Mike Smith Cosmos

The HIGGS FIELD Quoting Sean Carrol from " his previously referenced book " page 142 -146 " 142 .. Concerning Higgs " the most obvious effect is to give mass to the elementary particles of the standard model ! ...... 143 .."if you did not interact with Higgs , you have zero mass ; if you do interact with Higgs , you have a non zero mass , and your mass is directly proportional to how strong that interaction is . Particles like the electron , and up and down quark interact relatively weekly , so there masses are small , the tau lepton and top and bottom quarks , interact with it strongly , so their masses are relatively large " 144.. " The formula for the mass of a particle ,is pretty easy , it's the value of the Higgs field in empty space times the particular interaction strength, that the particle has with the Higgs. 146 .. Each group of particles , would be identical , if it weren't for the Higgs Background. This points to perhaps the most basic role of Higgs Field . It takes a symmetry situation and breaks it " Mike

. I have been researching this subject and have found citation from some respected scientists , that there is indeed links with the specified phenomenon , across the whole universe . The Main Link , appears to be the recently discovered HIGGS FIELD and the HIGGS BOSON . Apparently all four phenomenon come together to provide a very interesting description as to why all these phenomenon ' are what they are . And why the universe works the way it does ! See :- " The particle at the end of the Universe " by Sean Carroll Chapter 8 " Through a broken mirror " page 134 - onward ... " Here we see the argument , using evidence from the CERN project for the Higgs field , and Higgs Boson being fundamental and being instrumental in the production of a space wide field suitable for evoking many of the queries we have been discussing here . Such as the origin of Mass , a universe wide Higgs field , large vacuum energy , dark energy , virtual particles etc How this ties in with the subject of the thread , including' ( Particle Interaction, Universe wide fields , dark energy , vacuum , space , including what particles actually are, and how gravity actually works ?) . This can provide an interesting discussion , in view of the recent PROOF of the Higgs Field and Higgs Boson ! From CERN . ( Collider ) . This is an exciting time ! Mike Ps perhaps because it takes these really high energies to COLLIDE and work with the ' HIGGS BOSON ' and the ' HIGGS FIELD ' it underlines the sort of energy levels tied up in VACUUM ENERGY and HIGGS FIELD/ BOSONS Nobel prize winner Peter Higgs .

. I cannot quite see what you are saying ,with this comment ---------------------------------------- Surely someone amongst the science community must have some idea as what is happening throughout half the Universe? Surely , you must have something in your mind about something so foundational in the Universe COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT .............DARK ENERGY ..............VIRTUAL PARTICLES .? Mike Just your thoughts would be fine , even if you are saying you can not be sure !

. DARK ENERGY - VIRTUAL PARTICLES - COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT So what is the connection between them ? Is it that the Cosmological constant that Einstein Put in to make his 'sums work ' in his original theories Is the same as Dark energy . And somehow recent proposals introduce virtual particles to get rid of infinities ? Mike

.I am not saying maths is not required for science . I am saying it can not be ALL there is . Or should it always be centre stage . If I gave a set of parameters to a medical scientist . I am sure with today's facilities he/she could build what looked like a human . But it would not behave like a human , and it would not have all the wonderful neuinces or abilities of a human . As it would not posses all those ' woolly ' things like personality , free will , intelligence or many other personality traits. It is these latter attributes that in our case make us who we are . Maybe the rest of the universe from atom to galaxies contains some of these ' woolly ' attributes that cannot be given by scientific rigour . And we should look for them , and embrace them , to help our overall understanding of the universe. Mike

.QUITE ! But attraction is only one minutiae of what is probably ' out there ' . The ' out there ' that I am really referring to in this thread ' that woolly bit, that non deterministic bit, that complex bit , that sophisticated bit , the bit that makes life interesting ! But if we knew what to look for , we would know how and where to look for it ! But if we are not sure what we are looking for , then we are unlikely to know how and where to look . , There is probably not an easy answers to that one . Other than we must go and LOOK OVER THE EDGE ! Mike

