Now we are ready to describe what the Higgs might be and it’s interactions and theoretical foundations.
1- The Higgs is likely a low energy field and likely, as such, accounts for dark matter and dark energy. The latter is low energy and the former has been identified in several Science Daily articles where half the missing matter of the universe actually exists between galaxies in the intergalactic interregnum and observations show no dark matter in our own solar system.
So let’s assume for the time being that this is all true .
2- Next we want to identify the field as a photon field. This jives with the notion that the big bang was likely pure energy and light or photons in the beginning. The Higgs field ends up being the remnant of this energy light field before and after matter has been transitioned into the mix.
3- The next question is what is the nature of these “field photons?”
Mathis says they are real particles with mass and charge. Light is mass and charge in the Mathis view.
4- Others disagree arguing that photons with mass only come later in the process.
I have quoted this view above but here it is again.
“Conversely, material particles or mass bound charges accelerate when an electrical, magnetic, or electrical-cum-magnetic field is applied to them. Aetherometry contends that, in nature, an applied field is composed of mass free electric radiation, the effect of the radiation of mass free charges being the acquisition of their energy by the mass bound charges they encounter (ergo the addition of a kinetic energy term to the energy associated with the rest mass of a material particle), and thus the acceleration of these mass bound charges [http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-16]. In summary, Aetherometry claims that 'radiation' of mass free charges is responsible for the acceleration of mass bound charges, whereas it is the deceleration of the latter which converts the lost kinetic energy into a local generation of blackbody photons."
So first energy, according to this view, is given to mass-bound particles by mass less particles (photons) and their subsequent deceleration gives us blackbody photons?
So we can say photons may come in two flavors-massless photons- and photons with mass in the Mathis view. Which is correct?
Both are possible in my view. Experiments quoted above else where on this site demonstrate photons can be brought into and out of existence and the process can and were controlled in the experiment using lasers.
In Mathis' view these are real particles and gain their energy from bumping into each other in the photon field. The Aethermetric folks claim there is an intermediate step involving massless photons.
But both get to the same point. Photon-proton energy and particles, according to Mathis, invades the nucleus through "holes" and, in Mathis, he gives us detailed descriptions what happens in that process brilliantly, the most surprising of which is that protons with stacked spins invade the nucleus as a form of electromagnetic energy and the nucleus responds with an outward driving force seeking equilibrium in the nexus between the two forces which is described by us as gravity.
As awkward as this idea is I have come to accept that at least it is good as a descriptor and fits observations at both the macro and the micro level.
For example, I adhere to the plasma view of the universe and there are huge magnetic fields in the universe which bear down on objects with mass. Those objects with mass react with alterations in the spin of their electrons and their magnetic fields and may repulse the Plasma fields for several reasons:
Seeking equilibrium they repulse to the point of establishing a new equilibrium with the incoming electromagnetic force. The masses, planets stars and the light also have angular motion and spins of their own, rotation, revolutions etc. and produce a centripetal force as well.
If the electromagnetic force over-powers these mass-based forces “gravity” collapses against that force and we get neutron stars, quasars, magnetars and the like.
Sometimes, over time, the EM force encounters iron in the heart of a star and a huge explosion takes place.
So I accept the idea that gravity is resultant force in perpetual opposition to the EM force, at least for now.
The advantage of seeing things this way is that it matches observations on both the macro and the micro level thereby, potentially,giving us then a theory of everything. Not perhaps THE theory of everything, but one worth pondering.
Now there are also loose ends in all this.
What is time?
I accept the Mathis-Barbour view that time is emergent and has no identity on its own divorced from bodies moving in space. Einstein is not followed here.
What about entanglement.
Mathis denies it outright calling it magical thinking and unfounded.
I am not so sure.
Entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally on the quantum level which Mathis dismisses as a failure to understand rotation and spin and the position of the object.
But experiments with real photons do seem to support entanglement among atoms and the like.
I am going with the belief that entanglement exists because it fits better with the macro level which I will delve into later.
That is the next question-how does entanglement work at the macro level? See my blog on this site on neuron connections in the brain for a clue.
We have an answer I think. But let's hold that for tomorrow.
Now aren't you glad you tolerated all those headaches?
