chron44

Much over my "normal" physics and math status. Did make a look on this paper and began to wonder: Does the origin of (our) universe, BB or any other universal evolutionary theory, matter within this paper's frames of reference? I.e. is the BB the only universal evolutionary candidate for this article? (Is it possible to estimate?)

This is how Wikipedia initially explains ToE. Excerpt: "A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe. Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything It's how ToE is defined. Maybe one can add chemistry and biology, but with another name or abbreviation.

Wasn't this the subject to discuss in this thread? And, personally of what I understand is that a ToE only is applicable to physics. Mathematics can cover "everything" and all disciplines. When the human world and conditions are limited. -Math has no boundaries to describe whatever. The "problem" with a ToE is that the human intellect for the moment lack knowledge about necessary parts of physics for to craft a ToE. The same goes for philosophy, it can analyze whatever, when it usually is regarding human conditions. So the difference between philosophy and physics, to my view, is that the first can cover whatever and physics is bound to the universal laws and conditions, which are limited. Still, maybe can be described with math. This is the challenging option in a ToE. This last issue is not quite regarding the initial quest of yours. It partly covers physics but mainly is a philosophical wondering. It's not physics. /chron44

Excerpt from a list of ToE criteria: (This page isn't in use anymore, not at least this posting presented here.) The green lines are some criteria for a ToE presented there, not all of them, thought. And the grey lines are my own comments for about 20 years ago, so have indulgence with my not that well understood remarks for each criterion given. (I didn't fully cope what the list maker had in mind.) I was most intrigued by this list then, and tried to comment and understand what the guy meant by his list. ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ www.motionmountain.net/research.html#req 6. The fundamental constituents must determine all observables. They must also determine all coupling constants and particle masses. (If they did not, the theory would not be final.) This point, simply spoken, does support my thesis in some posts above here of the (correlation for) Microcosm and Macrocosm and ToE. But this list point is more or less precise about this criterion. 7. The fundamental constituents must be the only unobservable entities. (If they were observable, the theory would not be final; if more entities would be unobservable, the theory would be fiction, not science.) I don’t know how the list maker does argue for this point – but to my understanding the list maker does build this ToE criterion on the theory of quanta and QM. And also on the logical situation of only one unobservable. – If it were two or more – the logic and physics? in this ToE, would collapse. Probably the first part of point 7 is built or made upon the logical and physical? impossibility of two or more unobservable entities. The maker of this list has my regards of a physical and logical thorough understanding of the nature and the criteria of ToE. This judgment, by me, of the list is based of all list points. In fact I’m almost chocked over the way this list expresses ToE. I can here almost understand that Hawking and Mlodinow does throw in the towel – not by exhaustion – but by chock. That, for to return to point 7, the list maker only accepts one (1) unobservable is probably also based on the search of a “pure logic” that a ToE theory hopefully would manifest. (The human natural? search for truth and logic.) I must say that I’m a bit unclear about this point 7. It would be nice to hear what the list maker has to say about this. 8. Non-locality must be part of the description; non-locality must be negligible at everyday scales, but important at the Planck scale. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.) This point is as it says based on quantum theory and GR and both having legal demands on a ToE. 9. Physical points and sets must not exist at Planck scale, due to limitations of measurement precision; points and sets must only exist, approximately, at everyday scales. (Otherwise, the contradictions between quantum theory and general relativity would not be solved.) This point Nr 9 does manifest the standard model of elementary particles – which almost all is confirmed. Only, for the moment, lacking one or two definitions. Simply this point does manifest particles as electrons or protons and such. 10. The final theory cannot be a set of equations. (If it were, it would contradict the limits to measurement precision.) This point Nr 10 is a hard criterion for a ToE. – But probably the list maker is right. A set of equations does probably diverge the mathematics and physics. Especially when ToE goes from Microcosm up till Macrocosm scale. The base equation would, of course, allow other equations drawn upon the base. But a set of independent equations does rather soon diverge the physical accuracy. How can Hawking and Mlodinow support such physics? OK, the list is astonishing, but also a bit chocking. Seeing forward to some other views. ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ (Maybe the list is a bit obsolete these days.) /chron44

