Edgard Neuman

when you consider two particles in a volume, the probability of finding a particle at a position is the probability of finding one "or" the other.. Yes but I'm talking of "volume" in a general way of set of position (where events take place) in the space you consider quantum physics is happening (might it be space time, Minkowsky space, hilbert space, or euclidian space).. not a particular space extend in a single (RR is for special relativity in french) frame.

Yes of course (I call it having the "same properties"). I know the success of GR so I know any concurrent theory has to include all its results.. But if you try to fit any theory in its specific mathematical structure, it will obviously never work.. the next theory will probably need new paradigms. I you refuse to even start to build a new theory because the bricks don't fit in GR, you will never build anything, even though the whole house could eventually replace RG. (I don't pretend anything that just ideas).. A new theory would replace the whole thing, the only thing that remains is the shape (the results) 1) The graph I think about is the infinitely subdivided limit.. So it could be kind of continuous.. 2) I don't want to build a differentiable manifold.. I understand the trouble. Particle needs to have constant speed and constant direction.. In my idea, that would be something else.. You can define "direction" in a graph.. Think about the way light travel : in a book Feynman explain that light travel the shortest path because the wave cancel itself in slow paths.. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation) So the light straight trajectory is only a result of wave propagation through space.. That works in the graph ! If a wave travel the graph it still cancel itself in slow paths. In that case, the conservation of impulsion, in the graph, can be explain by path integration. Yes ! I have the feeling that what blocks us is the way we describe space with mathematical structure that are limiting our views. We know that space is curved everywhere, but we still want to see it has a modified flat space (I understand that it's the Minkosky version of it that is curved). All we know is that space is a collection of "locations" with connections (if location are infinitely close, and tends to be flat at small scale, it's continuous, but even that we can't be sure at small scale).. The other reason I think that, is because I think we are not in a 3D space, not in a 4D space, but in a xD (where 3 < x <4).. That would be a model for "time" : if some paths exists and some others don't, we can go "anywhere" in the space. To do that, I take the problem of the arrow of time backward. Considere spacetime as a mathematical absolute space containing events (in space time so) so we suppose a 4D space. The arrow of time means that you can't go back (move to a previous event).. meaning in that "space time" paths that go to a place they where before don't exist. In other way there is no "loop" in this space time.. So you remove some of the 4D space links..The result might be a fractional dimensional space, where particles can't go back where they were... (a 4D space without any time travel paradox) I think graphs are a way to study any "space" using a discreet version of continuous space, with no limit on connectivity. Modern theories always try to describe the whole results with number (the whole trajectory, the whole "metrics" of the whole system, the equation that gives any results of what happening anywhere) but I'm not sure this really exist (if even the 3 body problem is unsolvable, how could we resolve the "every particle problem"). We know that large scale is the result of local events, so instead of that, we should focus on local laws. Thanks a lot Yes I understand the space time curvature is the curvature of trajectories in space time (and not just a topological curvature of space) So as I understand it, curvature is the average measure of paths intersections ? (do the paths diverge or converge).. so that tends to confirm that it is the same thing as the variation of the surface of the nSphere. Thanks a lot.. I have no more question.

Yes I understood that. Thanks again. I think the problem is the quantity "the probability of finding a particle at a particular point" is not appropriate (because of the "or" operation needed) . So the right quantity to use would be the average quantity of particle you would find in a volume (or even a point ?). This value can add properly and exceed 1.

never mind I think I found the answer.. I a flat "n" dimension space, the surface of the N-sphere would be = constant(n) * R ^ n (n is integer or not) I a curved "n" dimension space, the surface of the N-sphere would be = k * constant(n) * R ^n so k define the curvature, but the dimension is still the power of R (so it's two separate variables) (in fact I'm not sure about that... the continuous curved space is always locally flat, so it's more a variation of "R^n" than a constant) but it's strange because, in a graph, you can as I said define a equivalent (a discrete analog I mean) to the surface of the sphere, but it only depend on the density of links. At this point it's more of a math question.