. I would propose ( only propose ) that we could possibly ,need , to move to taking advantage of all the greater volume of signals coming out of reality . We used to be content to have a ' little red light ' coming on , and shining red , to indicate a piece of complicated equipment was ' ON ' or 'OFF ' . But that only takes us to the first level. Should we wish to know in more depth, as to the functioning of a piece of complicated equipment . Then we my employ the use of an Oscilloscope, signal analyser , whole body scanner, or perhaps an Engineer , in order to diagnose, or work out the current working capability of a given subject under scrutiny. Such, I would suggest, is the current state of our investigations into the workings of the Universe. We need to know more than :- yes it's on ! Yes it's working roughly ! ( sometimes this way and sometimes that) . But I would dare to suggest we are getting up to the ' Whole Body Scanner ' state of play. Where we need to pick up all the nauances of operation. Some of which record a steady constant value , other only portrayed by a pictorial and audible image , like a living baby in a womb . Or a brain with various areas of intense activity and other areas silent. So perhaps our sensors are only picking up a small proportion of what is actually ,going on . Yes the universe is ' ON ' . But how much of ' what is going on ' are we actually seeing ? Perhaps there is a whole plethora of ' existence and activity ' that our current instruments are not sensitive to ? Mike

.Well I think , ' herein lays the problem ' . We currently think science understanding , must be couched in the current, ' centre stage ' language of science , namely mathematics. And exactness. In order to succeed in her attraction. A woman will spend a great deal of creative activity to attract her male prey. Also , So with the peacock , although I beleive the sexes are reversed in this instance. Whether 'set charge ' in the case of particles , the principle of attraction with ' women's hair ' . It is the same , perhaps with more sophistication. Maybe humans require a higher level of sophistication. So if I am right with what I am suggesting . Maybe there is a requirement for looking for more sophisticated mechanisms , amongs the mysteries of " how the universe works " , than logical mathematics? Only a suggestion ! It is worth a try . After all the universe has built up to be pretty sophisticated in both the way it is both there in a material form and also in a living form . Some of the mechanism in life forms , from amoeba to human , are pretty sophisticated. So why not ' a sophisticated mechanism ' for sophisticated life ? Or sophisticated ' non living systems across the Universe? Mike

.Well , yes we do already do ( not usually viewed as a science context ) . Namely us males , we do get attracted by a ladies flowing hair , very much . In fact I would say it is one of the initial , attractive drivers, of a man to a woman . Yes we understand the attraction of an electron to a positive proton in an atom , in a science context . As with all charges in particles. But it is , a very similar process on a different scale . This is not ' glib ' and the point I am making is serious . As regards ' modelling hair ' I think women spend a great deal of success in modelling their hair . Mike

. Both of you have tried to explain how very complicated calculations could be brought to bear on the individual hairs , so as to calculate and understand the reason for the hairs existence, even as one could work out the use of the steel rod . However by looking at complex , not easily defined , flowing hair , it might be necessary to look from a different approach . . From a different view point , the meaning and understanding need very little explanation . We become fooled that understanding every detailed movement and position , is necessary for understanding . In this case , even if you could work it out mathematically , it would be meaningless. Mike

. Rigid ( now spelled correctly ) . I would think of say as a " Rigid thin steel rod " . You could conceivably describe it mathematically by saying ( x = 2 , z= 4 to 8 ) inches .steel Rod 1 mm thick . That would be reasonably repeatable by any engineer or scientist as a :- 1 mm rod , sticking straight up in the air , some 2 inches away , raising from 4 to 8 inches above the surface ( say of a table ) . The steel rod is rigid and where it is held ( by whatever means ) positions it accurately sticking up in the air for all to find and see . You might want to add another coordinate y = 5 to describe rigidly in space where exactly this steel rod is ( relative to you at coordinates x= 0, y=0, z=0. ) . Now it so happens this thin steel rod has a set of human hairs attached to the top waving about looking beautiful. So fine you can hardly distinguish them individually . But catching the sun light it looks attractive , and something to pick up and keep . The rod is easily put in scientific , mathmatical terms . The beautiful hair is not either easily understood or described in normal scientific nomenclature ( ways ) . Mike

