Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Sparky » Thu May 01, 2014 7:41 am

What property of a particle allows it to acquire mass from the "Field"? :?

I think this should be the first question about the Higgs Field, but has yet to be answered on utube or here at TB. :?

My simple understanding is that a particle acquiring mass, continuing in the Mass producing Field, would continue to acquire mass. :shock:

Wouldn't that create problems? ;)
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Solar » Thu May 01, 2014 6:34 pm

Interesting synchronicity: I litterally just started reading "Electricity and Matter" by J.J. Thompson of the "electron" fame. If you click on the little 'cog wheel' in the upper right of that page you can download the book for free in .pdf format.

On page 20,"Motion of a Charged Sphere", and before the particle madness of the supposed Higgs ensued J.J. Thompson explains that:

"...part of the mass of a charged sphere is due to its charge". I shall later on have to bring before you considerations which show that it is not impossible that the whole mass of a body may arise in the way."

The book appears to have a typo in it and I think it should say 'in this way' at the end there. He also touches on how motion through a medium, in this case a frictionless fluid, will:

"... set the fluid around it moving with a velocity proportional to its own, so that to move the sphere we have not merely to move the substance of eh sphere itself, but also the liquid around it; the consequence of this is, that the sphere behaves as if its mass were increased by that of a certain volume of liquid."

I've only gotten to page 25 but thought I'd share that as it is relevant and it appears there may be more later on in the book. So, I think, when one hears the concept of 'mass being variable' as a result of "electric charge" it appears that at least some of notion has come from Thompson in some respects.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by tayga » Fri May 02, 2014 3:52 am

Solar wrote:[J J] Thompson explains that:

"...part of the mass of a charged sphere is due to its charge". I shall later on have to bring before you considerations which show that it is not impossible that the whole mass of a body may arise in th[is] way."
Sansbury and Thornhill certainly think so. It seems eminently sensible that charge is the fundamental property not mass. In fact, I think that every real particle carries charge whereas those that do not (bosons, including the photon, and all neutrinos) will eventually be shown to be fictions.

By the way, can anybody explain how a field can exist independent of matter? Isn't the field concept just a fudge to fill in the void [sic] left by denying the existence of the aether?
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Sparky » Fri May 02, 2014 7:22 am

Isn't the field concept just a fudge to fill in the void [sic] left by denying the existence of the aether?
I see fields as distortions of the aether. example: the alignment of charges in a bar magnet align the aether also, and this is carried outward into the "field". The field is aether in organized motion, and acts as a force. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by tayga » Fri May 02, 2014 7:30 am

Sparky wrote:I see fields as distortions of the aether. example: the alignment of charges in a bar magnet align the aether also, and this is carried outward into the "field". The field is aether in organized motion, and acts as a force. :?
I agree in principle Sparky. Aether is non-ponderable matter and can have physical properties which cannot be associated with the void that is purported to exist between pieces of ponderable matter. I like Lebau's idea of aether as a superfluid that can convey forces and support waves.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Solar » Fri May 02, 2014 9:23 pm

tayga wrote:
Sparky wrote:I see fields as distortions of the aether. example: the alignment of charges in a bar magnet align the aether also, and this is carried outward into the "field". The field is aether in organized motion, and acts as a force. :?
I agree in principle Sparky. Aether is non-ponderable matter and can have physical properties which cannot be associated with the void that is purported to exist between pieces of ponderable matter. I like Lebau's idea of aether as a superfluid that can convey forces and support waves.
Those concepts above work together along with J J Thomson's charged sphere moving through a frictionless fluid example:
"... set the fluid around it moving with a velocity proportional to its own, so that to move the sphere we have not merely to move the substance of eh sphere itself, but also the liquid around it; the consequence of this is, that the sphere behaves as if its mass were increased by that of a certain volume of liquid."
Such that, given for example a superfluid condition, the bar magnetic would present the ‘localization’ of the superfluid condition relative to the whole but now associated to a material object; the bar magnet itself. When the Aether (in this case a superfluid analog) is associated to a material object (in this case the bar magnet) it is referred to as “fields”; relative to that object.

The analogy is then that the (universal) superfluid condition becomes ‘localized’ as “fields” when bound to matter whether as electric, magnetic, and/or gravitational. Each of these present differentiations in motion and phase of that superfluid condition. The nature of an object of matter itself, a “particle” for example, would present different ‘geometric re-configurations’ and resulting ‘phase-states’ of that that original superfluid condition. Like a rainbow reveals different frequencies of Light; so do "fields" reveal different 'modes' of the Aether Continuum with matter serving as 'prism'.

So, one has an overall Primal Dynamic Phase in Motion (a superfluid analog to the Aether in this example) undergoing several phase-transitions which then present several localized qualities (“fields”), as It Moves and subsequently impels or imparts motion; which is then perceived as “Force”.