ok, I understand that an actual fractal structure can't be continuous. That's not what I 'm talking about. 1) GR equations are only the large scale successful approximation of the small scale reality. You can't be sure that small scale is continuous.. and that it doesn't appears continuous only at large scale .. In fact I read many times that small scale is described as a topological foam because of quantum fluctuations.. 2) I'm not talking about an actual defined fractal structure, as I wrote, I'm talking about the infinite limit of a graph that we could continuously subdivide while maintaining some scale independent properties. It's easy to think about.. I tried to make a computer version of it but I failed.. It's not a graph, it's the infinite subdivision of it. I don't use Hausdorff dimension is the auto similarity context, but in the idea of how surface and volume grow with scale (maybe the "hausdorff definition" is not the one I'm thinking about.. I don't know the proper name of everything ).. .If you have a wave (or anything that propagates through locations linked together while carrying an amplitude).. the way the amplitude fade with the distance give you the dimension. In a 1 dimension space : the amplitude doesn't change.. In 2D space, the wave is integrated along the perimeter, so it's the inverse of distance (1/p = 1/ Pi * r *2).. in 3D the wave is divided along the surface of the sphere . so (1 / Pi * r² *4) etc.. (the inverse of the surface formula of the Nsphere.. give you a formula so you can always find "n" when you vary R in a graph, even when n is fractional). I would be very interested to see how you would prove that you can't build a continuous fractional dimension space. Because it's easy for me to picture. You just need a space where the surface of the n-sphere is given by the formula where n is not an integer. And since we know a curved space also change the surface of the sphere, I'm failing to see how it is different. You seem to look for every little flaws in the usage of the words I use. That's not what is important here. Please understand what I am actually talking about, and not just every separate words. And you always seem to forget that equations never actually describe reality. They always describe "mean" properties.. there is no "real" circle in the universe (since there are is only particles).. When you say "the intrinsic curvature used in General Relativity" is continuous. I say : of course, that's how it was built, it's a mathematical object. It's like you told me, "the circle is always continuous." But me, I'm talking about the actual universe that the model is describing, Not the GR description of it.. I want to know if it can be describe by another model. (Yes, I know it's a very very good approximation, but we also know that every theory has limits, and GR doesn't apply for instance in singularities.. )

Thanks, I see my mistake. Just in the not quantum physics case, if you add particle (with probabilities Pa and Pb) in a volume, the probability is that volume would be the probability of finding one or the other (or both), so it's P(a or b)=Pa+Pb-(Pa*Pb). I'm always talking about volumes, not points. But that doesn't make my idea wrong : if you superpose multiple waves, you can still manage to make a peak at some chosen location.. meaning the probability of finding a particle here gets high, no ? I mean, there is only one probability field for a particle type at the end.. the value is given by Feynman diagram.. The idea in the end is nothing magical really. What I really wonder is to what point you can control wave to make complex peaks.. The process for sounds is very powerful.. by reversing all records of a room with multiple mics, you kind of reverse all the waves at the same time and you recreate all the sounds emitted in that room.. We can't "record" a quantum wave by classical ways, but maybe we can build a quantum device that preserve the waves in some way (isolated like in a quantum computer) and emit it backward

Thanks, but still, since particles (of the same type of course, and it must be bosons) are indistinguishable, you can add several waves and so the probability on a given volume can go has high as you want...you are talking about the integral for one given particle.. but that's not the probability at a given location where you can simply have more than one particle.. in quantum physics, waves do add, and the probability is the square of the complex vector.. We can still manipulate the field to make the probability go more than 1 in a given location.. the all point of the idea is just to make a particle appear at a controlled location (and yes, one of the emitter would then actually loose a particle, I never meant to break the conservation laws)..

I don't understand much of what you said, I admit. 1) If we accepted the cosmological model, I think (maybe I'm wrong) each point of space time can be related to a sphere in the universe at a given age, like t=0.0001s for instance. You just have to get back in time following the light cone. Space itself is not so relative. The co-mobile frame is the one the really mater. 2) My idea doesn't suppose anything about what's in the graph (a wave ? information ?) it's just a way to figure a non integer dimension space.. Quantum theory is just probability waves of particle in space.. That could be any space.. the space (may it be a curved space, a Hilbert space, a flat euclidean space) is a collection of locations. Quantum theory tells about the way what's in it behave.. You can draw Feynman graphs into 2D 3D space etc..Probability waves can evolve in any kind of space.. We know that we should run quantum theory in space-time space, and the difficulty is the complexity of describing with equations and math what's happening, because particles as object are not in "1 location" but is spread in space (so it's hard to describe energy density) , but quantum theory in GR curved space is what's really happening My question really is : is space time curvature be the same thing as a fractal dimensional local variation of a graph of position ? (what ever is in it) Imagine a local space with a spatial dimension of 3.1 (the Hausdorff dimension, the way a quantity of space grow when you scale up a n-sphere)..