Now tomorrow let’s look critically at these ideas I have proposed and see if they can be disassembled.
We are never satisfied are we?
Today it is clear that much depends upon the nature of the photon, the proton and their respective spins.
(See the Mathis avi anination in the companion blog which demonstrates spin and how a photon can be both wave and particle.)
Mass or no mass and what, if any is the relationship between the two?
Let's see what is currently being said.
Photons and blackbody radiation. What is that relationship? This is where Einstein came in and a new different path was taken which altered the path Physic theory was on, for good or ill.
Let's look this over. Mass or no mass?
Tommorow we finish this discussion and place it again in the context of the model I have proposed here--for want of better phrase, I will cal lt "The Equilibrium Model" and move on to another central question I hear you asking:
Well smarty pants, I hear you say, what does this model have to say to explain the speed of light and why it is constant. Answer me that huh?
I thought you'd never ask.
A few initial words: the temperature of space is a few degrees above absolute zero and superconductivity happens at a few degrees above absolute zero. Could the two phenomenon be related in the situation where photons with mass act as if they are massless?
Can we think here of Einstein-Bose condensates? Maybe. See link
And the proton:
Aspects of the Einstein-Bose idea corrolates well with the idea of superfluids and superconductivity and low Kelvin temperatures. The neutron star apparently exhibits both, superfluidity and superconductivity at temperatures which are not clear, but both conditions can occur apparently at low and high Kevins as well.
Can we surmize that space itself also has some aspects of the above two conditions?
Astronomers tell us that space is mostly hydrogen,helium and ions; no mention is often made of photons. We hear a lot about ions and "cosmic rays." But these are photon-based are the not? So given the fact that visible light is a tiny, tiny fraction of the electro-magnetic spectrum we can legitimately ask what is the nature of the photons involved in the rest of the electro-magnetic spectrum and their spin?
That is a tangled web we weave and is indeed the subject of a longer blog upcoming.
But here, now, it is reasonable that this "field" of various kinds of photons may be the Higgs field under investigation and could be detectable given the right tools.
After all part of the work has been done in that the matter between half of the galaxies has been identified--see the other blog for the citation in Science Daily. Why not focus on gaining more information about that?
So what is the nature of these "field photons" and their spins and their relationships to the macro and the micro levels? Mathis claims that spin determines all of the elelmentary particles and there is only one particle devolving from these "field photons" which give us, via spin mechanisms, the proton and the electron and he denies "virtual" particles exist altogether and many of the other particles in the particle zoo of quarks, wimps and gluons and the like.
These "field photons" have also other important characteristics. They are weakly interacting; does this mean this is another characteristic of the Higgs field we should be aware of? And, full circle, how does a Higgs field with the characteristics we are accumulatiing here, create mass?
We have seen some suggestions above from the Aethermetric folks, and I am not sure what Mathis would say, and will investigate his views for next time, but I would guess he would say that gravity and mass is a product our Higgs field not an intangible "mass-creating" boson.
A final aspect which remains unsettled and needs more inquiry is how any hypothetical photons differ in their variety and how they interact with identifiable process observable in the heavens and in the lab?
Is this all fascinating and exhausting?
Info on electro-magnetism:
Quote from the above article for tomorrow
"A more compact view of EMR is that the far-field that composes EMR is generally that part of the EM field that has traveled sufficient distance from the source, that it has become completely disconnected from any feedback to the charges and currents that were originally responsible for it. Now independent of the source charges, the EM field, as it moves farther away, generates and regenerates itself only as a result of its own changing fields."
This is, in my view a plama field and incidently this is the Tesla view of EM and gravity.
"EM radiation exhibits both wave properties and particle properties at the same time (see wave-particle duality)."
Mathis has an excellent avi on this duality and it is shown in an animation.
(See part one of this blog to see Mathis's view of the nucleus for Argon under 8/2/12 along with the above avi.)
It all sound like Mathis doesn't it and pre-Einstein understanding of EM.
Thanks for the emails and the questions which I will address below but it is clear some of you have inquiries which indicate that the conditions of superconductivity and superfluidity are critical to the Mathis view of the behavior of photons in the intergalaxtic medium.