In relation to this analog what is “charge”? It would be the resulting “momentum”, the quality of motion, linear or curvilinear, imparted to the object as it ‘absorbs’ and ‘geometrically re-configures’ the prodigious Motion inherent in the larger analogous Aether superfluid; of which the object is an integrated part.

The Motions of the Aether differentiating in those ways is what Tesla recognized when saying:
“Long ago... [mankind] recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space… The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.”
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by tayga » Sat May 03, 2014 1:07 am

Solar wrote:The Motions of the Aether differentiating in those ways is what Tesla recognized when saying:
“Long ago... [mankind] recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space… The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.”
My understanding of this is that the whirls (vortices) are perceived as charge and spin which, in my view, both characterise all ponderable matter. It is the distribution of the charge (size of the vortex) in the compressible medium which is perceived as mass. In my model there are only two stable sizes of vortex: one the electron and positron, the other the proton and antiproton. (I imagine that the 3-D spin comprises several components which could be sense or antisense with respect to each other. It might follow that the configurations with matched sense components are more stable than the non-matching configurations. This could account for the predominance of matter over antimatter).

Since the sustaining medium is a frictionless superfluid, I had thought of these vortices as being essentially permanent but it is interesting to note that Tesla describes them as transient. In a fluid system, this does make more sense but I wonder what the time scale is.

Regarding the Thompson book, thank you for the link, Solar. I've found that is also available in several e-reader formats here.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Solar » Sat May 03, 2014 9:04 am

tayga wrote: My understanding of this is that the whirls (vortices) are perceived as charge and spin which, in my view, both characterise all ponderable matter. It is the distribution of the charge (size of the vortex) in the compressible medium which is perceived as mass. In my model there are only two stable sizes of vortex: one the electron and positron, the other the proton and antiproton. (I imagine that the 3-D spin comprises several components which could be sense or antisense with respect to each other. It might follow that the configurations with matched sense components are more stable than the non-matching configurations. This could account for the predominance of matter over antimatter).

Since the sustaining medium is a frictionless superfluid, I had thought of these vortices as being essentially permanent but it is interesting to note that Tesla describes them as transient. In a fluid system, this does make more sense but I wonder what the time scale is.
That is useful and methinks perhaps Nature may have spoken to it: In his presentation "Earth’s Electric Environment" Dr. Michael Clarage showcased an interesting aspect regarding the Van Allen Belts. At about 6:00min the discovery that additional "shells" simply appearing and disappearing with increases and decreases in solar activity as seen with the satellites. Were this event to occur within the confines of a particle accelerator would it not mistakenly be interpreted as an "increase in mass" when what really happened was that the electrodynamic environment facillitated an increase in the volume (size) of 'charge distribution'? During such times the "mass" of the Earth proper *may* have had a small fluxuation but it would have been tiny compared to the additional "shells" (several thousands of "double layers" appeared) of distributed potential.
Huge numbers of double layers carrying electric fields parallel to the local magnetic field line have been observed on the Van Allen probes in connection with in situ relativistic electron acceleration in the Earth’s outer radiation belt. For one case with adequate high time resolution data, 7000 double layers were observed in an interval of 1 min to produce a 230 000 V net parallel potential drop crossing the spacecraft. Lower resolution data show that this event lasted for 6 min and that more than 1 000 000 volts of net parallel potential crossed the spacecraft during this time. -
Megavolt Parallel Potentials Arising from Double-Layer Streams in the Earth’s Outer Radiation Belt:
F. S. Mozer, S. D. Bale, J. W. Bonnell, C. C. Chaston, I. Roth, and J. Wygant
Quite nice Tayga. In the above perhaps also revealed are the interrelations, or interconversion of "fields" and "particles". More on "spin" and the superfluid analog later.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by tayga » Sat May 03, 2014 11:37 am

Solar wrote:Dr. Michael Clarage showcased an interesting aspect regarding the Van Allen Belts. At about 6:00min the discovery that additional "shells" simply appearing and disappearing with increases and decreases in solar activity as seen with the satellites. Were this event to occur within the confines of a particle accelerator would it not mistakenly be interpreted as an "increase in mass" when what really happened was that the electrodynamic environment facillitated an increase in the volume (size) of 'charge distribution'? During such times the "mass" of the Earth proper *may* have had a small fluxuation but it would have been tiny compared to the additional "shells" (several thousands of "double layers" appeared) of distributed potential.
Good point. I hadn't made the connection with Michael Clarage's lecture. I have often thought that this might be the true mechanism behind the apparent extended family of baryons and the three generations of leptons. I have actually worked with muons and always found it absurd that the theoretical mechanism of muon decay started with a muon, involved a theoretical intermediate particle (W boson) and produced an undetected neutrino pair and an electron or positron, depending on the charge on the muon. The mechanism is proposed due to theoretical constraints whereas in practice only the resulting electron or positron is observed. As you, suggest, it is far more likely that energy added to the system of a true baryon (proton) or lepton (electron) would produce a higher harmonic of the 'particle' system or produce additional harmonics which express greater mass. This would be why successively higher energy particle accelerators have produced more and more massive exotic particles.
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Sparky » Tue May 06, 2014 12:21 pm

I'm not sure what a superfluid is...Would a superfluid exhibit friction against itself?