Hi, I have this idea and I wonder if it's possible using to quantum theory : When using sound waves, it's known (I can't find an article about that but I read some) that we can reverse signals recorded from multiple microphones, to reemit synchronized waves (even though a complex medium) that peaks at the position of the previously recorded emiter, creating a virtual sound source. And we can even use the time-print given by the records (with some calculation) to generate any sound at this position. So could the same process be used to create a converging probability wave of particle ? We would need a big number of devices that somehow leak a wave/particle in a specified direction (with a little propability) but synchronized and converging to a point where the sum of probability would excess 1, thus creating a real particle ex-nihilo. (yes, I already dream of the Star Trek replicator) thank you for your answers

1) the prerequisite for this idea is to define a continuous space which have local dimensions that are not just 2, 3 or 4, but can vary continuously. It's a thing I have in mind from long time ago but I'm not a mathematician so I don't have time to "work on it". I don't know if its possible. The ways I see it, this space is like the infinite limit of a graph. Imagine a graph : a collection of nodes, and links between some of them (and no underlying vectoriel space). - We can find paths between far nodes, and mesure their lengths : the minimum number of links to cross to go from one to the other, is the distance between two points. - For isotropie, we don't use a regular pattern for the links : links are locally random, but there are certain laws which garantie that the "pseudo space" is kind of continuous : some construction rules like "when two nodes are linked via a long path, the probability of them being linked via a shortcut is low".. - We can define the local dimension, by measuring how the number of reachable node grow when we set the maximum length we go from a point. For instance, if the graph is an approximation of a 2D space, the number of node should grow like R^2 (like the surface of the disc).. and if the graph is an approximation of a 3D space, it should grow like R^3.. so N(R) =~ a * R ^ dim... We see that for a given graph, "dim" could be any real number like "2.4564" or else.. - We can define "straight line".. using the shortest path, and we can also define "direction" by choosing the path from a point going always farthest from another distant point. So now we have some kind of math to manipulate a space whose local dimension is continuously varying.. dimension is the local connectivity of the graph.. - of course, each graph is an approximation of the supposed continuous space. The real space would be seen as the infinite limit of the considered graph when the nodes and links are smaller and smaller but the global statistical properties remain the same, invariant from the scale of the graph.. 2) How it could replace "curvated space time" : instead of viewing space-time as a curvated Minkowky space, we put the theory in the variable dimension space. We can see "curvature" has the fact that in the direction where local dimension grow, the number of links going their grows. Imagine that something randomly travel the graph. The more the link are dense, the more the probability of ending their grows.. I have another analogy for this : It's like when the Google Bots travel the web using hyper links between sites. If you have a lot of hyperlink crossing on your site, the google bot is more likely to get stuck in it longer (it's actually a S.E.O. technique). So maybe it's what gravity is : a local space with more dimension, is like a graph more interconnected, and so navigating in it is more likely than going out of it : it's the gravitational force. We still assume that density of matter define local dimension (as it defined curvature in G.R.) 3) Now, let's go at the scale of particles. Lots of theory I read need extra dimensions. The quantum void is said to be a topological foam. Let's put it in the variable dimensional space instead : maybe particles are dense enough to create local dimension higher than 3, maybe 4 or 5 etc.. maybe the interactions between particles and this space create a certain collection of stable topological structures. Those possible structures would be particles and their families (like the strings in the string theories).. I know it is very very very far fetched.. maybe It can inspire somebody..

Hi, I have a new idea about how to mix them, but i'm not a physicist and definitely not able to put math on it.. What if, instead of "curving space", density of matter would define the dimension (the Hamel dimension, not only integer) of space. Instead of having a "curved space", it would be a space "of varying local dimension", and of course, in first approximation at our scale, it would fit to the description of a curved space. (but it could also go higher than 4)... (I can picture this kind of space by viewing as a infinite graph with more or less links between nodes..) So now at quantum scale, it would allow to have a higher dimensional space where particles are made of more elementary particles, as they would assemble into local topological structures generated by their own masses.. (the solar system for instance, is that) Is that a good idea ?