But first let us dispel the notion that superconductivity only happens at super low kelvins. This turns out not to be true . Secondly it turns out that superconductity can be demonstrated at room temperature in the ordinary car battery and in lead oxides. Room temperature and chemically induced room temperature lead superconductivity. Lead ,used often an insulator, is also capable of being a superconductor at room temperatures.
And it is also possible to produce magnetically induced superconductivity as well.
Magnetic fields can directly produce electricity. This spintronics experiment may have analogs on the marco level. It would certainly give a boost to Mathis' ideas.
"The secret behind this technology is the use of nano-magnets to induce an electromotive force. It uses the same principles as those in a conventional battery, except in a more direct fashion. The energy stored in a battery, be it in an iPod or an electric car, is in the form of chemical energy. When something is turned "on" there is a chemical reaction which occurs and produces an electric current. The new technology converts the magnetic energy directly into electrical energy, without a chemical reaction. The electrical current made in this process is called a spin polarized current and finds use in a new technology called "spintronics."
This is both good news and bad news if you realize that the lead ions at CERN can become superconductive and affect the magnetic field of the earth itself. I know some are weary of my fear here. But fear is fear.
Somebody please issue something which can dispel that fear about CERN.
The next question is one about the charge of particles and how a magnetic field can and does affect particle charge. This is central to quantum mechanics, to Mathis, and the relativity as well.
Apparenty, magnetic fields can give even "neutral particles" a charge. This affects, I think, indirectly the issue of the Higgs boson and the Higg field itself, assuming that the field does interact weakly with magnetic fields on both the macro and the micro level.
This seems an important point.
Lets see the experimental evidence. I have included more summary quotes per your requests.
"Reported in the journal Nature Physics, these synthetic electric fields make each atom in a gas act, individually, as if it were a charged particle, but collectively they remain neutral, uncharged particles. This dual personality will help researchers simulate and study fundamental electrical phenomena and may lead to a deeper understanding of exotic phenomena involving charged particles such as superconductivity, the flow of electricity without resistance, or the quantum Hall effect, used by NIST to create a standard of electrical resistance."
Is this a hint as to how massless neutral particles can also seem to have charge?
"Using a magnetic field, the scientists could tune the interaction between the atoms: "By increasing the interaction energy between the atoms (attraction interaction), the atoms start coming together and the structure quickly decays," Naegerl explains what is called among experts the "Bosenova" effect. "By minimizing the interaction energy, the atoms repel each other (repulsive interaction), align vertically and regularly along a one-dimensional structure and the system is stable."
If the interactions are switched from strongly repulsive to strongly attractive, a surprising effect can be observed. "We thereby achieve an exotic, gas-like phase, where the atoms are excited and correlated but do not come together and a 'Bosenova' effect is absent," Naegerl says. The phase was diagnosed by compressing the quantum gas and measuring its stiffness.
"However, this excited many-body phase can only be realized by a detour via repulsive interaction. This phase was predicted four years ago and we have now been able to realize it experimentally for the first time," an excited Elmar Haller say.
"In the experiment the physicists prepare the ultracold gases of lithium-6 (Li) and potassium-40 (K) atoms in an optical trap and overlap them, with the smaller cloud of heavier K atoms residing in the centre of the Li cloud. After turning off the trap, the researchers observe the expansion of the quantum gases at different magnetic fields. "When the particles show a strong interaction, the gas clouds behave hydrodynamically," says Schreck. "An elliptical nucleus is formed in the centre of the particle cloud, where the potassium and lithium atoms interact. Moreover, the expansion velocity of the particles, which are different initially, become equal." According to theory, both phenomena suggest hydrodynamic behavior of the quantum gas mixture. "This behavior is the most striking phenomenon observed in quantum gases, when particles strongly interact," says Rudolf Grimm. "Therefore, this experiment opens up new research areas in the field of many-body physics."
Sounds like both Hannes Alfven and Mathis.
Low energy field? Dark energy levels required?
Quote from the above article on a field moving from insular to superconductive.
"It is not thermal fluctuations that induce the phase transition," stresses PhD student Elmar Haller, who is also first author of the study, which has been published in the journal Nature. "In fact, the atoms are already correlated due to strong repulsive interaction and only need a small push to align regularly along the optical lattice," explains Haller. When the lattice is removed, the atoms return to a superfluid state.
These experimental findings, I believe, are relevant for Higgs and for Mathis.
There is more. At nanoscales apparently photons can exert force 100 to 1000 times stronger than non-nanoscales. This has implications for quantum gravity theory and more makes Mathis's ideas around gravity as the result of an accelerator function more plausible.
Here are some citiations:
Let's talk tomorrow about how.
First a few more citations, I know how some folks like to see citations. The one below is especially interesting. It discusses how particles can escape closed loops and "escape to infintity" What does the latter term mean and why is it relevant to our discussions here? Read but first a few quotes to focus that reading.
"At the moment this is a theoretical mathematical study, but two researchers from UCM have recently proved that, in certain conditions, magnetic fields can send particles to infinity, according to the study published in the journal Quarterly of Applied Mathematics."
"Nonetheless, the movement of particles in magnetic fields is a "very significant" problem in fields such as applied and plasma physics. For example, one of the challenges that the scientists that study nuclear energy face is the confinement of particles to magnetic fields.
Accelerators such as Large Hadron Collider (LHC) of the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) also used magnetic fields to accelerate particles. In these conditions they do not escape to infinity, but they remain doing circles until they acquire the speed that the experiments need."
This is a very significant quote. What does "escape to infinity" mean in the context of CERN? What if particles at CERN do "escape to infinitiy" and thereby escape confinement? Boy oh, boy.
Tapping energy from the environment has been experimentally proven.
"Their proposed design runs on so little energy that batteries are not even necessary; it could run merely by tapping the ambient energy from the environment."
Perhaps this is tapping energy from the low-energy Higgs?
This is also experimental support for the claims of Tesla.
See what you think.
Finally, controlling the flow of a fluid with micro magnetic particles.
Tomorrow let's sum up to see where we are will all this, and take this experimental data and combine it into something coherent which may be surmized about the nature of the Higgs. I know, it has been a long slog, but we will have earned our piece of cake.
Photons, Bosons, and Fermions-And Spin. What are the details of spin theory and its history? Good article.
First let's distinguish fermions from bosons in physics theory.
"...the fermions--electrons and quarks and other "matter" elementary particles--are all like that. They obey what are called Fermi-Dirac statistics: they can't occupy all the same quantum states--they have to differ from one another on at least something, often the spin; they are governed by Pauli's exclusion principle.
"The bosons (force carriers, when elementary particles), on the other hand, which are particles with integer spins, follow Bose-Eintstein statistics: they like to "get together" and share the same quantum properties.
This is how we get laser light--light in which the photons are all coherent, sharing their quantum properties. And this is also how we get something called a Bose-Einstein condensate, in extremely low, close-to-absolute-zero, temperatures: the particles (these are now atoms that have integer spins) come together in such a way that their individual quantum-mechanical wave functions actually merge into one large wave; essentially, they become a single quantum object (whose size actually brings them to our macro-world scale!)."
Now here is the article:
On the issue of the mass of the Higgs Boson and then I promise we will sum up tomorrow. First a quote from article below questions the logic of the thinking about the Higgs Boson.
"And, should the "mass particle" have mass? If so, it must react on itself in an illogical way. Also, if the Higgs boson is massive, and if it mediates mass by vacuum virtual exchanges, the exchange rate must be subject to Lorentz time dilation. Because other forces grow with boson exchange rate, time dilation would suggest that the rest mass of all particles should decrease with
increasing relativistic velocity, possibly cancelling the observed increase in particle momentum.
Thus, it appears that there may exist a Higgs vacuum field, but there may not exist a Higgs particle. And if there is a Higgs boson, it should be massless.
How can these objections be answered? The Standard Model apparently is wrong about the mass of neutrinos, so why should it be accepted uncritically in regard to the mass of the Higgs boson? "
Summed up, the author questions how the Higgs, a massless particle can create mass. Oh, boy. See what you think.
Neutrinos and Solar Flares
"Dr Fischbach admits that while whatever process generated the flare in 2006 also caused a dip in neutrino flux, and a corresponding drop in radioactive decay rates, other processes seem to have the opposite effect. For example, a storm in 2008 was preceded by a spike in manganese-54 decay rates.He suspects that what is loosely termed a "solar storm" may in fact be a number of distinct processes whose common feature is that they affect neutrino production in one way or another."
This fits in with the Hannes Alven prediction that our sun is affected by intersellar ions in orbits which are galaxy wide.
Can light at nanoscales be stronger than gravity?
Contrast this with the Mathis view of gravity at nanoscales
Avi animation of Argon
The best explaination I have seen for the four largest structures in our galaxy and their role in the production of the various forms of matter. Ideas pioneered by Hannes Alfven, Nobel prize winner 1970.
Experimental evidence of light transformations?
On the issues of Alfven vs. Mathis vs. the Standard Model-charge's the thing
Or: What About MOND theory of gravity?
Again, what is wrong with the theory of relativity?
Challenge to the expanding universe idea.
Both Alfven and Mathis challege the expanding universe idea and here is why.
Quote from above:
"And when we apply the field equations to calculate variations in the field as a whole, as in the supernova problem,charge and gravity balance once again, although in a slightly different way. This time gravity appears
to cause accelerations out rather than in. Or, to say it another way, it appears to balance nearby objects, but is not capable of balancing far away objects. They appear to escape. In this case, charge supplies
the drag that keeps them from escaping.
In other words, gravity decreases at greater distances, and this creates a curve in the math, a curve that would allow greater accelerations at greater distances if gravity were the only field involved. But gravity is not the only field involved..."
Here we see a close agreement between Alfven and Mathis on the accelerating universe issue.
Has the HIggs been discovered on not? One quantitative analysis
Is radiation a danger to equipment and personnel at CERN? A special report
9/29/12 Who will win the Nobel Prize for physics this year?
10/2/12 Are iron ion experiments at CERN worth the risk?
Iron in the core of stars cause supernovas? Apparently.
Notice that it is asserted that stars build heavy elements but it is not explained how. See Mathis' explaination f how every element in the periodic table is built and why.
It is clear that a given amount of iron in a given star will cause the star to go supernova, the greatest explosion known in the universe. Why is CERN going ahead with the iron ion experiments. Somebody please explain that there is no no risk here.
The answer to the above question might depend upon who is correct:
Einstein, Tesla or Mathis?
See what you think, because it is precisely the question of what is a Higgs field.
New developments at CERN supersymmetry and the HIGGS?
Higgs and the one-dimensional argument.
Is there a way to test relativity against quantum theories?
What About the Higgs?--Video
Is Quantum Mechanics True--say say maybe not--Google
What are we to make of these diverse developments. Be back tommorow and let's have a look.
Who is Emmy Noether and What Does She Have to Do with the Higgs?
The data show two Higgs of different masses and one decays to a photon. Is Mathis relevant here?
Lets discuss the implications tommorow.
Below is the most scathing critique of modern physics, its funding and theories I have ever seen. Must reading.
Miles Mathis has an explaination for the just announced two different masses for the two different Higgs Bosons? Apparently.
Click on the "up" arrow to see report.
Critique of the HIggs finding by Mathis. Wow. Go down and click on the up arrow to see paper. More and more people are seeing things Mathis's way.
Despite a spate of year-end PR on the Higgs there linger doubts about the discovery. See below
Gravity found not to be so important in star clusters?
Is string theory a bunch of hooey? This fellow says so.
How galaxies, atoms and the earth and the sun share a common paradigm. Read below and we discuss tomorrow.
The articles below indicate that a new finding at CERN is that neutrinos can morph into at least two other particles. Secondly, the fact seems to be that despite previous thought that neutrinos have no mass, in fact they may have mass.
What does these two findings mean?
A little bit today and more tomorrow.
If particles like neutrinos can be seen in a totally different like and can morph, can other particles also morph, if so from what to what. Second is astounding because it raises questions about the standard model since little in known about this morphing process.
What is to be the explaination.? Well one fellow claims to know. That tomorrow.
The speed of light is not fixed but varies with the charge of particles in the vacuum. Sounds like the Higgs or ether?
So is the Higgs been discovered or not?
Discovering the Higgs and not what? Lisa Randall weighs in.
What is Geometric Unity and Who is Eric Weinstein?
Has the Higgs God Particle been overhyped. Higgs himself says so.
Time and its permutations