All forms of energy, momentum and stresses are sources of gravitation, as described by the Energy-Momentum Tensor in General Relativity.

Just like photons are a fluctuation of the electromagnetic field (evidence from your computer screen) the Higgs boson has much more mass/energy then the massless/low-energy photon and requires a lot of energy to make the Higgs field fluctuate and appear like a particle. My explanation for mass according to my own model, is almost infinity simpler… Although GR has been very successful in many of its predictions, it fails in the quantum world as well as at the galactic scales. Mass is only one particular form of energy…you don’t need mass to get gravitation. The guy in the video breifly explains why some particles don’t interact with the field because of the symmetry breaking.

Both gravity and electromagnetism accordingly involve relatively simple field theory concerning differential pressures of the ZPF under specific circumstances. Both models proposed an expanding universe which I thought, and still think, is not justified and that the diminution of matter is a better solution.I agree that the universe according to our present understandings of it, is very complicated but I think the explanations as you posted concerning the Higgs boson, are as far away from Occam’s Razor as you can get. This doesn’t allow you to explain why some particles have mass and photons don’t, for example (something the Higgs mechanism does do). I have my own model which I believe is far better. But I’m working to change that General Relativity provides a perfectly good model for gravitation.

Pretty strong statements on your part, which will need equally strong evidence to support them. The reason for posting that (fairly incomprehensible but already highly abbreviated) description was simply because you seemed to be implying that the Higgs mechanism was something ad-hoc that was just made up, with no real explanatory power (e.g. your use of the word “supposed”). I don’t see much in your explanation beyond “mass is property of matter”. It presently is the best thing going until something comes along that can make better predictions.

Are you going to come up with a new phlogiston-based theory of combustion? And a neo-caloric explanation for heat? And how about those four (or was it five) elements…

Of course I brought it up (my bad) but we could direct other such questions to “new ideas” if you wish Lastly, there is no experimental evidence for the existence of any kind of aether, nor is such a concept needed to explain anything. Everyone there, I think, believes in its existence and is highly motivated to find it — which can skew ones best judgment. Now it’s off to do last minute Christmas shopping. regards You’re right, I am unaware of the symmetry breaking aspect of the proposed Higgs. “….appears like a particle,” I like that part of your statement.

Of course I brought it up (my bad) but we could direct other such questions to “new ideas” if you wish Do you have any evidence for this model – you are basically trying to invalidate several decades worth of observations in particle colliders. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke Do you have any evidence for this model – you are basically trying to invalidate several decades worth of observations in particle colliders. Accordingly no dark matter is needed.

That is why a failure to find the Higgs boson would, in some ways, be a great step forward as it would provide the opportunity for all sorts of new physics. Originally Posted by gburns So, what about light? My own model of light is an aether model of both light and gravity. your use of the word “supposed”). Here’s a great video of a particle physicist explaining the gist of it:Higgs Boson (extended interview footage) – YouTubeAlso, I’m aware that the Higgs boson is a fluctuation of the Higgs field – the Higgs boson does not give mass to anything.

When I formulated this model I was unaware that anyone else had ever thought of it before, but the idea made sense to me. Here’s a great video of a particle physicist explaining the gist of it:Higgs Boson (extended interview footage) – YouTubeAlso, I’m aware that the Higgs boson is a fluctuation of the Higgs field – the Higgs boson does not give mass to anything. The entire concept of mechanical connections does not sit very well with the principles of quantum mechanics; for example, the experimentally well proven Heisenberg principle would not allow to determine exactly the position and momentum of a particle at the same time – this would make it kind of hard to have a mechanical connection between them !!! In fact, it is part of a very successful theory. There accordingly would be no a priori pulling forces of nature at all, solely mechanical torque, pushing, and resistance forces.

A simple understanding that matches observation. ]But there is no reason to think that the universe has to be simple. In fact, it purchase custom essay
is part of a very successful theory. No, I totally agree with the Kinetic Theory of heat/ EM radiation via atomic/ molecular oscillations. The forces exerted to separate these nucleons accordingly resist physical connection which is a resistance of separation, concerning the Strong Interaction, the Strong Force, and the Weak Force. My own model is now over 50 years old.

I agree, but think any claim of its existence should by looked at using the utmost scrutiny. The guy in the video breifly explains why some particles don’t interact with the field because of the symmetry breaking. The basis for this comment was related to my own model being “infinitely simpler” right or wrong Furthermore, you have avoided my original question – how do you propose particles would interact if there are no force carrying bosons ? I believe the standard configuration of matter is wrong and that mechanical connections are made within the nucleus. All forms of energy, momentum and stresses are sources of gravitation, as described by the Energy-Momentum Tensor in General Relativity. It is all about energy, whether there is mass or not is irrelevant.