First, any quantum reaction respect those laws : - charges are conserved, - energy is conserved. So if there is for instance an (a+b) electron and (a) positron (b is in the "o" part of my example), b will never disappear into photons, what ever the way it interacts. The reason why I suppose that "photon + photon => matter + antimatter" reaction decrease entropy is just because I simply reverse time. If a reaction create entropy, the reverse decrease entropy. If "entropy" is the somehow a measure of the nature of energy (more photon meaning more entropy) then less photons mean less entropy. Even if you consider "bremsstrahlung", this is just a form of changing the form of energy from being "charge momentum" to "photon". The new photon would just increase the probability of "photon - photon" reaction in the global mix. All the E.M. theory is based on charged particule converting some of their speed into photon and the opposite. That's the one and only way charged particule interact. Fields measure the properties of the space, properties given by the particles that are in it.

All reactions respect the conservation of energy principle ? no ? It wouldn't be true at big scale if it wasn't at particle level. (and entropy is not a form of energy). When one say that "energy decay" it means that it change from one form to another form, with entropy increasing also. If the photon/photon reaction exist, it mean it must be decreasing entropy. Given that its a equilibrium state, it would be at a maximal entropy state (but still not only made photons though), and stable. The 2 reactions are symmetrical by T (therefor identical in reverse). Entropy here can remain constant in all those reaction without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy is a measure of a statistical property of a system, not a thing by itself.

Yes, but given that matter and antimatter would be very dense, the actual quantity of photon (not that we see, but also those that would be considered "virtual" otherwise) would still result of a equilibrium. Let's say we have, in a finite volume : n particle of antimatter n + o particle of matter p photons n and p could be a very big number : it wouldn't change anything (if photon directions are randomly distributed, they have no effect on charges, on average) we have the two reaction so we are always in a state between the 2 extremes: o particule of matter p+(2*n) photons and n + (p/2) particle of antimatter n + (p/2) + o particle of matter The state would be given by the relative probabilities of the 2 reactions. If photon - photon interaction are rarer, it just means that p >> n.. but in average the medium would still be in a equilibrium state (because the more photons, the more photon - photon interactions occures).. The entropy is given by the number of photons, so it's not relevant here. If the matter-antimatter reaction is symmetrical to the opposite, the effect on entropy must be opposite to. And when charge accelerates, energy of the system has to remain the same. (I mean, because of energy conservation laws) When a charged particle transfert momentum to another, the energy sum is null. If suppose that E.M. potential energy is lowered by the acceleration changes.. while acceleration vectors are opposite. In that case there would also be some equilibrium, given that when a particule is accelerated away from another, it's also accelerated toward some others, so global potential E.M. energy would stay the same.

I thought these interaction were fully time symmetrical.. if not I see the problem (and the energy is conserved : two particle creates two photon, two photons create two particles, the energy is always conserved in every interaction) I'm not sure about the exact "how" of this idea. It would have to be fully compatible with known QT somehow. One reason for me is the "continuity" with higher structural organization of matter : - like charges in metal, they would by supernumerary above opposites charges in a equilibrium state - like in a gas, chaos would emerge from a number of particle with no long time stable effect , but only short time. - no need for particles to magically appear or disappear from and to the void. - information could be stored and restored from the void, existing independently from matter for short term - it could also explain negative energy : such a void filled with matter and antimatter would probably like a gas, have a tendency to expand by itself, carrying the real matter with it. thanks anyway

My mistake I meant photons I think this idea (at least the concept) can be tested quite easily : you make a 2d simulation of a very big snooker table, filled with random classical balls moving (like in a gas), and a wall with 2 holes to recreate the Young experiment.Then you had a fast ball coming form the side. During the simulation, you make stats about the average speed of particles in each cell of a 2d+time grid. Then you repeat the operation from the beginning a large amount of time. This way you would see the average effect of the added fast ball on the average speed distribution, in space and time : you would almost certainly see something like a wave.