The energy associated with the Higgs field’s VEV, about 246 GeV, contributes to the overall vacuum energy of the universe. However, the contribution of the Higgs field to the vacuum energy is expected to be much larger than the observed value of the cosmological constant/ vacuum energy, leading to a significant discrepancy known as the cosmological constant problem. Why? (The cosmological constant is here in this issue treated same as the vacuum energy.) (Thus, the cosmological constant is the overall vacuum density. And the vacuum energy is seen as the fluctuations in various volumes of universe. Where the mean value is detected to about 3 GeV/m^3) The free speculation, given without proof, is that dark matter/ dark energy - yet not able to directly measure by some eluding reson. - Is involved into the Higgs field and its associated VEV. Maybe both or one of them. And it's most interesting that physics cannot directly detect these dark entities. Only observe them via the behavior of the galaxies, for example. The second speculation therefore becomes that this undetectable situation is based on the technology of how we measure in physics. And one example is that we use photons for to do this in some studies. Whereas the photon is regarded being a point particle with the smallest energy amount possible for to achieve any detection. (I am not directly referring to virtual photons, because these are mathematical "instruments", not "real" physical such. Although in the Standard Model virtual photons is regarded for real particles.) The second speculation hence becomes that we probably must "use" some "instrument" below the photon energy for to detect further physical stances. This is not yet possible. Why? /chron44

In QFT ... yes. There are excitations of the various fields which are perceived as virtual particles, or if above a quantum of energy, as real particles. In QFT, these fields require a background stage to act on. GR, on the other hand, has no background stage; space-time is an active participant. Isn't this post from MigL just like the saying by Confucius (which StringJunky uses) here we got two ways of narrative or definitions for "Space". Space is seen in two somewhat different manners - so we cannot be sure of how space is constructed in a general sense. In QFT the statement from me seems to be lucid. In GR, for example, this statement is not that comprehensive. ??? It seems like the original issue "What is Space made of?" has two somewhat different outcomes (at least in physics).

This is my general conclusion of this thread. Can anyone counter prove this statement? (Is it possible at all to do so?) /chron44

Hi, this thread was started in 2015 and has both puzzled and intrigued lot of posters here in Science Forums. Obviously, its's a subject which established, and "modern" physics has "indications" on, mainly from math in different sections of physics (GR, SR, QFT, SM, and so on). Still, the apparent quest "What is space made of?" first looks like a philosophical question, but when incorporating modern physics this issue converts to a rather legitimate and straight matter for all levels of physicists. This situation of today's puzzled stand probably is generally built from the introduction of Minkowski's space cone and the continuation with Einstein's and other physicists' concept of "spacetime" where space and time, both not so easy concepts, were mixed into rather or most complex mathematics. Probably, with fair reasoning, some of the posters here in this thread have made their own physical/ philosophical statements which "goes like the cat round the hot meal". Because this issue, to my view is both easy and complicated. And postulated or stated, Space itself can only be seen for an imaginary reference entity. -So, Space isn't made of anything. The physics math, isn't wrong either, because this math is a metaphor for Space (and other units) seen in a physics evolving tradition for to comprehend the world we live in. Being a physics site ppl ask for proof of the statement that Space is an important reference unit or entity. How can one prove this statement? For the moment I cannot do so. -Merely refer to other posts here in this thread, where some have expressed similar or adjacent ideas and thoughts. Still, if trying to prove that Space isn't made of anything, one can divide on matter and energy (fields) versus space. Space seems to be occupied with matter and energy fields. -Space itself is just a void that hold matter/ energy. Probably this isn't a justified proof of this subject. The proof lies somewhere in all the ppl who have made statements about this. The proof is the resulting collective statement by physics interested folks and professionals. Observe that novel physics mathematics only is a path to a more comprehensive understanding of the world and the universe. /chron44

OK, I notice your comment. All seems fair and representing today's cosmological physics. Also very distinct and compact expressed. For my own ideas of the cosmological evolution, I'll express them in the Speculation section. Just very interesten in cosmology and physics in general, and in a "layman" level.

