What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?

G

Gary A

Registered Senior Member
What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?​

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no? In some way or another, this is true. If we were all in the business of writing texts, we would be paid. OR, we would pay journals to publish our junk if we wanted to propound fully qualified articles or developed papers. I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists’ descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations just to make a point. There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledge to be for real and is being ignored...

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model.

Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint. The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, if they are already merged as best they can be?

This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the same reality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is a fantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud

Much less mass, there is no implicit account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand ...
 
Other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons

B)

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

Suddenly, it decays. It decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else").

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle. The daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson" distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. It would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way. Perhaps this process would result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solutions to the simultaneous nonlinear differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored.

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are.
 
Last edited:
@Gary A
Very interesting but unfortunately I haven't got the same background knowledge to continue, but I will follow this thread with interest.
 
Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics?

Gary A said:
B)

... F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are...
Click to expand...


C)

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where? WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic 1/kr black-hole gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. This is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create the Myth. Let us endeavor not to do so ourselves.
 
. . . . acc/to some 'alternative hypotheses' . . . . the Higgs "mass" may simply be a twisted-up, symmetric accumulation (M-brane?) of quarks and gluons, that when the Higgs is 'untwisted', releases quarks and gluons that combine to form separate subatomic entities (e.g., virtual particles, VP). If the VP's persist in the "mass" universe, they become a part of our material (observable) universe.
 
wlminex said:
. . . . acc/to some 'alternative hypotheses' . . . . the Higgs "mass" may simply be a twisted-up, symmetric accumulation (M-brane?) of quarks and gluons, that when the Higgs is 'untwisted', releases quarks and gluons that combine to form separate subatomic entities (e.g., virtual particles, VP). If the VP's persist in the "mass" universe, they become a part of our material (observable) universe.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty screwed up theory! Lol:)
 
Gary A

:D I like your attitude. I hope you stick around for awhile. Did you introduce yourself yet? If so I missed it. You seem to be scientifically well educated. But I'm sure I'm not the only one that would like to know what your education is?

I'm one of those that doesn't mind the text books needing to be rewritten whenever we get a little closer to the truth.
 
AlexG said:
If there's no basis for a crackpot idea, wl likes it.
Click to expand...

I agree! . . . ."alternative" = crackpot . . . . true science (truth) is built thusly: . . .considering crackpot ideas . . . evaluating crackpot ideas (or portions thereof) for their merit . . . . incorporating such where appropriate . . . . advancing truth . . . .etc. Science will-out!
 
wlminex said:
. . . . acc/to some 'alternative hypotheses' . . . . the Higgs "mass" may simply be a twisted-up, symmetric accumulation (M-brane?) of quarks and gluons, that when the Higgs is 'untwisted', releases quarks and gluons that combine to form separate subatomic entities (e.g., virtual particles, VP). If the VP's persist in the "mass" universe, they become a part of our material (observable) universe.
Click to expand...
You've just mashes together multiple buzzwords to form a completely random claim. You don't even use the terms properly, such as virtual particles. They are, by definition, not directly observable as they occur inside loop scattering processes. So you actually meant your random suppositions on terms you don't understand, rather than 'alternative hypothesis'. Calling what you posted an 'alternative hypothesis' is dressing mutton as lamb.
 
In my theory the particle that creates mass is called the zero particle. It is a particle that only exists as a scale factor. When it hits something it becomes a virtual particle taking on the form of Gravity for a moment then changing to magnetism a negative mass particle.
 
You too are misusing terminology. If you have to be dishonest by using in a non-standard words which have standard meanings then it undermines everything you say. You shouldn't need to be dishonest if you're actually onto something, you should just present your evidence and methodologies and let people read it. Given how you're unable to present anything which does all the huge claims you make and you're misusing terminology, not to mention making frankly delusional claims, any rational person will just dismiss you as a nut.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
You too are misusing terminology. If you have to be dishonest by using in a non-standard words which have standard meanings then it undermines everything you say. You shouldn't need to be dishonest if you're actually onto something, you should just present your evidence and methodologies and let people read it. Given how you're unable to present anything which does all the huge claims you make and you're misusing terminology, not to mention making frankly delusional claims, any rational person will just dismiss you as a nut.
Click to expand...

That's OK by me, my posts become reality in the future, so I never mind how I look. This will become a link, and you will say that it doesn't count. It's a loop that keeps happening until you wake up. I'm just doing my job of being the only person who posts science ahead of schedule. Of course it always sounds strange 5 years ahead of time.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
You've just mashes together multiple buzzwords to form a completely random claim. You don't even use the terms properly, such as virtual particles. They are, by definition, not directly observable as they occur inside loop scattering processes. So you actually meant your random suppositions on terms you don't understand, rather than 'alternative hypothesis'. Calling what you posted an 'alternative hypothesis' is dressing mutton as lamb.
Click to expand...


You wouldn't recognize a joke if it rose up punched you in the dace, which it did.
 
Gary A said:
You wouldn't recognize a joke if it rose up punched you in the dace, which it did.
Click to expand...

I don't give wlminex the benefit of the doubt. I have seen no reason to think him competent in any area of physics and he is quite happy to assert or pitch ridiculous combinations of concepts, many of which are outside of his understanding. It is Poe's law, if you try to parady batshit crazy people on the internet by being ridiculously over through top you are indistinguishable from actual crazy people.

As for your comment wlminex, there is a difference between an alternative theory and just mashing together words you don't understand. The latter is dishonest pseudoscience.I suggest you look at the posting rules for this forum, where it describes the sort of explanation and justification an alternative theory should provide. Pincho couldn't provide such things so his claims got moved to the pseudo forum. Alternative theories isn't about just rambling nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top