.This whole area of " zero point energy " , " virtual particles " , "cosmological constant " , all seems confusing . And yet the supposed energy involved seems to be potentially massive compared with the parts of the universe, atoms , etc that we think of as the 'normal ' energy in the universe. Is there any reasonably comprehensible explanation of what is actually going on , or existing there ? Mike

A continual observation of the world at large , shows most things being a fairly equal spread of having a solid ridged , predictable element , as well as having a vague, flexible , unpredictable content. Are we limiting our understanding of the Universe by always expecting and testing for ridged , predictable , content , before taking a scientific subject area as a serious contender , as a model for reality ? Mike

Yes, I would appreciate your Link , and any other insights into how ' Virtual Particles ' work around the universe. Several scientists , like Feynman, Dirac, and other current scientists. I would like any information that illuminates what is going on from atoms to far reaches of space , along these lines . Thanks in anticipation . Mike

. So where and how do the virtual particles , ' Figure ' in this universe wide energy field ? Mike

Having recently looked in to Lawrence M Krauss explanation of Einstein's Cosmological Constant as being composed of a universe wide energy field . And that somehow it is maintained by VIRTUAL PARTICLES. Can we accept this as a reasonably established explanation or model of " SPACE TIME " ? And ' If So ' , What are the implications of this ? Mike

.Yes , I appreciate what you are saying in various directions . Firstly this model was not built with either ' fields ' or the ' universal big bang' in mind . I had limited resources in the school lab and was only illustrating resonant waves . However , I was rather supprised after lessons were over, and I had time to experiment with a range of power strengths and a range of frequencies. A colleague also saw the resultant , behaviour and exclaimed as much as I. I did go on to build models of whole atoms with model electrons in orbit and got equally interesting responses. Because of clear indication of distinct changes of dimensions with energy levels , I am heartened to repeat this with refined details if/when I get the time and facility. As regards the Big Bang. It is clear , that there has not always been a universe , and now there is , so somewhere we must have moved from a zero dimension state to at least a four dimensional space-time . So it was either an all or nothing step jump from No dimension to Four dimension . Or there was a time or times when dimensions were increasing . I beleive I have suggested a progressive set of step changes that I have not heard mentioned elsewhere. In fact there is a tendency of commentators about the start of the universe who are only happy to go back to a short time after the Big Bang. The logic behind my argument seemed reasonable in view of the fact a mechanical model was able , of its own accord , to go through step changes from 0,1,2,3,4. I appreciate it is a speculation and as I wrote the last line ( energy is not a proxy for frequency , certainly in my model , even if it is elsewhere) . I do think the subject has some merit . Also there is still the proposition that neighbouring systems may be the mechanisms of interaction across distances. Although fields can be viewed as a model , and allow maths to work within their framework , there is still a requirement for the fields to be within 'something' , or some form of substance , rather than nothing . I think this is where mechanical models can be of some help. As there has been some pretty incredible ' interactions ' crossing boundaries which at first take would seem impossible . I think resonance IS at the root of a lot of this subject . As even with my type of model . When I built a 3D MODEL of an ATOM , and fed it in a similar way to my aforementioned model , I got some pretty interesting results . Mike