The idea here is that particle and antiparticule are wearing a real mass/energy and don't appear or disappear but transform into photon and back. So the energy in the void is mesurable and finite, with a variable density such as dark matter. There would be no difference between real and virtual particles. The particle wouldn't pop up. The void would have : 1000 particles, 1000 antiparticle, constantly interacting but still equal. So we would still call it "void". And then a supernumerary particle would have a position a charge etc. It would be interacting (classicaly) with the 2000 other particles so its mass and momentum would be distributed, but still supernumerary (which make it real for us). It wouldn't really appear and disappear individually, but just be stable above the average. (sorry if i repeat myself too much). The fact that it's stable is because it is supernumerary on average. So if we cut space in regions : the particle wouldn't appear in any region, because in average, those part would still be at equilibrium between matter and antimatter : thus void. But in a local region, any given particle constantly interacting wouldn't have to be perfectly positioned. We would have something that corresponds to QT : the probability that a particle is still supernumerary in a region depend of the scale of the region : the probability of tunneling would diminish like the inverse of the number of particle in the sphere : if I'm not wrong, it would be 1/d² like in QT. Imagine you have a gas chamber full of spherical mechanical particles. Particle have momentum, but the total is null (the gas is at equilibrium). Then you add a fast particle, which would interact of course instantly with the other present (like on a snooker table). Maybe at first it would share it's speed with a first ball, and then the two would share it with two other new etc.. You agree that after a time, the added momentum would make the total not null anymore. So were is the new momentum ? After a long time, it would be statistically distributed. But before that ? Imagine we try to estimate the average speed of different region of the chamber. Just after you add the fast new particle : the region close to where it enter would have a higher probability of having a none null average speed. If we try to characterize the average momentum of each sub regions at any time, we would probably see a wave, and of course, these would actually interfere and diffract : because trajectory of balls would react (for instance to a wall like in Young experiment). The wave would represent only the distribution of average momentum/charges, and not a unique particle. Let say that the new momentum after hitting several particle is distributed between 16 particle. Those 16 particle (with different direction : like the balls after the first shot in a snooker party) hit a wall : they all bounce (classically) so now the new momentum of speed is spread across space.. In my idea you have to forget the idea of unity of matter, it would be only average supernumerary properties in a sea of chaos : those property would also interfere and diffract, because they would be distributed.

Hi, I love science, but I am not a professional, just a free thinker. I have this crazy theory in my head for years, and I don't know where to find somebody to disprove it (or acknowledge its plausibility) If you a reason to think it's absurd right away : please explain it to me ! Here it is : 1) Matter and antimatter would have a positive mass. 2) We are all wrong about the nature of Quantum physics : instead of being a strange generator of particules and antiparticules, void would be filled with a great quantity of matter and antimatter equally, constantly interacting. All sum of charges of those particules would be exactly equal to zero. They wouldn't have to behave as strangely as Quantum theory suggest : they just wouldn't be stable at all : constantly annihilated (matter + antimatter -> photons ) and recreated (matter + antimatter <- photons), and could still be regular localized particule : charges and movements we observe would be supernumerary above the average, and wouldn't be carried simply be carried by one of them, but constantly redistributed, and would behave just as we observe them : like waves.. 3) All the mysteries of QT we observe could be easily explain by statistical effects : - for instance, the tunnel effect would occur when a particle meet a local antiparticle, they annihilate perfectly : an other particle would suddenly be supernumerary somewhere else. - the " wave " behavior would only be explain by the fact that charges could be randomly distributed in the mess of annihilation / recreation. For instance, if you add a unique very fast particle into a gas with no initial global speed : after a time it's movement would statically be distributed between all gas particles. The "localization" of the added movement would be spread. And if you add another fast particle in the opposition direction, after a time, the gas would restore its global 0 speed. 4) the void, being filled with matter and antimatter would still have gravitational mass and density : it would be what we observe as dark matter density. Like a gas, it would spread, but would still be subject to its own gravity : giving dark matter halos distribution that we know of. There's a way to check if this theory true : - calculate the matter/ antimatter density required in the void to reproduce dark matter density - then estimate the density of it and the spread it would have, the quantity of annihilation / creation by unit of time it would have. - see if the dark matter scale and distribution is coherent with those properties. - maybe from this : estimate statistical property this void would have and check if it matchs quantum theory maths