If so, what would prevent the the superfluid from dragging other fluid with it? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
tayga
Posts: 668
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:54 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by tayga » Tue May 06, 2014 12:48 pm

Sparky wrote:I'm not sure what a superfluid is...Would a superfluid exhibit friction against itself?

If so, what would prevent the the superfluid from dragging other fluid with it? :?
As far as I understand it, a superfluid does not experience friction at all. A superfluid is characterized by zero viscosity and the absence of viscosity is attributed to an absence of friction within the fluid.

Presumably, though, for superfluid aether theory to account for physical reality, friction must be an emergent property related to the dynamics of the superfluid. I'll let you know when I do :?
tayga


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

- Richard P. Feynman

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.
- Thomas Kuhn

Zendo
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Zendo » Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:04 am

Sparky wrote:What property of a particle allows it to acquire mass from the "Field"? :?

I think this should be the first question about the Higgs Field, but has yet to be answered on utube or here at TB. :?

My simple understanding is that a particle acquiring mass, continuing in the Mass producing Field, would continue to acquire mass. :shock:

Wouldn't that create problems? ;)
For standard model physicists this is a question of what "intrinsic" properties a certain particle has (mass, spin, charge). A quanta's intrinsic property is just there, god given (tounge in cheek), unexplained, just how the universe is configured.

A quanta of a fermion in the Higgs field has a mass because the Higgs field has a non-zero average value and it's scalar is spin-0 (no prefered direction unlike the electric field which has spin-1) across the whole universe. So the explanation is basically that a Fermionic field has mass because of how it interacts with a bosonic field with a non-zero average value (unlike the other bosonic fields) and it has a spin value of 0. (All this is predicted in the maths etc.)

Now this lead us down the path of a different question: Where does the Higgs boson mass come from if it self is the reason for the intrinsic mass of other particles?

CERN physicist Proffessor Matt Strassler:
"For now, suffice it to say that the mass of the Higgs particle does not have a single, simple, understood source, and the curious feature is that its mass is so small — this is one aspect of the enormous puzzle called the hierarchy problem."
The fact that it does not acquire mass continuously from the field is apparently because the particles reference frame compared to that of the Higgs field is stationary (think relativity).


The thing is that particle physicists really have answers for all of these questions, but the answers leads down the path of increasing complexity (more free parameters), more questions and puzzles.

Understanding their model in no way validates it in my eyes by the way. As long as they can't explain the connection of their mathemagics to macroscopic and cosmological observations I don't see their value.

edit: some corrections

User avatar
Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Solar » Sun Jun 15, 2014 7:35 am

tayga wrote: As far as I understand it, a superfluid does not experience friction at all. A superfluid is characterized by zero viscosity and the absence of viscosity is attributed to an absence of friction within the fluid.

Presumably, though, for superfluid aether theory to account for physical reality, friction must be an emergent property related to the dynamics of the superfluid. I'll let you know when I do :?
What then might be said of the inability to reach Absolute Zero?

For all intents and purposes there should be nothing survived at the billionths of a degree temperatures so far had yet, it appears that, 'something' would need to still be in Motion inducing a type of 'heat'. Might there then be a 'conversion' occurring inducing 'heat' into the atoms and molecules of the probe itself? Look at the rationale there: The atoms of the probe 'tip' are survived; what are they interacting with? Or, might it be the case that owing to the atomic bonds of the atoms of the probe itself there is heat that simply cannot be eliminated? Further, the movement of protons, electrons, neutrons, quarks and the rest of the still burgeoning and never ending particle zoo would seem to refute any attempts to reach this goal.

What is your take on what might be occurring with that?
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Sparky » Sun Jun 15, 2014 11:41 am

Zendo wrote:
Sparky wrote:What property of a particle allows it to acquire mass from the "Field"? :?

I think this should be the first question about the Higgs Field, but has yet to be answered on utube or here at TB. :?

My simple understanding is that a particle acquiring mass, continuing in the Mass producing Field, would continue to acquire mass. :shock:

Wouldn't that create problems? ;)
For standard model physicists this is a question of what "intrinsic" properties a certain particle has (mass, spin, charge). A quanta's intrinsic property is just there, god given (tounge in cheek), unexplained, just how the universe is configured.

