Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?

yq etc,

Thanks for striving to grasp what I'm clearly not yet able to put into lucid terms.

In addition yq, I've already read Duff's stuff, but really appreciate the kindness/efforts in 'digging up' those links, especially knowing of all your other already overstretched commitments...you've now well & truly earnt my respect!


Where to go with my ever evolving theory yq....I say "the Stars".

Ever since, as a child the 1960's; my insatiable appetite for understanding & love of Sci-fi has fuelled this 'not so simple' desire. and it is my hope, our collective interactions within and beyond this forum might one day (in part) make this a reality. Now back to another reality....The kids are asleep, our bags are packed, we head for the coast 1st thing tomorrow.....promise to bring you all back a 'tasty stick of rock'.

yq an'all,

Before the children/wife stir I'd give you a foretaste of my forthcoming 'rock' which incidentally has everything to do with your speculation.

At this moment in time I'm assuming the progenitor wavefront, its children grandchildren etc co-exist in event space (new term...hope you like it) in a blissful state of acausality.

The universe we know exists in a sub-structural patch of this initial wave, on which rides a small fraction of its 'offspring'. As you postulated: gravitys weakness may be due to it's dispersion....we're in agreement @ last However, this is how I visualise things. As I've already explained in numerous posts: in higher dimensions wavefront density falls off in exponetial fashion. The wavicles in our universe occupy far lower dimensionality than the primary wave. Therefore their wave front densities are comparitively immense compared to our parent brane....I predict the density differential between the progenitor to its co-existing decendants is around 10^43...exactly the difference in relative strengths of force between gravity & charge. There's still a few missing pieces to slot together but I've promised to deliver and deliver I will.....Better still, with what I've suggested, perhaps one of you can take this next step for me ( we're a team right?)

Must go...little excited steps are coming my way (kids)

This post has been edited by fivedoughnut on Jul 7 2006, 06:40 AM

5D, jal, GE?, C2, NF, WN?, et al,

C2, jal, this might be of some help for you both in your models, see how it is develops in the Philosophy approach, then with this understanding, develop your model, building it with supported empirical data, experimentation, fundamental laws that have merit due to the support throughout the world in facilities that have put similar theories to the test, then you will have what is needed and feel like you have accomplished your goal, at least that is the hope.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quantum-gravity/

Everyone who has researched the possibilities of the Higgs knows that we expect to find it, that is the goal. But there is so much more on the horizon in the next coming year with data that will keep everyone on this forum who might be interested, and the world busy for decades.

Here are some fundamental perspectives that all must have in dealing with what most have mentioned in the last few pages. Work your way up using the sound fundamental laws that have been well established, this site above is just an examples of what you should look for in your search for a respectable and presentable theory for all to analyze and we all know, it must have predictive powers in order to be applicable for scientist in fields of interest to use.

caio_
yquantum

I'd hate to be the rude one and barge in, but I have a few things I'd like to say.

First, I'd like to say I still don't think the higgs exist. If they do, the descovery'd rock my world. But hey, I could use a good shake. I don't mean to descourage you in your quest, though. If everyone agreed this wouldn't be science.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe that a teeny, tiny little curly thing known as a deminsion could effect the entire universe from one spot. Which is why I say the deminsions to be descovered will be found by splitting the ones we already have.

Hi 555Joshua, et al,

I do not think it rude; you will not be the first or last with skepticism in dealing with the Higgs. And you are absolutely correct in stating that, if everyone agreed this wouldn't be science, I might add that this is when physics is in its best form or how else would we ever succeed.

Well said, but please let me remind you that theoretical physicists always aim for unification, it is not only the Higgs that is being investigated, also searching for answering compelling questions about dark matter and dark energy, the existence of extra dimensions and the fundamental nature of matter, energy, space and time.

555J, the fundamental theory exhibits a beautiful symmetry between W, Z and photon, but this is a spontaneously broken symmetry. Spontaneous symmetry breaking is a ubiquitous phenomenon.

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2006...ay06-03-30.html

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/9/12
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/10/6/12/1

I wish more comments would have been spent not on just the “Higgs”, which is the crux of this post, but what could be accomplished in the understanding of dark matter, dark energy, shadows of evidence of extra dimensions and better comprehension of the nature of spacetime, energy, etc...

It was great to hear from you, and I must go for now, it seems I have grown accustom to checking the forum as part of my daily routine, we both know this coming few years will rock someone’s world, but as long as it might have a chance of being a better one, I would be willing to settle for it.

ciao_
yquantum

jal, Why Not?, C2,

Because I said I would stay on only one post, does not keep me from reading others. C2, when you mentioned, [hot Higgs, and cold Higgs] very good question and you three can deal with this on your site, but I will keep my word and just stay on this one.

Just for consideration, QM predicts the existence of what are usually called ''zero-point'' energies for the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic interactions, where ''zero-point'' refers to the energy of the system at temperature T=0, or the lowest quantized energy level of a quantum mechanical system.

Zero-point energy, applies to all three of these interactions in nature, occupationally, it is used in reference only to the electromagnetic case. I will keep reading your post jal, great reading and have fun!

ciao_
yquantum

yquantum, Why Not?, jal,5D et al,

y, many thanks for clarification of the ZPE .. it sort of had to be that but one doesn't quite like to ask and nobody (normally) makes it clear.


hot Higgs, cold Higgs .. this gets very difficult. Hot Unruh, no Unruh .. ZPE seems to be following things around. This makes the 'special' frames of special relativity a bit more special than I expected. Any clarification available on this point?

