Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?

My reasoning has the whole universe consisting with a mess of velocities with a direction {force}.

This implies Everywhere we are met with force NO MATTER WHAT RELATIVE MAGNITUDE WE ARE REFERENCING, in fact our bodies molecules that are made up of Atoms that are made up of Particles that are made up of sub components pertained to the rather lame standard Model, experience actual Physical changes due from these forces..

Our defined Particles and the sub components pertained to them are simply dictated by whatever direction and velocity of force is facilitated at a given area at a given moment.

If we break physics down to the level of force, we cant go wrong, and in fact if we insist to abide by the abstracts introduced for force the engineering of products becomes far simpler.

My reasoning has me convinced our Universe has been compressed at one time, How this happened I don't have a clue, but what is important to note is our Universe is with a set amount of Energy and or Mass as a result of it..

If "E" equalled all of our Universes energy and "M" equalled All the Mass occupying "C" Cubed of an Area it would be a cinch! But only because we need to know - at least two of the mentioned Variables.

Attraction to me is not a force..

But is rather perceived as force..

This is how I see attraction is facilitated..

let "|" equal a portion of a Particles outer surface..
let ">" equal an exertion to the right.
let "<" equal an exertion to the left.

let "-" equal an unknown velocity defined by given direction of exertion
let "--" equals a greater velocity to our unknown speed above.

Let "o" imply impact or compression expression. as per where for every exertion we must have an equal or greater exertion.

To facilitate attraction we must have the following rules..

<--0--> |-> Note the two velocities depicted via "--" & "-", so
therefore considering relativity out of the equation we would
express the above as <-0-> |


<-| <--o--> Likewise note the velocities,
so therefore considering relativity out of the equation we would express it this way | <-o->

<-o-> <-o-> Here we have two Particles that are separated with some what of a distance.

My reasoning has these two Particles, perceived as attracting each other when the facts are if we consider these particles are really surrounded by more particles much the same as them, and in reality all Particles would decompress expending some of their potential and or stored energy to facilitate our perception attraction has taken place when really they would have been forced together by the whole area..

This post has been edited by Laidback on Nov 26 2006, 10:38 PM

Hi, Lb, NF, others,

Maybe you will find some nuggets of information dealing with some of the question and concepts you might have in which you can make some comparison.

With your approach to this problem has anyone considered, "spontaneous symmetry breaking".

You will find this last, on the site below.

http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Content/C...Physics-en.html

Best, to all hope it gives you some tools to work without mathematics which I have come to realize is undesirable, because of the complexity and abstract perspective that is viewed as esoteric.

This is not my wish, I truly hope we all learn much in the next few years.

ciao_
yquantum

Zephir, some your posts are very interesting, but some suggest that you completely do not understand the physics. As I wrote in some preview post each your condensation on lower and lower level of the Nature must be connected with new type of interaction! We know that the number of possible types of interactions is finite. It means that there is the beginning of your number of possible condensations. It means that my eterions (not etherons) were not created in some condensation. My eterions have not the internal structure - you probably know that objects created by condensation have the internal structure.

The primordial substance without internal structure, i.e. the mass, is eternal. I explained it above and in my prior posts. You completely do not understand THAT THERE MUST BE DESCRIBED MECHANISM OF THE MASS------WEIGHT TRANSITION. Your theory does not describe this mechanism. My theory describes: It is curvature of the eterion space (i.e. the Newtonian space connected with the almost absolute time) caused by the vortices with internal helicity built also of the eterions, i.e. the eterion space is curved by the higgson space because of the SIMPLEST INTERACTION, i.e. because of the DYNAMIC VISCOSITY.
Your words "The gravity is just the manifestation of matter density distribution in more general Universe" explain nothing! Can you see it?!

It is very nice question.
If my answer would be as follows: It results from the beautiful quantum mechanic; then you have right to say that it is not explanation because the QM only suggests that state of electron must be described by wave function but does not explain why. Why? It is because answer to this question is connected with the internal structure of electron and with the internal structure of the possible spaces in the background of the infinite Universe.

