Higgs Mechanism Loophole and Emergent Space formulation for Gravity

You haven't presented a way to understand your assertions? I try not to get used to nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I read the link to "Of Particular Significance" a very long time ago. So did my colleagues.

Did you know, Prof. Matt Strassler was one of the ones involved in the OPERA superluminal neutrino fiasco? I have friends who are not only neutrino physicists who already have Nobel Prizes to their credit. The same cannot be said of Matt, at least not yet.

As the as yet very hypothetical spin 2 Standard Model particle called the graviton has never been observed, and has no mechanism by which it can exchange energy with matter the way Higgs does, either someone got the spin wrong and the Higgs IS the graviton, or else, checkmate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Finally, let's be clear about this:

Our claim is NOT that the Higgs mechanism imparts both inertial and gravitational mass (which Matt has aptly addressed in his blog 'Of Particular Significance'.

Our claim is that the Higgs mechanism imparts energy to the vacuum as it interacts with matter, causing a generalized acceleration of the virtual energy of the vacuum that just happens to cause the matter that is immersed in it to accelerate along with it.

If any part of the Standard Model is 'half-baked', it is not the Higgs, it is the Graviton.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you already know what i have pointed out to you on the other site.
and yes, i read your responses to them.

 

I saw that on the other site as well. It seemed like the responses were reasonable. I would like more detail on what you think is wrong with the ideas proposed by danshawen..

 

the main issue of this hypothesis is,
there's no acknowledgement and understanding of the extra energy and extra gravity existing.
then completely falls apart from there.
there's also the lack of acknowledgement of how gravity and energy are constantly fighting each other.
all in all, this hypothesis lacks needed important data that explains what this hypothesis claims.
it's the typical i just received my bachelors degree and now i think i understand every thing involved with physics.
except higher levels of physics,
which is what all this pertains to.
not only that but there's high energy physics that needs to be understood.
in other words,
it's like a elementary student attempting to do college level studies without knowing anything in between.

it might be at least, well enough for a dissertation, but even then.

i even pointed out exotic matter and mach's principle,
which is very important here.

i also have not even mentioned anti matter.
which also, should be look into.
look into,
gravitational interaction of antimatter

 

@krash661; a fair and honest assessment. Thanks!

I'm not doing this (and I hope, neither are my colleagues) for praise and adulation. If there's a problem with the theory I haven't considered, don't hold back. Tell me what you really think. And this goes for everyone, not just for krash661.

"i also have not even mentioned anti matter.
which also, should be look into."

I attended a physics colloquium in 1988 at the UofMD when the physics world was still reeling about the data obtained by the 1987 supernova.
The astrophysicist (a woman) reported that both neutrinos and antineutrinos were observed arriving simultaneously at widely separated neutrino detectors (Canada and Japan). This means that on the way from the 1987 supernova to the Earth, both neutrinos and antineutrinos were identically affected by gravity / gravitational lensing. In other words, gravity attracts antimatter exactly as it does matter.

Even though the LHC has on its schedule to test the effect of Earth gravity on a microscopic sample of the anti-hydrogen it has collected and stored for such experiments, it's almost a given from the supernova observations, there is no anti-gravity associated with anti-matter. I would also point out that this is consistent with our theory, because the Higgs mechanism gives inertial mass to both electrons and positrons, quarks and antiquarks, W and Z bosons and their corresponding antiparticles. If it turned out to be different, this would be a real surprise. Would you like to wager anything on the outcome?

 

i seriously appreciate that you are actually interested in science/physics.
keep on it. i believe you can you see what i have pointed out and understand and then go from there.

 

Well assisted. Anything else krash661?

 

(shrugs)

 

The Higgs mechanism doesn't predict anything of the sort. Your assertion won't be confirmed by any theoretical prediction or experimental result. That's my prediction based on the nonsense you've been touting.

 

Lets break this down, nice and simple.

I never said: "The H i g g s m e c h a n i s m p r e d i c t s a n y t h i n g . . ."

Explain what YOU think the H i g g s m e c h a n i s m does. Hint: It's the foundation of the Standard Model of particle physics.

If you can parse this, we'll talk, otherwise, discuss it offline with your buddy krash661.

 

My colleagues have asked me to make it clear the Higgs Mechanism Loophole gravity is NOT a ToE (Theory of Everything).

It says nothing (yet) about what happened in the era of the Big Bang, or even early cosmic Inflation (Guth's bailiwick).

It says nothing (and I made a mistake by saying it does) about either electric or magnetic fields or interactions with them in the vacuum.

It does address some deficiencies of GR's principle of equivalence. For one thing, a 1g accelerated elevator does not bend a photon traveling in a trajectory that is parallel to that of the elevator (as if it had a mass big enough to provide 1g), yet if you replace the elevator with something as massive as a planet, it does.

The principle of equivalence is currently the only mathematical link between the Higgs mechanism and the acceleration of space, but that is subject to change.

 

Please elaborate.

 

Turns out, one of my colleagues is an internationally published gravity physicist with a considerable network of like colleagues, and many of his papers include relativity arguments based on the principle of equivalence. It so happens, he gets the right answers (at odds with many gravity scientists determined to ignore the fundamentals), and using mostly classical arguments.

It is well known that the Principle of Equivalence, key to the General theory of Relativity, works for bending of light rays that pass through the sides of an elevator moving upward with an acceleration of 1g, and also for time dilation, even for photons that enter through the ceiling and exit through the (transparent) floor. But this idea does not work for an elevator in free space compared against the path of a photon that travels parallel to its path. This is to say, the beam of light does not experience bending toward the elevator in any manner that would suggest a 1g acceleration in the same way if the elevator were replaced by something with the mass of a planet accelerating along the same trajectory. This is a mathematical as well as a physical failure of the principle of equivalence.

 

only if it could be looked into.
where would i find such things ?

what are the odds the publishing is,
" viXra.org "

 

I have no idea (where to find such people or things), but evidently one of my colleagues did. This is all new to me. Like quantum_wave and BR549 sang, "You gotta try something".
"arXIV.org"? Nope. Not even close. The Royal Society, for starters.

Now if we can all just keep on speaking terms...

 

It always seems to be like that. As soon as you say it, you get 24 hours of silence, lol.

Thanks for passing on the comments of your colleagues, and their clarifications. What role does your work play in the mix?

 

Evidently, I was the first skeptic about the idea of emergent space and the fundamental nature of time, energy alone. I tried developing the idea of Higgs gravity (without any loophole) without it, and failed miserably, which is to say, it doesn't satisfy all that has been thus far observed. Our third colleague is sort of where I was about 6 months ago (emergent space not necessary to the theory), but he's coming along nicely. The way I hope it will work out, I'll help reconcile the differences between the third colleague and the second at some point.

The third colleague has by far the most impressive credentials in terms of the necessary math. His math is however all quite transparently comprehensible to me, which is something of a rare thing.

Thanks for asking.

 

Just to clarify, is "what we have observed", the decay of the Higgs boson or some data that implies the Higgs mechanism?