I’m not sure if you understand the symmetry breaking part of it completely (I surely don’t) but I think it’s important to understand it before you discount the motivation for “theorizing” it and then attempting to find it. There accordingly would be no a priori pulling forces of nature at all, solely mechanical torque, pushing, and resistance forces. I give you a counterexample of a prediction by the established Standard Model, which has now been observed in particle colliders :cb(3P): New particle at the Large Hadron Collider discovered by ATLAS experimentFunny the way a model which you say is based on completely false ideas is making correct predictions ?? Of course, finding it would also be a great step forward in confirming one of our most successful ever theories. In my model photons in motion are bent by gravity and that defines mass in my model. Not just a part of it, an inevitable consequence of it.

The sensitivity of the MM experiment in the late 1880’s was accordingly not sensitive enough to detect the aether nor has the design ever been appropriate for such detection of a gravity centered aether, whereby the aether accordingly accelerates downward, since it would accordingly be the source of gravity. They accordingly go in and out of existence within the wave which has a longevity according to its intensity. Both gravity and electromagnetism accordingly involve relatively simple field theory concerning differential pressures of the ZPF under specific circumstances. That is why a failure to find the Higgs boson would, in some ways, be a great step forward as it would provide the opportunity for all sorts of new physics. As for your “pushing gravity” idea; puhleease … that was shown to be utterly ridiculous a couple of centuries ago, wasn’t it?Why do people want to hang on to dead ideas like this so much.

Of course they are not matter and their mass would be presently unmeasurable. Originally Posted by gburns I’m not sure if you understand the symmetry breaking part of it completely (I surely don’t) but I think it’s important to understand it before you discount the motivation for “theorizing” it and then attempting to find it. Originally Posted by Strange I know you would like the universe to be simpler (and think it should be or, even, is simple). Let me know.

Of course I think any claim of its existence should by looked at with the utmost scrutiny. Just like photons are a fluctuation of the electromagnetic field (evidence from your computer screen) the Higgs boson has much more mass/energy then the massless/low-energy photon and requires a lot of energy to make the Higgs field fluctuate and appear like a particle. I think Yes, there seems to be no evidence as yet. The entire concept of mechanical connections does not sit very well with the principles of quantum mechanics; for example, the experimentally well proven Heisenberg principle would not allow to determine exactly the position and momentum of a particle at the same time – this would make it kind of hard to have a mechanical connection between them !!!

According to this model particle spin is real, not just angular momentum. For further discussion I could open up a thread in the “new ideas” section and then you could fire away Any further questions/ answers other than the Higgs boson I could direct there. The forces exerted to separate these nucleons accordingly resist physical connection which is a resistance of separation, concerning the Strong Interaction, the Strong Force, and the Weak Force. Originally Posted by forrest noble I believe the standard configuration of matter is wrong and that mechanical connections are made within the nucleus. Photons in my model are also only short lived particles that exist for only maybe a millisecond.

But as to its product EM radiation, there accordingly would be no such thing as pure energy, simply a force applied to something that exists over a distance traveled, would solely define energy. Pretty strong statements on your part, which will need equally strong evidence to support them. The prime motivation for my own model more than 50 years ago, was that they competing theories at that time, were both having problems concerning observations and predictions, in my opinion. But bottom line — because it is so far from Occam’s Razor in my opinion, I think most of it is wrong. I understand the basis for these explanations is the standard model, of which the Higgs boson theoretically plays a big part.

Everyone there, I think, believes in its existence and is highly motivated to find it. Not just a part of it, an inevitable consequence of it. This doesn’t allow you to explain why some particles have mass and photons don’t, for example (something the Higgs mechanism does do).As for your “pushing gravity” idea; puhleease … that was shown to be utterly ridiculous a couple of centuries ago, wasn’t it?Why do people want to hang on to dead ideas like this so much.Are you going to come up with a new phlogiston-based theory of combustion? And a neo-caloric explanation for heat?

And how about those four (or was it five) elements… I’ll take a look at the video as soon as I can, thanks. That doesn’t mean that I think the model should be discarded as yet. That’s for sure. In fact it is so amazingly complex and diverse that it is amazing we can understand and explain as much as we do.

This theory of gravity is one of the backbones of my model which includes the theoretical physics/maths. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke I think you are confusing something here – the Higgs has nothing to do with gravitation. Originally Posted by forrest noble I agree. Models concerning the inclusion of dark matter often do not fit galactic orbital profiles very well, and in some cases no match can be made at all without calculated uneven inclusions, which I believe is no different from Ptolemaic epicycles. I don’t see much in your explanation beyond “mass is property of matter”.

Of course, finding it would also be a great step forward in confirming one of our most successful ever theories. This explanation is based upon the math/ theoretical physics involved.

Leave a Reply