.Well it was an experiment as I was not sure what I would find when I set up the apparatus . Except that I knew alternating waves were integral in solid matter ( like rope, wire , plate , rod etc ) . So I explored what happened starting from low energy and frequency and increased both over a range and recorded what happened. As I was experimenting with nature, natural materials and natural forces like energy . It is a bonus that it has reveled an insight into A) adjacent , neighbouring progress of energy B) how this grows from dimention to dimension from zero. Oh ! and as a bonus it has revealed a possible insight in to what progress possibly happened at the start of the Universe . From this I feel justified in using it as a model , provided by the natural environment itself . .I have just read the rules on speculation and I am trying to follow them here. So here goes . As per my post 30 and 32 , I feel justified in speculating what I have done in post 30 . In speculating the progress of growth in dimensions . So it seems an indication that at zero dimension was my lowest energy dimension that the universe started off with ELECTRONS .( being a point particle , thus having zero dimension ) . I am not sure if there are other point particles , but if necessary that can come as an embellishment . The increase in energy took us to an adjacent neighbouring dimension namely one dimension . This was the home of in and out activity , namely push and pull . This is the realm of FORCES . Attraction and repulsion . These we can find in many particles but maybe our adjacent neighbour here was a Proton. The charge force ( + and -) . It is interesting to see this is a single direction ., so at this stage it was purely in a line, ( one dimension ) ..... Moving , by an increase in energy , by neighbour , contact to our next dimension was two dimensions . This opened up as a wave . If looked at from the side , it appeared as a sinusoidal wave . Such was the nature of electro magnetic waves , which constituded the basis of light ( PHOTON ) . These did still not have mass, but could move at the speed of light and communicate information . These emanated from the effects of electrons ( point particles ) changing orbit and giving up energy in a photon . To move into the next neighbour dimenstion , namely three , we bring in what we as humans are used to namely solid MATTER .....MASS , composed of particles , and sustance . Our mass feels the effects of GRAVITY . SO GRAVITY comes into its own in the third dimension . Three dimensions is what we are used to , our world . We have come from the previous neighbour . We too , all too well have popped into the forth dimension TIME . We were born . We had a start , we will have an end . A life in three dimensions . Started and cut short in the forth dimension . There was a natural flow into the world and it could perhaps be described as a flow out when we die . I hope this speculative post has merit and something to think about . Mike

Taking my experiment , and it's postulation that :- By taking an energy source ( electrical transducer ) responding to a variable frequency generator . And building up the energy from zero , steadily increasing to a maximum ( practical ) input . It was noticed the response of the system , went through distinct condions of vibration ranging from : Zero , Single directional movement , oscillation in single direction , oscillation in two distinct two directions , complex oscillation . It is my speculation that this model follows the progress made into more dimensions employed by energy in the universe as it goes through different states. So we are talking of ... Zero dimension , First dimension , Second dimension . Third dimensions , Fourth. dimension . To suggest the parallel in the natural functioning of the material Universe , then :- Zero Dimension is described as the dimension of the electron ( point particle ) Paul Dirac , Richard Feynman. One Single Dimension ( attraction , repulsion ) uni directional . Force Two Dimensions ( oscillation in two dimensions ) electro magnetic waves Three Dimensions ( oscillations in complex dual oscillation ) particles with Mass Fourth Dimension ( time dimension ) . These could well have been the build up of dimensions in the early Big Bang with the very early creation of Energy , Time , forces, electrons , photons , and protons . Mike

O.k.. I will do my best to do what you ask Mike

. I agree , but the hypothesis is not that the universe has come about . That is accepted as fact , because it's out there , still going . What I am saying is , that my hypothesis , could help in an area , where it is in fact difficult to get access to. Like the very early time in the life of the universe. If you want a test nearer to home , then firstly my mechanical tests 1 and 2 Are demonstrations of adding dimentions from the bottom up. If you want a demonstration of neighbourhood transmission , then the bell jar experiment is a worthy demonstration . While the air is a neighbour to the striking bell clanger and gong. Remove the air , like remove the neighbour . You cannot hear the bell anymore. The case with a planet in orbit is not falsifiable , because you can't remove ' space time ' , easily ! However , it might be possible to do a falsifiable experiment with Gravity. Because although we can not remove ' space time ' we might be able to reduce one of the components . Not space , but TIME . It may be possible where gravity is working between two small masses . If adjacent medium between the masses is tampered with by tampering with the TIME component of ' space time . Then it could lead to a verification .and falsification . This may approach your specialised experience ? Mike