To answer your question we first must understand why the electric charge of electron is equal to the electric charge of antiproton. Within the QCD it is impossible. It was very long time I had understood this problem. The structure and behavior of the electron and antiproton I described in my prior posts then only in shortening:
-the torus of electron and antiproton is built of the neutrinos from the neutrino space which is connected with the corrections of the Einstein's gravity,
-the torus of antiproton is stable because of the Bernoulli's theorem and the exchanges of the neutrinos the torus is built of,
-the torus of electron is not stable and is created because of the polarization of the neutrino space.
The detailed calculations lead to conclusion that the radius of the torus of electron is about 554.3 times greater than the torus of antiproton but is built of the same number of neutrinos as the torus of antiproton. The neutrinos which build the toruses are placed the same as the fermions vortices on the Ketterle surface. Because the neutrinos behave as the vortices with the internal helicity they create the eterion streams. These streams I identify as the electric lines of forces. From the same number of neutrinos which build the toruses of electron and antiproton results that the density of the electric lines created by the electron and antiproton are the same. It means that the electric charges of electron and antiproton have the same value. The conservation law of electric charges (also of the weak charges and spins) is in my theory connected with the unchanging structure of the toruses.
The exchanges of neutrinos the torus is built of cause that there are turns of these exchanged neutrinos in places the electric lines are crossing. It is inside the torus and in centre of torus. Such turns create the rotational energy which additionally curves the eterion space. It means that there are created two additional masses. In the electron the mass created inside torus it is the half of the mass of bare electron because the torus of the electron is sunk into the neutrino background. It leads to the magneto-mechanical anomaly. Outside of the torus of electron are created the virtual electron-positron pairs which lead to the radiation mass of electron.

Now answer to your question.
From above model results that the torus of electron is unstable because the electric charge of this it is only polarization of the neutrino space. The polarization leads to conclusion that the energy density in electron is similar to the energy density in the neutrino background. Because there is obligatory the conservation law of the electric charge, and because of the unstable torus, and because of the existence of the eterion space which causes that particles can quickly communicate, then electron disappears in one place and simultaneously appears in other place of the neutrino space, and so on. Because the instability of the neutrino torus of the electron is connected with the speed of neutrinos in the neutrino space we may assume that electron lives in one place the Planck time, i.e. about 10^-43 s. It means that electron within one second appears and disappears the 10^43 times! It is obvious that such behavior of electron leads to the wave function in the QM!!!!!!!!!

Hi yquantum, Lb, NF, others,
I hope it's OK if I have yet another go at the Higgs. All .. please bear in mind I haven't got it .. I'm struggling too.
Following yquantums lead.. (please advise of errors .. I am sure there will be many.)
"spontaneous symmetry breaking"
The simplest explanation of it that I've heard involves a pencil placed vertically on its point. The standing up pencil has a potential energy ( mgh ) and when it falls over it has a lower potential energy ( the mass is not so high above the table).
The step taken by Higgs (and others) seems to be the assumption of the existence of a field .. now called the Higgs field. Assuming our particles like to lie down in the Higgs field we get some sort of a pimple or dimple in the Higgs field .. it could be either .. I don't care at the moment. Somehow I feel 'symmetry breaking' ought to have come in already but I can't see it at the moment, maybe later. Assuming we have a perfectly symmetrical pimple in the Higgs Field .. no harm done to anything so far. If we try to accelerate our particle (and the pimple in the Higgs field) then relativity (we might have to come back to that) suggests the situation in the Higgs field is no longer symmetrical. I wouldn't have called that 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' because we had to work so hard to make it happen (like we applied a force and I waved my hands about rather too much).
I don't know. Comments invited.
Best wishes,
-C2.

Spontaneous broken symmetry it is in the real physics science fiction introduced by mathematicians, not physicists which have intuition in physics. There exists only broken symmetry caused by the real spontaneous phenomena. For example the A. Sakharov baryon-antibaryon broken symmetry is not real because it cannot explain where is the tremendous energy from the about billion baryon-antibaryon annihilations for each additional baryon!