I don't think that is mathematically correct. A scalar field is a space->value function. Yes it defines a gradient field, which is a vector field. But the gradient field is not the scalar field itself. If the field was constant, it wouldn't be not a field, it's a constant. You don't understand my idea. The void is fill with particles and antiparticles. The annihilation, as you know it, is a totally reversible interaction : a high energy photon can split into a particle and an antiparticle. So the photons created are interacting in some way to recreate matter and antimatter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle#Particle-antiparticle_annihilation "This opens the way for virtual pair production or annihilation in which a one particle quantum state may fluctuate into a two particle state and back. These processes are important in the vacuum state and renormalization of a quantum field theory. It also opens the way for neutral particle mixing through processes such as the one pictured here, which is a complicated example of mass renormalization." You speak about real particles. I speak about the void. All you say about particles and temperature is true, but it doesn't remove the possibility of it being only supernumerary matter in a matter/antimatter soup at equilibrium state. If the void is filled with matter and antimatter, it could be in a state where Pair production rate equals particle-antiparticle annihilation rate. Like in a gas, the equilibrium state (of matter and antimatter, NOT the one you talk about) would depend on the density (the density of different type of particles/antiparticles and the average speed), but we would still call it void, because there would exactly as much matter as antimatter. The sum of impulsion and anti-impulsion would also be 0. So it would be what we call void : you can't take a particle of it, without seeing a antiparticle left alone (or simply take any charge without seeing its anti-counter part alone). Now, if you add for instance, a single electron with an electric charge and a kinetic charge, it would interact, but its charges wouldn't disappear and would stay emerging. (I'm looking for an image : a single male in a room filled with married couple. If the male pair with a woman, the male she was with become a new single male). It would also permit to separate charges across space, (for instance impulsion and electric charge), and even maybe explain the quantum strangeness (because impulsion would travel as a wave in the soup, but matter would only get absorbed once). Particles, constantly interacting, wouldn't travel at all : only supernumerary charges would (like in a newton pendulum). In this idea, maybe that the gradient of the energy field would simply be.. gravitational field. Matter would react differently from antimatter because of the gradient of density would imply a gradient of density of antimatter as well. In that case, we would observe that antimatter have a positive energy, but a negative acceleration toward gravitational field. If you really understand it, it's quite convincing. If you still don't understand, here is a list of phenomenon, with my idea compared to the classic quantum interpretation - the void classic interpretation : a quantum mess where pairs of particle antiparticle can appear from nowhere for a short amount of time and disappear right after to nowhere, and never exist long enough to break the conservation energy rule, for some reason (No, you can't justify this by the Heisenberg equation, which is supposed to be a descriptive theory of things. We observe the law, the law doesn't justify itself) my idea : a filled soup of matter and antimatter at equilibrium state. No need of "virtual" anything. particle/antiparticles are here the whole time. They all interact with each other constantly, given the fact that anhiliation is a fully reversible interaction : opposites direction photons interact with each other into matter antimatter pairs all the time - a real particle : classic interpretation : a wave/particle thing travelling according to a probability field acting like a "wave" carrying charges, and sometime interacting at some random position. my idea : a collection of supernumerary charges in the void soup (a particle with no antiparticle counterpart). Each charge is constantly carried by different particles/antiparticles interacting, even splited in parts across space. But each type of charge exist in symmetrical way in "positive" and "negative" with complement each other, a supernumerary charge remains supernumerary on average, above the equilibrium. Of course, when supernumerary charges come into a stable structure somewhere (like a photon absorbed by an atom) the supernumerary charge are not observable anywhere else not anymore (with no need of quantum probability magics). - photon : classic interpretation : a particle/wave moving freely. my idea : a supernumerary charge of momentum, which can be spited and shared. (of course it still travel from neighbor to neighbor so it has a finite speed) All the "real" particle would behave the same in the two interpretation, so you can still talk about "heat" and other macro statistical measures of particles.

Heat is the measure of average speed of particle, if the void is a gas of particle and antiparticle, what we call heat is the speed of only the particle that is real. We would have a lot of kinetic energy in particles, a lot of kinetic energy in antiparticles, but both would equal and annihilate each other constantly. All charges of particle and antiparticle, momentum and kinetic energy would compensate each other. Only the one particle that is without its anti-counterpart would be observable (with all its charges and kinetic momentum energies), because it would never be compensated on average. (I said "hot void" to suggest that it's full of interactions, like a gas, not with measurable heat)