-C2.

C2, jal, Why Not? fivedoughnut, et al,

I want to try and cover some question leading up to your last post, and if time allows I will find some more palatable dealing with ZPE, SR, and Higgs in pdf, that you will have some references to go back to.

C2, you know the events coming up, but this site is for real, it is not David, but Leon Lederman [shared the Nobel Prize, and was director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory] the 'The Late Show with Leon Lederman'. This show featured interviews with young physicists and is quite enjoyable if you have had the privilege to sit in on one.

http://ed.fnal.gov/wyop/qa.html

You will see that you are not alone with some of your questions, and I commend you, jal, Why Not? fivedoughnut, for the insight that you are developing. I will find more that will be more applicable dealing with your last post in the next few hours if I can, if this does not help.

There are some good sites going and I hope the very best in your quest.

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Jul 8 2006, 04:15 PM

jal, Why Not?, C2, 5D, et al,

This is what I wanted you to find out, on your own that way you could enjoy the serendipitous elation of discovery. The post above will let you see that you all are dancing around it and it is going to most likely hit you in the middle of the night, I think it will and what a ride you will have!

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Jul 8 2006, 04:25 PM

The Higgs particle should be investigated and the other thing you mentioned the ZPE involved with the nuclear force and the weak force is very interesting. The electromagnetic force is long range, it extends to infinity and virtual EM waves can have a noticible effect of two plates spaced very closely to each other. The nuclear force is much stronger but it is short range. Would a nuclear casimir effect have been important at the beginnning of the universe when a lot of the density of nuclear particles was very big? Two neutron stars circling around each other- about to merge- might show a big casimir effect.

Hi everyone!

It's day time for me now.
I'm getting mixed messages from all those links.
The possibility that "higgs" has been overlooked.... the sterile neutrino ....
Conflicting models....
and Neil Farbstein.... the possible source of new information
Boy oh boy! Everyone must have a pile of models in their desk drawer.... just in case....got to be ready for when the data comes out.
I'm thinking that there are too many names for a rose.
jal

NF, C2, jal, Why Not? fivedoughnut, et al,

I do some traveling on occasion, one of the downsides of my responsibilities, but I do have a few days before I leave again and I want to make sure that you have the resources available for you to read. Click the references at the bottom and then find the updates that have been published. I hope this site will serve you all well and you will find clarity in your search.

jal, just think on the M-theory, view in the relationships dealing to SS's models and that is not a bad problem to have. Eh!

I do not want to overload anyone, for if I do this I have failed you ladies and gentleman, so I have tried to find something that covers all that has been posted that has data, reference, validity and resources that you can check into and very little bias interwoven from my 'Frame of Reference'.

http://www.universaltheory.org/dark_matter.htm

This is just a small part of the whole, on the left side of this site, click on each subject starting with introduction, you will find that the references are extensive and beneficial to everyone. Remember you have the tools just work out the details as best as possible until 2007-8.

BTW, NF, looked at your web page and wish you the best in your new venture.

ciao_
yquantum

Hi yquantum,NF, C2, Why Not? fivedoughnut, et al,

Can I propose we are all travelling on a flattish sort of plane called NOW .. for me it's early evening and I don't want to argue so you can call it what time you like but the point is it's NOW.

For anything to intersect with this NOW plane .. simply and geometrically .. there are rather obvious implications.

C2 proposal.. for discussion..

Everything has to work out its probability of happening to a probability of one, make a decision regardless of how little information is available, deal with it and restart the calculation from NOW --- and then we're on to the next bit of NOW ... always the same story. The damping factor. The Universal steamroller flattening out everything, even infinities get crunched by it. If there is anything working independently of NOW and it loses track of the integer ONE .. it either does not interact or .. need I say more.

Just trying to get those strings straightened out a bit.

Comments most welcome..

-C2.

C2, C2, jal, Why Not? fivedoughnut, NF, et al,

The NOW, and ONE has me a little confused, I take full responsibility for the lack of understanding on this, it is not your doing, so relax and see if we can bring this to a point [pun] were we both can come to terms.

I know you understand this but just a review, C2, we know distinction between bosons and fermions is one of the most important in physics. Bosons are particles that have integer spins, such as 0, h-bar and 2h-bar, whereas fermions have half-integer spins of h-bar/2, 3h-bar/2 (1.581859005E-34), [someone check my math please] and so on.

So when we look at the information given to us all fundamental matter particles, such as quarks and leptons, are fermions, while the particles that carry fundamental forces - the photon, W and Z, and so on - are all bosons.

Now, SS's are one dimensional, well you see where I am going with this?

The mathematics do not compute to one in the QM world. And NOW, I am not sure if your are aware of what you said, but you have open up a can of worms that I not sure I want to get into right NOW, there I go again, sorry. I know one thing I am taking my computer with me.

I think most use this for basic reference tool on this forum, which I think is a great starting point for all who needs information quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particles

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Jul 8 2006, 08:55 PM

yquantum et al,
I see the situation where the student goes up to the professor and the professor shakes its head and the student walks away without a word.
Are you suggesting it has to play backwards as well as forwards? And meeting all fields set at neutral doesn't work? I see it but I don't know what to do about it. I've seen Feynman-Wheeler and thought it was nonsense.. now I think there may be a fault with reality.

Many thanks for your answer,
C2.