There is very simple explanation of the broken symmetries in my theory.
The resulting internal helicity of the fundamental space connected with the gravitational field for the whole infinite Universe is equal to zero. It means that particles may be created only as a particle-antiparticle pair, each creation of a vortex is connected with creation of the anti-vortex. From my theory results that all particles (but for the eterions and higgsons) are built of particles having the internal helicity.
From it results also that we cannot destroy the torus of baryon if we simultaneously do not destroy the anti-torus of another baryon. It leads to conclusion that for example in the high energetic collisions of heavy ions must appear liquid, not gas.
It means that simultaneously with the Big Bang of baryons, in another place of the infinite Universe there was the Anti Big Bang of antibaryons. From my theory we can calculate that the average distance between the big bangs is equal to about 1,000 billion light-years.

Why there is the broken symmetry for the decays of the B-mesons?
As I wrote in some prior post, our young Universe was created analogically as the neutrino-photon loop in a baryon but the neutrinos we must replace by the biggest neutron stars. The young anti-Universe was built of the biggest antineutron stars and is placed in distance about 1,000 billion light-years. So the matter-antimatter separation was already before the Big Bang. The biggest neutron stars intensively evaporated - I described the mechanism in some prior post and this mechanism leads to the composition of the jets discovered in this year. The cause of the intensive evaporation is connected with the beta decays of neutrons. In such decays appear the antielectron-neutrinos. It means that the neutrino background in our Universe contains more the antielectron-neutrinos than the electron-neutrinos. It means that possibility of the B-meson decay is greater when there appears the electron-neutrino, i.e. when there appears the positive pion. It means that the life-time of the positive charged B-meson should be shorter than for the negative charged B-meson. And it is. See "Getting a Grip on Antimatter" by Michael Schirber posted 31 August 2004 in Science. They found 919 examples of the positive charged B-mesons decaying but only 696 negative charged B-mesons decaying.

Within my theory we may describe the mechanism of everyone broken symmetry in normal way.
I say once more that THE MATHEMATICAL 'EXPLANATION' OF THE BROKEN SYMMETRIES IT IS SCIENCE FICTION.

I'd not say that was true. It was introduced by physicists who are just extremely good at maths.

Why is it so many people think "Good at maths = crap at physics" ? That's rubbish. You'll find the VAST majority of people who are good at physics are also good at maths

Greetings & Happy Holidays for some,

AlphaNumeric, thanks for the support and I do understand the consternation that mathematics brings to the table for them.

Sylwester Kornowski, I want you to know that this approach can give the impression of being somewhat esoteric, but this is not my intentions I will be more sensitive of this fact in the future.

My wish is to treat all as equals on many levels of perspectives. Please remember no one is better because of position or level in learning, we just might have something to offer to help you reach your goal. Please remember just because it is mainline physics, much has been accomplished because of the many discipline's that have given many years in research with results.

We all use the tool of math in our lives daily to facilitate a better understanding of the task at hand. If you believe your concepts can be tested that will give a deeper appreciation of worth, merit with experiments, then I believe all should be sensitive to this premise/concept that might be introduced to us.

Sylwester Kornowski and others on this post, please help us do this, so that we can see in a much clearer way.

C2, I hope to be back soon, lost a dear friend who was very young & had achieved many goals, had an insatiable desire to help others in a better understanding of the world around them. I have never had the mentality that degrees make a person, he had many. But what you do with the knowledge, is what makes the MAN, with this, I give tribute to this person, that is now no longer with us.

Duality, you figured out my identity and thank you for your kind words during this difficult time, also thanks for your impute on the post, be gentle they are searching as well. You can attest to this as you know, this is our goal as well.

Hope to interact from my humble view when possible most likely dunning, TEA Time!

Will be very selective in the tools used in order not to cause confusion. I will try and find some source on the www, that can be understood by all.

We all what to find a theory/concept/explanation on terms that as Duality as mentioned, "... that a child can understand the concept." & that will help all have a better understanding of world in which we live.

Carpe Diem,
yquantum

Dodge the typos and grammar as you well know this posted during a quick break.