Ok I don't understand everything but I get the idea. So what would happen if the Higgs field is not uniform through space for some reason ? The particle is real, right ? It has been observed. So in the mess of the void, and in Feynman diagrams, it shows up. W+, W−, and Z bosons have mass because the interact with it. Not in the past, but in the reality of each space-time volume. You speak about symmetry break. We are not talking about a past event, we are talking about reals particles interactions everywhere that give them their property now. Simmetry break is not an "event", it's a different behavior in different energy density. So if the Higgs field is not uniform, would it affect mass of particle via its effects on the W+, W−, and Z bosons ? [Personally, I don't think the void is "empty".. I think the void is hot, and filled with matter and antimatter in nearly equal quantities, constantly interacting everywhere.. So "real" matter is just the outnumbering particle in the mess.. It removes almost all of the magic of quantum mechanic, and remove the need to create temporary "pair of particles" from nothing or the idea of converting them right from kinetic energy.. (Supposing that particles come from nowhere just because of probabilistic equation says so, is like supposing real women have 1.5 children from statistics) And it explains also possible variations in matter antimatter density across space (because there could be more or less of both matter in antimatter in each empty volume), and also explain the energy density (because antimatter is positive energy as well and curve space-time). ]

So basically, what you're both saying, is that the Higgs particle was just introduced to explain the first burst of inflation, simply by just filling the void with energy ? (in a thermal equilibrium filled space) I'm confused. I understand that any particle affect space-time by its only presence. Of course, if any energy curve space-time, any particle does too. I understand that curvature is related to the energy density tensor of course. That's not what I'm talking about here. (if the Higgs doesn't interact, and is just here to fill the vacuum, it would act just like dark matter itself). But I thought the boson was supposed to interact with particles, in a way that it explain each different mass. That's what I read everywhere. What I understood (it was explained everywhere, with plethora of goo metaphor), the Higgs particle, by its interactions, slow down particles in a way that create mass, it mathematically mean that the more dense the field is, the more other forces seams weak. So if the Higgs particles create, by their interactions, the different masses of types of particles (which are different resistances to acceleration of course), different field value should create different set of masses respectively, no ? And so, if we suppose the field is not uniform, but variable at large scale, doesn't it mean that resistance to acceleration should vary accordingly ? In wikipedia " The Yukawa interaction is also used in the Standard Model to describe the coupling between theHiggs field and massless quark and lepton fields (i.e., the fundamental fermion particles). Through spontaneous symmetry breaking, these fermions acquire a mass proportional to the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field." So what if the "vacuum expectation value" of the field is variable ?

well if the Higgs field doesn't affect photons, so my idea can't explain gravitational lenses.. I supposed that the Higgs could be above general relavity.. If Higgs boson affect mass (which is basicaly the way matter react to forces), shouldn't it affect spacetime as well.. ? In fact I don't understand how the Higgs fields is related to the space time curvature, and I don't have a clear representation of what mass is. I understand that : - forces are effecting particles by transmitting energy : for example when a photon hit a electron, the energy conservation explain the change in the electron trajectory. - the energy of the particles and fields : rest mass and kinetic energy, all this defines spacetime curvature - spacetime is curved : its curvature affects inertial trajectories, (like an acceleration) - if the Higgs fields is affecting "mass", shouldn't it affect inertial trajectories as well ? I admit I don't know enough to be sure of anything. ​ What would be the effect of Higgs fields when its value is lower or higher ?

Hi! I have an idea and I wonder if it is possible or absurd : What if the Higgs field depends on matter density (in a large scale) ? If the Higgs field give mass to particles, it implies that where the field is low, particles, freed from it, are relatively more affected by gravitational forces. So it could explain the missing mass mystery : Instead of dark matter, it's just a very smooth scalar field (much smoother than gravitation), where value is the inverse of the supposed dark matter field. It would be shaped like the supposed halo of dark matter. I think gravitational effects would be similar. What do you think ?

We have two observers receiving one particle of the pair located at two different spot, unable to communicate. One (the actor) do something. The other (the observer) observe the other particle. The quantum thing may be weird and probabilities, but once observed, it's a collection of "measurement". They repeat it several times. What ever the explanation of the phenomena, there's only two possibilities in facts : - Something travels from the actor to the observer. Somehow, the observer see different things whether the actor did something or not (something at least is slightly different after many experiment). - nothing travel. (Even-though results may be statistically correlated one to the other like in the any classical situation).