Citing again from ChatGPT: "As the temperature of the universe decreases from the time of the Big Bang (BB), certain phase transitions occur in the early universe that lead to spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB), including the emergence of non-zero vacuum expectation values (VEVs) of certain fields, such as the Higgs field." And, my own "statement": The energy "sources" in average temperatures, for example of the VEV of Higgs field, are mainly the remaining's of Big Bang and kinetic and potential energy. (Where the residuals of BB include all novel types of particles and fields, their virtual components and so on...) And, even if there are parallel ideas/ways of the origin of the "matter/energy" involved, the QFT and SM have been proven about at 90% all time since these physics models was introduced. I.e. the accuracy of QFT and SM are not dependent of the origin of all the novel existing matter/energy. (Representing a non-BB universal evolution idea.) (Which may correct the cosmological constant problem.) I understand that these latest statements or ideas are not at all common in the physics community. Forgive me if I as an interested layman am trying to promote some new/odd cosmological evolutionary theories. /chron44

Thanks for your replies, it's over midnight here, so good night.

For to refine my concern or primary issue we know that VEV is the probabilistic energy amount needed for mass being established related to Higgs field mechanism. The concern is if this "working" "transition" "current" mainly is originating from the LHC collision kinetic energy. -Or not, if there are some other unknown contributing sources involved? This is, to my view a cosmological central issue, besides being a straight security issue. Maybe a bit "silly" concern, still the average layman may be wondering.

It looks like the Higgs field consists of two entwined "parts" one- "mass" and one "electromagnetic" related which is shown from the SU(2) doublet statement. How is situation derived, I mean originally at the early/mid 20th century's indications of a mass establishing field? Is it a qualified assumption first theorized and later evolving to the "final" (mid 1960's) Higgs field and its mechanism. And finally in 2012 proven with the LHC success. How was this interesting "journey" started? I'm a bit embarrassed asking elementary issues, though it is cosmological crucial issue. (And I believe that my starting quest caught your attention, though being a bit confused.) Is the SM and the QFT always to be correct, we know about the cosmological constant problem?

In some way by earlier theorizing of my own I suspected this situation of Higgs field having two, no more or less, fields. One with emphasize on "mass" and the other on "electromagnetism". This is as far as I may comprehend. All the other formulas you provide are excellent and describing how mass is achieved with the photon remaining massless. You must be working with these matters professionally. On a high level also. And I'm glad you took time for to guide an interested layman in these matters. I cannot jump into these formulas. My concern lies more of how and why Higgs field are there in universe permeating all space. Exactly how mass is achieved is a physics professional issue too complex for me, as said. Hopefully we can continue to discuss in some manner, even if I cannot follow the precise math involved. /chron44

Have to ponder some days or more for to slightly comprehend...

Being a layman, I have seen it on wiki pages, though never really thought about its more precise function. When you mentioned it here I went to the wiki page and tried to "comprehend". It's about the electroweak force, the uniting and separating on both forces involved - depending on temperature. And probably you are right when you notice a far higher value than wiki presents. This is what I notice, for the moment. Still, I'm a bit confused. Do we need the Big Bang scale at the LHC for to reach the VeV at Higgs field? I mean does the LHC accelerator really copy the BB condition fort to expose the boson and the VeV in question?

