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












3












$begingroup$


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









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    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









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      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

      2,53611738




      2,53611738






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          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
            20 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
            18 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
            5 mins ago










          • $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            5 mins ago



















          3












          $begingroup$

          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
            14 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
            10 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









            3












            $begingroup$

            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
              20 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
              18 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
              5 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              5 mins ago
















            3












            $begingroup$

            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
              20 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
              18 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
              5 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              5 mins ago














            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            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

            4,406616




            4,406616












            • $begingroup$
              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
              20 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
              18 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
              5 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              5 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
              20 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
              18 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
              5 mins ago










            • $begingroup$
              + I think I got it
              $endgroup$
              – user6760
              5 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
            20 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
            20 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
            18 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
            18 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
            5 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
            5 mins ago












            $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            5 mins ago




            $begingroup$
            + I think I got it
            $endgroup$
            – user6760
            5 mins ago











            3












            $begingroup$

            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
              14 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
              10 mins ago


















            3












            $begingroup$

            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
              14 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
              10 mins ago
















            3












            3








            3





            $begingroup$

            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 52 mins ago









            Dan YandDan Yand

            8,31211234




            8,31211234












            • $begingroup$
              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
              14 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
              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
              14 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
              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
            14 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
            14 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
            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
            10 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 25 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

                    A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

                    Image
                    0 I found a lot of questions abount appendices and ToC. Many users want appendices to be grouped in an Appendix part, however some problems arise with ToC, hyperref, PDF viewer bookmarks, and so on. There are different solutions which require extra packages, command patching and other extra code, however none of them satisfies me. I almost found an easy way to accomplish a good result, where appendices are added to bookmarks in the right way and hyperref links point to the right page. However, the number of the "Appendix" part page is wrong (it's the number of appendix A). Is there any EASY way to fix that? This is a MWE: documentclass{book} usepackage[nottoc,notlot,notlof]{tocbibind} usepackage{hyperref} begin{document} frontmatter tableofcontents mainmatter part{First} chapter{...
                    Read more

                    Calculate evaluation metrics using cross_val_predict sklearn

                    Image
                    1 In the sklearn.model_selection.cross_val_predict page it is stated: Generate cross-validated estimates for each input data point. It is not appropriate to pass these predictions into an evaluation metric. Can someone explain what does it mean? If this gives estimate of Y (y prediction) for every Y (true Y), why can't I calculate metrics such as RMSE or coefficient of determination using these results? python scikit-learn cross-validation share | improve this question edited Nov 28 '18 at 17:52 desertnaut 20.3k 7 43 79 ...
                    Read more

                    Insert data from modal to MySQL (multiple modal on website)

                    Image
                    0 I have problem with inserting data to MySQL from modal. My modal: <a href="#" class="badge badge-pill badge-success">6 komentarzy</a> <a href="#" class="badge badge-pill badge-danger">brak komentarzy</a> <a data-toggle="modal" href="#add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" data-target="#add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" class="ediiit">(dodaj)</a> <div class="modal fade" id="add_desk_comm_{$desk_['desk_id']}" tabindex="-1" role="dialog" aria-labelledby="edit_printer" aria-hidden="true"> <div class="modal-dialog" role="document"> ...
                    Read more