.
76181
It arises around balck holes.\n\nSo-called "virtual particles) can spontaneously arise from nothingness, creating a particle and its anti-particle equivalent.  They arise from nothing, and then usually hit eachother again and are destroyed back into nothing.  If they arise near the event horizon (the point of no return near a black hole, beyond which the gravitational effects are inescapable, even by light), one half of the pair can get sucked in, while the other half can escape.  The escaping particles lead to what is known as Hawking radiation.
409135
supersymmetry is still hypothetical, so nobody is really sure.  Proof of it has not been found yet.
934281
I think ths question refers to the mass defect whcih is explained here:
369216
matter is neither created nor destroyed
475255
It doesn't. Only when it comes in contact with "regular" matter does it produce energy.\n\nAntimatter functions exactly like "normal" matter except everything is the opposite. When matter and antimatter touch each other, they release an amazing amount of energy (waaay more than nuclear fusion) and a slew of subatomic particles.
588286
i don't know... this is all theoretical, and i would guess that this either \na- does not and cannot happen, or\nb- happens all the time and is therefore not something to be concerned about\n\ndid you read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene? or Fabric of the Cosmos? (same author) \nI suggest these for further understanding of the string theory.... without having to consider the complexities of the mathematics behind it.
114596
Particle physicists make this kind of reaction happen every day in laboratories. This accomplished by accelerating ordinary particles up to very high speeds, close to the speed of light, and smashing them into each other. In an interesting collision, the result is a spray of new particles, many of which may be heavier than the original pair that collided. The energy of motion of the orignal particles has contributed to creating new ones. Some of these new particles are very interesting and exotic! Most only live for a short time before decaying into more ordinary stuff. \n\nIt is in this way that scientists have found out what kinds of particles exist. The world is made up of stable particles, and we only know about the unstable ones because we have been able to create them in the laboratory out of the energy in the collisions. \n\nThere are rules of course. Whenever a particle is made, certain things have to add up. The energy has to add up, of course. The total electrical charge cannot change, and so when many kinds of particles are made, the same number of antiparticles must also be made (some particles are their own antiparticles so you can make one of these at a time. Photons are examples of this). Antimatter annihilates with corresponding matter particles, and the result is eventually photons, leaving no net new matter.
161235
A graviton is the name. The existance of this particle has´n´t been confirmed yet but hopefully it will be soon.
339718
Physicists say they have mass produced antimatter, a crucial first step towards precision studies of its properties that may help solve one of the greatest mysteries of the Universe. \n\nAntihydrogen has been made before, but only a few atoms at a time. \n\nNow, the Cern particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, has produced more than 50,000. \n\nAntimatter is the mirror image of ordinary matter and both should have been created in equal quantities at the birth of the Universe. That everything around is predominantly ordinary matter is therefore a major puzzle. \n\nCern is the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. \n\nIn the latest experiment, researchers used the Cern accelerator to create antiprotons and trapped them in a vacuum chamber. \n\nA radioactive source, meanwhile, was used to create positrons, which were held in a separate trap. The antiprotons were then fed into the pool of positrons, where the two combined to form antihydrogen. \n\nThe antimatter was short-lived being destroyed when it bumped into normal matter. Detectors picked up the unique radiation signatures of antimatter as it was annihilated. \n\nAlso see the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Antimatter_production
877563
The actual origin of gravity is still a mystery to physicists. Yes, everything with mass has gravity, but that doesn't explain where it actually comes from. The current hypothesis is that gravity originates from a hypothetical particle called the "Higgs boson", which hasn't yet been observed. Physicists hope that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (Switzerland) will be able to detect it soon.
677165
The Higgs particle is as yet a hypothetical particle invoked to explain why the carriers of the electroweak force (the W and Z bosons) have mass. Quantum electrodynamics requires the photon to have zero mass (which is good because indeed it does), but early attempts to develop an electroweak theory also required the bosons to be massless, (which is bad because then they would be as abundant as the photon in the universe, which indeed they are not). Peter Higgs and two Belgian researchers (who worked independently of Higgs) came across the same idea for settling the puzzle in 1964. If there is an otherwise undetectable field filling the universe (now called the Higgs field), it could have associated with it a previously unknown kind of boson, the Higgs particle, which has mass. This would allow any photon-like particle to become massive by swallowing up a Higgs boson. It is possible, but not proven, that all-massive particles get their mass this way.
68885
I think that simple answer is, no one knows. We have theories, but we really do not know. \n\nFor example, maybe the antimatter particles decay much faster (see reference). Maybe the universe is only locally mainly matter, and there are other patches of the universe that are locally mainly antimatter (see reference). \n\nWhat science is, is a series of problems and questions that scientists attempt to answer. You have asked one of those questions that is so far, in the unresolved category.