This what ChatGPT informs about Higgs field and its VeV: "The VEV of the Higgs field is fixed at approximately 246 GeV in the vacuum state, providing masses to particles that interact with it. Fluctuations in the Higgs field, if present, would generally occur around this fixed VEV, rather than changing the VEV itself. These fluctuations play a role in various quantum field theory phenomena but do not typically alter the fundamental properties of the Higgs field, such as its VEV." So, to my understanding: Higgs field and "its" VeV is merely or mostly a field which applies mass. No more essential physical stances or functions can be connected to this field? Though if this is the situation, this function in physics must be seen for very fundamental. Right? Furthermore, Higgs field have never been observed in "real life conditions" only indicated at the LHC and Atlas. One cannot "see" the field which is providing mass. Anyone with any ideas of why this is the situation? Feel free to speculate, though maybe this isn't the right forum at SF? /chron44

Uhu.. even a layman in physics may sufficiently grasp somewhat of the Higgs mechanism with fair and relevant instructions. Thanks.

I'm further taking deal of. The Fermi constant plays a crucial role in describing weak interactions. (W and Z boson actions.) Where electroweak force and the Higgs mechanism are intimately connected within the framework of the Standard Model. As shown in the formula of the VeV's effecive_action, presented here earlier. Therefore the Fermi-constant incorporates into this formula.

Concerning the VeV ("constant"), can one define this 246 GeV amount as some type of needed minimum "transition" energy when particles are about to acquire its intrinsic mass? (Probably not that simple, but in an elementary manner?)

Hmm.. yeah, right. Somewhat above my novel understanding. The Fermi-constant should be used in calculations involving decay rates, cross-sections, and other properties related to weak interactions. (Is what ChatGPT informs.) It was proven right in the finding of Higgs boson. I.e. the Fermi-constant was also more or less proven at the success of the LHC in 2012? (Besides the Higgs theory.) Much more to learn about such subjects. /chron44

Well, one serious issue is if the research versus the ideas and the theory mainly using the Standard Model and QFT are "synchronized". In early LHC study epoch about 2010-2012 I was a bit concerned about the "black hole" spooky rumor. And to my knowledge the LHC team have been prosecuted in the US from this fright. Even the LHC team does admin the possibility of micro black holes may occur, though the Hawking radiation immediately should vaporize these. So, the theory involved in the LHC should be declared in some layman manner for to calm ppl, maybe. Have in mind the QFT related cosmic constant problem. And the Standard Model used in the LHC project is mostly built on the QFT. There exists a somewhat relevant issue when asking for some new or updated ideas concerning the LHC. /chron44 (My emphasis). I think the importance of this comment cannot be overstated. How can there be a discrepancy between an energy density and an energy? It's like stating that there is a discrepancy between the speed of light and the radius of the proton. It's about how one uses the language in combination with me being a somewhat layman orientated individual, though being most interested in physics. I wouldn't be the first mixing these entities, either. Have some indulgence with an advanced issue. /chron44

Of course, we also have the Higgs boson revealed from the proposed Higgs field so these two results, the boson and the VEV at about 246 GeV "hints" Higgs field. But isn't Higgs field an energy field which permeates all universe, yes it is. And all this was already theorized in mid 1960. And if reading the Wiki it tells you that Higgs field still is under potent physics investigation. -Still not totally confirmed and the theory itself not fully understood. And the LHC is just enlarging its power for to get more data. So, are there any fresh ideas applicable for to examine the datas to come? /chron44

Hi, again I still have some remaining issues; can one notice the Higgs field only "visible" through the QFT fluctuations which are delectated as the VEV amount? I.e. Higgs field is hiding behind the VEV and only theoretically confirmed via this stance? There is no other way we can confirm Higgs field, for the moment? (Only at the LHC and ATLAS studies?) /chron44

Okay, thanks for the correction. Appreciates fair and relevant explanations. If I finally got it right, the vacuum fluctuations are the probabilistic function which govern the VEV amount. Resulting in the vacuum expectation value. Which furthermore is expressed as approximately 246 GeV, if the Standard Model being used. Have to add that I never intended to mix the vacuum energy density with VEV, I fairly understand the differences. This issue although have been raised for to enlighten both physicals' functions. Similarities and differences. I try to learn from ChatGPT, which seemingly is a bit insecure at this level of physics. Thanks, again, for your answers. /chron44