So if we were to put this model ( as a testable hypothesis ) to work in the universe at large . Working in the way I have proposed . Can we get at the evidence , FOR A universe building up its dimensions ( 1) (2) (3) and even (4) with time ,working in a neighbour to neighbour way ? Let us go back to the very beginning of time . Time zero for the universe. The very first creational activity, however it was originated as a massive explosion of force in one dimension . Each element of that explosion moved away from a central point . It was individual quantums of energy , moving individually in its own unique direction requiring only (1) one dimention . GRAVITY was thus the first unidirectional force , ever since , only seeking to return to a state of less potential energy . As other forces like charge and magnetic attraction and repulsion , more dimensions (2), were required and so LIGHT and other ELECTRO-MAGNETIC Waves , could carry information , at the speed of light throughout the expanding universe. Thirdly three dimentions (3) , allowed matter to form as to begin with single nuclei and electrons having MASS. Including all the other particles of the standard model . Thus even at this stage we have everything working adjacent with its neighbour , whether it be , photons , electrons and protons all expanding in now a three dimension, and with time a four (4) Dimentional Space -Time Universe . Thus started this cocophany of neighbour to neighbour interaction , right through to today ! Mike

. It would seem the experiment I conducted to investigate the usage of energy applied at a model scale , may have given some insight into the use of different numbers of required dimensions for different types of interaction at the atomic scale. This appears to follow the tendency of ' things' in the universe moving towards a condition of a lower energy level . Mike

.It is of some merit that many of the most successful systems both in nature and of current scientific invention have followed the system . INPUT - PROCESS - OUTPUT each element along the sequential chain follows a neighbouring predecessor. Nature ... Animals and Mankind ( digestive tract , nervous system , the sentinel being as a whole ) Scientific .... electronic systems ( input keypad , process processor, output screen , computer) .....................and any machine as a whole system ) Most of these follow an adjacent neighbour doing its bit in the chain from origin to destination ! If it works don't fix it . So sheer logic should tell us " if it works so well " surely the universe as a whole would use the same ' system ' , all -be-it on a far grander scale ? You say " science proceeds by looking for examples that don't. I was presenting one that doesn't " Well let's look at that :- see if my model can stand up to your attempted falsification ? Quote by Swansont " The sun's gravitational interaction with e.g Mars depends only on its distance. It does not depend on whether the earth is in a position beyween the two or on the opposite side from Mars. The earth does not relay the force from the sun to Mars. " unquote Well for a start , I am not saying the EARTH is relaying any gravity from the Sun to Mars . In this case the sun is pushing the space-time continuum rubber sheet or my neighbour model ' down ' centralised on the sun . We will say for the time being the earth is over to the side somewhere ( not in or beyond the line of fire of any potential major influence to Mars ) . So if it's a rubber sheet or anything that resembles my neighbour to the sun, right adjacent to all that mass of the sun has some gigantuant interaction with the rubber sheet or anything I have there, or really is there , distorted ,ruptured and twisted out of all proportions to anything that exists in far outer space , it's sitting there , whether it is modelled by the rubber sheet , a gravitational field , or whatever else is there that accepts interaction with gravity or large amount of mass close by and is there next to the sun all screwed up . What happens next door adjacent to where we are ( bang smack up against the sun ) ? Well if I am a rubber sheet and I want to see what is happening to the next door neighbour piece of rubber ? Well it's distorted pretty well the same , maybe a little less by some amount proportional to the new distance from the centre of the sun by a factor of 1/r squared ( r being distance from centre of sun ) . If I look at my neighbour model , something very similar is happening except my neighbour stuff is not made of rubber , but made of whatever ' space time field ' is made of ??? From my first interaction with the sun to my second interaction now interacting with the first interaction , there has also been an increase in 'r' thus 1/r squared has similarly reduced in its interaction by a similar amount and so on and so on with both the rubber sheet and my neighbourly interaction. Out towards Mars , with no particular involvement by the earth. No contradiction , no falsified model so the model has stood the test ! Mike .