This post has been edited by yquantum on Nov 27 2006, 07:06 PM

Sylwester Kornowski, C2, Laidback, hope this will lay some ground work to have a footing into the process, the rest should have already had some exposure in this field, which goes without mention,

Hope this helps somewhat?

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

http://committees2.web.cern.ch/Committees2...wgreport213.pdf

http://susy06.physics.uci.edu/program.html#naturalness

http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0611/0611066.pdf

I cannot do without some mathematical disciplines, but the first site will give a view that will be insightful is my wish, please do not think searching for the Higgs boson is the only expectation on the agenda.

Much is to be learned is the goal in the months ahead dealing with many theories presented by some of the brightest minds in the world & there specialize fields.

Carpe Diem,
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Nov 27 2006, 08:54 PM

Generally, VERY good mathematician is not VERY good physicists and vice versa (see history of the Einstein's SR). Of course there were few exceptions. Why I wrote such controversial conclusion?
In my opinion the mainstream theories of structures which appear since 1948 are based on wrong assumptions, they simply are based on impossible phenomena which physicists who have intuition in physics classify as the pure science fiction. It is obvious that all these very complicated mathematically theories based on the perturbation theory with renormalization, the superstring theory, and the inflationary models were created by VERY good mathematicians. But these VERY good mathematicians do not understand that the Nature on the more and more elementary levels must be simpler, i.e. for example the mathematical description of the structure of baryons must be simpler than the QM, that the mathematical description of the structure of neutrinos must be simpler than the description of baryons, that the description of the mass----weight transition must be simpler than the description of the neutrino. Why? The QM leads to the energy about 10^120 times greater than observed. It means that on the lower levels of the Nature there must be greater order because the mass density inside more fundamental particles is higher. For example description of structure of a neutron star is simpler than description of a much less dense star. Generally, the mathematical description of denser object is simpler than for less dense one. It is obvious (it is absolute truth) for physicists which has intuition in physics, but not for VERY good mathematicians.

Only not good physicists can frame the quark theory because for physicist who has intuition in physics the fractional electric charges of quarks do not lead to the equality of the electric charges of electron and antiproton. There is also another question: Why the e/3 and 2e/3? In my opinion the quarks they are the science fiction.
Only not good physicists can claim that the real superstring can vibrate in different way in the opposite directions. It is obvious nonsense. It is childish game for good physicists.
Only not good physicists can claim that the mass of our Universe was created in the period of inflation when the mechanism of mass-----weight transition is not solved. It leads to the problem with the quadrupole. It leads to the problem with the densest objects which appeared in our Universe before the less dense objects.
Also the supergravity it is science fiction - no one particle predicted by this theory is discovered.
All these theories have big problems with explanation of the fundamental mechanisms listed in my some prior post.

Can you see that the Nature is not mathematically complicated? Can you see that the mathematically very complicated theories are physically not possible? Can you see that the VERY good mathematicians should leave the physics at peace? Why such childish theories in the physical meaning (not in the mathematical meaning) are tolerated in physics. In my opinion it is paranoia. When the discredit will end in physics? It is very great stupidity to support this science fiction.

Unfortunately, each the particle can be result of the very same mechanism, which is responsible for supercritical vapor condensation. At this moment I've no reason to suppose, each the particle is product of condensation of some more general environment. It has no sense to speculate, the Universe is formed by time, curved space or eterions. I can just see the very same mechanism here and all such claims are virtually equivalent.



Density fluctuations needn't to have some particular structure, albeit I can suppose, they'll be formed by 1D strings, preferably.

Frankly, the dynamic viscosity has nothing to do with the curvature of space, face it. The curvature of space in Aether foam is good explanation of gravity, unfortunately it requires, such foam must be inertial, to be working. By such way, the explanation of gravity is just a recursive, by the same way, like the explanation of time, space, and so on..

This post has been edited by Zephir on Nov 27 2006, 09:44 PM

The GUT theories SU(5), etc, that AlphaNumeric studies help explain why the electric charges MUST be +2/3, 0, -1/3 and -1.

The Quark model was a very simple model originally, because the proton and neutron appear to have internal structure, consisting of experimentally determined scattering centers called partons and the experimentally discovered SU(2) symmetry of isospin. Gell-mann and Ne'eman in 1961 published the Eightfold-way which showed that strangeness was related to isospin in both hadrons and mesons. Modern theoretical physics explains the quark model as a prediction of the math of Quantum Chromodynamics.

http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/quarkmodrpp.pdf
http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/qcdrpp.pdf
Edit:
In AlphaNumeric's absence, I add: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2006/reviews/gutsrpp.pdf

This post has been edited by rpenner on Nov 27 2006, 09:47 PM

The quarks are both real, both they're not. We can imagine the quarks as the helicity modes of Aether foam undulation. When you connect all these modes together, you'll obtain the repetitive shape of undulations at the surface of hadrons droplets.



The knot model of proton and neutron by AWT. It's apparent, the quarks aren't real particles, but their symmetry is. You can imagine the role of quarks in particle interactions as the pyramidal symmetry in the retro-reflectors of taillights. This gives the impression, the particle is formed by three reflecting planes at the distance, although it is formed by number of such repetitive planes.

The very same impression comes into vortex behavior of particles: the particle looks like single vortex, although they're being formed by the colony of tiny vortices near the Aether foam bubble membranes. It should be pointed out, the particle symmetry behavior (spin, isospin, charge) is given just by vortices at the particle surface (by so called valence quarks), the internal vortices are just giving the particle inertia, but not the symmetry of interactions.

The particle individuality is given by surface topology due the predominant energy density here.

This post has been edited by Zephir on Nov 27 2006, 10:24 PM

If by 'a few exceptions' you mean just about every relativity and theoretical physics department in every university on the planet, then perhaps you're vaguely right.

Plenty of pure mathematicians lack physical intuition but that doesn't stop plenty of physicists having excellent mathematical skills. I would bet a great deal that any theoretical physicist in a decent uni would be a very good mathematician. Not on the level of their counterparts in the maths department (though some are!) but certainly the next best mathematicians.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be labouring under the false logic that because current physics doesn't have all the answers it's useless. The computer infront of you proves otherwise.

Hi, Sylwester Kornowski, Duality, C2, Good Elf, Thor, LL, NF, AlphaNumeric, rpenner [well put], Laidback, and so many more that read this post,

It causes me concern that those who would say, 'plenty of pure mathematicians lack physical intuition'.

I could not find the time or space on this post to identify all that are experts in both fields because of there success and have made great gains in the field of QM, QED, SR, GR, and many other fields of science.

To be candid and open to all, I will share this common question given by PM's.

Many have asked this question about the Higgs boson, do you really think it will be found?

I wanted to be very open to constructive criticism, and still give a example showing that I do understand you concerns. So I will approach it this way.

What about string theory compared to the Higgs boson?

I have spent part of my life in the research dealing with strings, but I do not have any claim or declaration on such a question, so I will excuse myself by using someone that is more knowledgeable than me dealing with this inquiry.

“Gerald ‘t Hooft, he won the Nobel Prize for his work in elementary-particle physics. [You can Google the résumé is you wish on Dr. Hooft.]

Quote by G. Hooft:

My point is this, when it comes to the Higgs boson, in finding the Higgs there is a way in which to run experimentations’ with a means to support the test by prediction with the energy needed. The down side is it might not be found, but it is expected.

No matter [pun] of the end results, much will be learned and this is a very positive outlook in the years ahead. As far as my personal view CERN/LHC will make many discoveries’ that will benefit mankind.

This is how a new concept or conjecturer should be developed in order to have the physics community test and see if it is confirmable. That is the name of the game here, is it not? To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify.
This should be a model of approach for us all on this site.

Maybe this forum is not in the upper levels of discussion with professionals in some facility in the world -- and please do not take this a an insult, -- but that does not hinder anyone from developing a theory while you are working as a, patent clerk. Eh!

Carpe Diem,
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Nov 27 2006, 10:16 PM