A quanta of a fermion in the Higgs field has a mass because the Higgs field has a non-zero average value and it's scalar is spin-0 (no prefered direction unlike the electric field which has spin-1) across the whole universe. So the explanation is basically that a Fermionic field has mass because of how it interacts with a bosonic field with a non-zero average value (unlike the other bosonic fields) and it has a spin value of 0. (All this is predicted in the maths etc.)

Now this lead us down the path of a different question: Where does the Higgs boson mass come from if it self is the reason for the intrinsic mass of other particles?

CERN physicist Proffessor Matt Strassler:
"For now, suffice it to say that the mass of the Higgs particle does not have a single, simple, understood source, and the curious feature is that its mass is so small — this is one aspect of the enormous puzzle called the hierarchy problem."
The fact that it does not acquire mass continuously from the field is apparently because the particles reference frame compared to that of the Higgs field is stationary (think relativity).


The thing is that particle physicists really have answers for all of these questions, but the answers leads down the path of increasing complexity (more free parameters), more questions and puzzles.

Understanding their model in no way validates it in my eyes by the way. As long as they can't explain the connection of their mathemagics to macroscopic and cosmological observations I don't see their value.
:?

Thanks, but this makes no sense to me. Example: What was the particle's reference frame when the particle acquired mass? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

Zendo
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:57 pm

Re: Amassing Mass via Higgs interactions

Unread post by Zendo » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:13 am

Sparky wrote:
Zendo wrote:
Sparky wrote:What property of a particle allows it to acquire mass from the "Field"? :?

I think this should be the first question about the Higgs Field, but has yet to be answered on utube or here at TB. :?

My simple understanding is that a particle acquiring mass, continuing in the Mass producing Field, would continue to acquire mass. :shock:

Wouldn't that create problems? ;)
For standard model physicists this is a question of what "intrinsic" properties a certain particle has (mass, spin, charge). A quanta's intrinsic property is just there, god given (tounge in cheek), unexplained, just how the universe is configured.

A quanta of a fermion in the Higgs field has a mass because the Higgs field has a non-zero average value and it's scalar is spin-0 (no prefered direction unlike the electric field which has spin-1) across the whole universe. So the explanation is basically that a Fermionic field has mass because of how it interacts with a bosonic field with a non-zero average value (unlike the other bosonic fields) and it has a spin value of 0. (All this is predicted in the maths etc.)

Now this lead us down the path of a different question: Where does the Higgs boson mass come from if it self is the reason for the intrinsic mass of other particles?

CERN physicist Proffessor Matt Strassler:
"For now, suffice it to say that the mass of the Higgs particle does not have a single, simple, understood source, and the curious feature is that its mass is so small — this is one aspect of the enormous puzzle called the hierarchy problem."
The fact that it does not acquire mass continuously from the field is apparently because the particles reference frame compared to that of the Higgs field is stationary (think relativity).


The thing is that particle physicists really have answers for all of these questions, but the answers leads down the path of increasing complexity (more free parameters), more questions and puzzles.

Understanding their model in no way validates it in my eyes by the way. As long as they can't explain the connection of their mathemagics to macroscopic and cosmological observations I don't see their value.
:?

Thanks, but this makes no sense to me. Example: What was the particle's reference frame when the particle acquired mass? :?
It doesen't have to make sense, it's particle physics after all :lol:

Well, joking aside: Look at a particle as an excitation of a particular field, a wave in a field. A particle with mass is basically an excitation in the field of fermions (how they classify a set of particles in the standard model with half integer spin). This excitation is intrinsically interacting with the Higgs field (let's call it HF) because of the fermion particles spin properties and the fact that the HF is non-zero on average across ALL space. A reference frame only makes sense to look at if you have some particle in relation to another frame. So in this case we look at the frame of reference between a fermion and the HF. Since HF is ever-present relativistic field, every particle with mass would be at rest in reference to the HF's inertial frame (simply said the two frames overlap). Just like, not in my words mind you, a Photon in the electromagnetic field is at always at "rest" in respect to any inertial frame in space (this is how the photon get's away with having no mass, whole integer spin and at rest in respect to all other fields). Basically... Aliens. *Ergh.* I mean Relativity.

It's as unintuitive as it get's and I real problems with wrapping my head around it, but that's how it is explained.

Going on a little tangent here, but to me this looks strange because natures properties looks so analog and wavelike. Quantization I believe is over-complicating our current picture with unnecessary discreteness when instead, intuitively, nature looks more fluid and dynamic (grand scale flows seamlessly into microscopic scales etc.). The patterns we see arises from a much "simpler" set of principles. Perhaps a set of principles where mass and gravity is just a manifestation of electric and magnetic forces on moving charges.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests