Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Theory - Higgs Boson Particle

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I pose this question -

Could the Higgs Boson actually be comprised of even smaller super-sub-quantum particles that are actually entire universes of their own.

I would think that not only would this account for a multiverse but does so with a fractal pattern so commonly found in nature.

I know this concept has been thought of before, but this question specifically targets the Higgs due to the "GOD PARTICLE"

any thoughts?




posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
i do, i called it fractalverse theory


After an experience i not permitted to talk about on these boards, i firmly believe the universe is both infinity large and small, i dont think its a coincidence that we see the same patterns over and over when scaled up and down (atoms and solar systems for example)



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by MidKnight
 


Hi op

Have you seen Men In Black?
The end credits, you see earth zoom out so far it ends up showing you aliens playing marbles (i think),
and that proposes your theory maybe..
My view..I could believe it.

Cheers



posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MidKnight
 


You probably have the same misconception I add - that higgs creates energy and it explains where energy comes from. It doesn't though. The term "god particle" is very misleading. What higgs is actually theorized to do is to create mass from energy. Basically, it turns energy into matter by forming mass carrying bosons. Supposedly, if the higgs boson vibrates or oscillates in the right way, it will create a field that will clump energy together. That's basically all it does. Science still officially says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.


eta: I think that is the sum of it. I might be wrong. Fact check it before you repeat it.
edit on 3/12/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


You should not have said that first part because now i wanna know your experience.



posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by MidKnight
 


You probably have the same misconception I add - that higgs creates energy and it explains where energy comes from. It doesn't though. The term "god particle" is very misleading. What higgs is actually theorized to do is to create mass from energy. Basically, it turns energy into matter by forming mass carrying bosons. Supposedly, if the higgs boson vibrates or oscillates in the right way, it will create a field that will clump energy together. That's basically all it does. Science still officially says that energy cannot be created or destroyed.


eta: I think that is the sum of it. I might be wrong. Fact check it before you repeat it.
edit on 3/12/2013 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)


I'm not a particle physicist, but I don't think this is quite right either. Essentially the Higgs field is presumed to exist over all space, and strangely enough the lowest energy state of this field is not zero (as it is for electromagnetism) but a positive non-zero value. Particles other than gluons and photons interact with this field, and thereby get slowed down and are slower to change direction. If you look from outside this particle+Higgs field system, particles now appear to behave as though they have inertia and positive mass. In particle physics, behaving a certain way is equal to being that way.

The Higgs boson is just another consequence of the laws of quantum mechanics applied to fields, quantum field theory, that with this field there must be some kind of quantized excitation and this is called the Higgs boson. Note that it has a very high mass meaning lots of energy is necessary to create it.

The Higgs field itself, in its natural ground state, without any real Higgs bosons flying around, is still fully capable of slowing particles and giving them mass. The Higgs boson was important because without seeing it, there was no other definitive experimental test for the existence of the Higgs field.

Note that most of the energy of normal matter is in the nuclei of stuff, and the Higgs mechanism only accounts for a pretty small fraction of the mass of that, the rest is the gluon energy. So Higgs field still doesn't explain most of the mass of the Universe.

And it doesn't explain why inertial mass (created by Higgs mechanism) is also the same as gravitational mass, passive and active.
edit on 13-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Thanks for the attempt at clarifying that for me. The reason I assumed it was caused by the boson itself is because I think of everything as forms energy takes on. I think there is no such thing as uncontained, and so, force fields, as they are most often perceived, are not real. If there is a "higgs field", the field is some form that energy has taken on. To visualize what I am saying, think of photons as being inert to whatever energy the "higgs field" is made of - photons interact with the field, but they do not react to the field. There is no trading of concepts between them. /rant at physics

I feel more stupid now, but thanks.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Thanks for the attempt at clarifying that for me. The reason I assumed it was caused by the boson itself is because I think of everything as forms energy takes on. I think there is no such thing as uncontained, and so, force fields, as they are most often perceived, are not real. If there is a "higgs field", the field is some form that energy has taken on. To visualize what I am saying, think of photons as being inert to whatever energy the "higgs field" is made of - photons interact with the field, but they do not react to the field. There is no trading of concepts between them. /rant at physics

I feel more stupid now, but thanks.


In the Standard Model (which is justified by experiment), photons do not interact with the Higgs field at all, and therefore have zero mass.

The fields of electromanetism (certainly) and gravitation (probably) are about as physically real as any experimentally determined definition of 'real' can get. The observation of the Higgs boson was the signal that the same is probably true of the Higgs field.

Remember, energy is not a thing of its own, i.e. "pure energy" is a load of nonsense. Energy is a property of the actual stuff. The Higgs field ground state, i.e. lowest possible energy, is unusual, the field value is not zero. This is different from electromagnetism where the ground state (lowest possible energy) of electromagnetic fields has zero electric & magnetic field.

Even though the field value is nonzero, since it is the ground state, there's no way to extract useful energy for work out of it.

Given that the Higgs boson has such a large energy, the Higgs field dynamics is staggeringly dull, it's a monotonous uniform single value for virtually all of the universe except for some localized areas of extremely high energy particle collisions from cosmic rays and beings with large particle accelerators. And in those cases it makes a tiny burp for a tiny fraction of a second before getting back to being boring.

By the way, the following article (by an actual particle physics) correctly deflates the importance of Higgs.
Not even the mass of Higgs boson itself is explained by the Higgs field. Higgs doesn't explain gravity and dark matter probably doesn't get its mass from Higgs either. It's just another part of particle physics involved with the electroweak force. Some "God" particle.

profmattstrassler.com...


edit on 14-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:48 PM
link   
The Higgs particle (or, rather, many of such particles pervading space) was first described about five years before Scottish physicist Peter Higgs even conceived of them. It was remote-viewed in 1959 (without his understanding what he was seeing, of course) by a famous clairvoyant working with a psychiatrist from New Zealand. Several scientists, including a Fellow of the Royal Society who first isolated vitamin B12, gave their support for this research. Details here.



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by micpsi
 


Yeah it's a load of nonsense.

The 7 people in the 1960's (Peter Higgs being the one with the insight to recognize the boson) actually produced a mathematical theory which fit in with particle physics. Not woo pictures and nonsense such as



My first sight inside the diamond is of the funnels only, like a cluster of funnels, two sets. It is possible to see the two pyramids as if slightly separated so that the base of an upper one can be envisaged, visualised, almost seen, though cohesion is apparent and all eight funnels are radiating from a common centre. Now, I want to record again the experience of the whole phenomenon being pervaded by countless myriads of minutest conceivable, physically inconceivably minute points of light which I take to be free anu and which for some reason are not caught up in the system of atoms at all but remain unmoved by it and pervade it. These are everywhere. They pervade everything, like ... Strangely unaffected by the tremendous forces at work in the atom and rushes of energy, and so forth, they don't seem to get caught up in those or be affected much by them. If at all. They remain as a virgin atmosphere in which the phenomenon is taking place.


And we're supposed to get from that that there is a mass zero scalar field with spontaneous symmetry breaking? Here's one of the first papers (not from Higgs but some of the others involved)

prl.aps.org...



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


When I said photons interact with the field it was for lack of better word. I was trying to say it would not react, as in how chemistry thinks of reactions. I suppose it would be better said that they avoid one another like oil and water. I don't think it should be considered physically possible for anything to be totally nonreactive. They must be able to come in contact with one another in some physical sense. When that happens they must at least change course or change properties.

How would you view their non interaction? Just pass through one another like ghosts? Is that possible? Do you think there are frequency like dimensions and photons never dip into the higgs frequency? How can they not, in some way react/interact? Can the smallest unit of space, whatever that may be, be occupied by more than one form of energy?



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by mbkennel
 


When I said photons interact with the field it was for lack of better word. I was trying to say it would not react, as in how chemistry thinks of reactions. I suppose it would be better said that they avoid one another like oil and water. I don't think it should be considered physically possible for anything to be totally nonreactive. They must be able to come in contact with one another in some physical sense. When that happens they must at least change course or change properties.

How would you view their non interaction? Just pass through one another like ghosts?


Yup.

Is that possible?


Seems that way, because experiments show photons have zero rest mass, and if they interacted with Higgs they wouldn't.


Do you think there are frequency like dimensions and photons never dip into the higgs frequency? How can they not, in some way react/interact?


There is no theoretical reason for them to do so, and experiment doesn't show any indication they do.


Can the smallest unit of space, whatever that may be, be occupied by more than one form of energy?


Yes. There are multiple kinds of fields simultaneously existing at the same place & time, fields for matter (fermions) and bosons. No different from having electric & magnetic fields at the same time as when a non-interacting neutrino passes through.
edit on 14-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Could it be that the repeating patterns in scale some how come round to the same place eventually?

Think of a Möbius strip ( en.wikipedia.org... ) only in time and scale not in 3 dimensions. I dont actually think this myself, but i certainly cant rule it out. I believe that the universe is infinity small, and large with no limits, forever and ever in scale both directions.

Because since the universe appears to be infinite, perhaps it is on the scale we use to define our environment, what if if you think so far out, not in distance but scale, our universe is just an atom in another universe. Due to uncertainty principle we cant observe (or even detect) things smaller than particles, why not the other way around. We only know the universe is so big because of the light that, for billions of years has traveled to us, what about the light that hasn't, what about particles potentially so large, it CANT interact with our universe let alone the matter inside it?

Love this stuff
edit on 14-3-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


To me, it would seem that logic should dictate that no two object can exist in the same space. To say that they can and do, would also seem too haste. How would you feel if I said, the higgs field moves out of the way of photons? Like water spreading when oil is at its cusp. How could this be proven false?
edit on 3/14/2013 by Bleeeeep because: misspelled haste lol the irony



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by MidKnight
 


You probably have the same misconception I add - that higgs creates energy and it explains where energy comes from. It doesn't though. The term "god particle" is very misleading. What higgs is actually theorized to do is to create mass from energy. Basically, it turns energy into matter by forming mass carrying bosons. Supposedly, if the higgs boson vibrates or oscillates in the right way, it will create a field that will clump energy together. That's basically all it does.


No, that's not it. It's that there is a field of mud (Higgs field) which slows down some types of particles (and not others) in a way which is indistinguishable from mass, so it is mass. The Higgs boson is a rare burp and clump in the mud.



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by mbkennel
 


To me, it would seem that logic should dictate that no two object can exist in the same space.


Why? Logic doesn't say anything at all about this, it's entirely experimental physics.


To say that they can and do, would also seem too haste. How would you feel if I said, the higgs field moves out of the way of photons? Like water spreading when oil is at its cusp. How could this be proven false?
edit on 3/14/2013 by Bleeeeep because: misspelled haste lol the irony


Well, a photon is not exactly localized in one place or another.

What really happens is that you'd need to make a fairly precise mathematical theory for the interactions of the Higgs field with all other particles of matter---and the "simple" one (as far as particle physics goes, you can read how much they knew in 1964 already, and they know alot more now) doesn't have any dynamical influence from electromagnetism.

You could postulate a more complex one in which there is some kind of exclusion principle between electromagnetism and Higgs and look for theoretical consistency first, and then compatibility with experimental results. Most likely if a Higgs field could 'jump' out of the way as a consequence of electromagnetism, then you could imagine other experimental consequences such as being able to affect other particle interactions near by as the displaced Higgs field "piled up" from electromagnetism. (Now this a classical description and you'd really do it in terms of relativistic quantum mechanics)

In this sense the Higgs field *would* interact with electromagnetism (which we can manipulate very well) in a repulsive way and so we probably would have seen experimental consequences a long time ago. Say with gamma rays (electromagnetism) changing decay rates of weak nuclear processes (which do interact with Higgs) when the gammas pass close to a nucleus or something like that.
edit on 15-3-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


We probably need to postpone this debate 'cause we're starting to get into particle/wave theories and absolute decay rates. I can't handle that kind of stuff lol. I'll concede for now - was fun.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join