🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 03:34:25 -0500, Chris Wagner
<wagnerc@ucunix.san.uc.edu> wrote:

>I don't like the idea of the Higgs field because that draws us into the
>habit of coming up with a new particle to explain every little thing
>we don't currently understand.  

Because that's the way it is. We are working towards the time when only two
things exist in this entire universe: particles of energy, and the
dimensions. 

>If the Higgs boson existed, what is *it*
>made of, why does *it* have "mass", etc.  It is much simpler to give the
>properties of the Higgs boson to all subatomic particles directly.

"It" doesn't have mass, *it* _is_ what we now call mass. Just like there is
a smallest charge of electromagnetism, there will be a smallest charge of
mass.

What is a Higgs boson made of, you ask? It's made of energy of course, just
like every other particle in the universe. You see, what physics is working
towards now is a proof that everything in the universe is just energy, and
that they just act very differently because they are just energy in
different states (much like solid, liquid, and gas are the different states
of matter). 

>Don't you think we should have more theoretical work and background 
>before we try to detect a particle that we don't even know if it
>*could* exist or not?  I think its quite likely that the entire Higgs
>field theory will be debunked.  How do you postulate that the Higgs
>bosons
>are attracted to matter at all?  And that still leaves the question of
>what is matter made of.  

Well, it would explain why particles with mass are affected by the time
dimension, but other particles of energy with no mass are oblivious of the
time dimension. The Higgs particle would show us why we are locked to time.
Particles with mass always flow in the direction of time, but don't care
where they go in space. Massless particles on the other hand don't care
where they go in time or space. The Higgs will explain that.

It's not a matter of debunking a theory. Until about last year, we had not
yet detected the last kind of quark, the "Top" quark. We knew it was there,
it was just a matter of what energy level we would find it at. They've now
found it. It's the same way with the Higgs particle, it is almost assumed
that it exists, just that we don't yet know at what energy level we will
see it.

>My idea on particles being mini black holes
>still
>holds water even with the Higgs field.  I admit, its logical and fits
>some 
>stuff but that don't mean beans.

Blackholes need to be able to draw more Higgs and other particles towards
it. To cause a feedback cycle of space curvature. A point particle will
only attract as many particles of Higgs bosons as it has the god-given
ability to attract. Once it attracts those Higgs particles, the Higgs
particles don't combine with it to make an even bigger attractor of Higgs
bosons.

>Yeah, so what.  Using the definition of a black hole as an infinite
>distortion of the space time continuum rather than a body of x mass,
>imagine a proton (forget the quarks, role with me) having its gravity
>well.  That gravity well could be in fact what attracts and keeps the
>Higgs bosons.  Thereby giving the proton mass and carrying it through
>time.  What makes the gravity well?  The energy component.  This makes
>mass seperate from matter and energy, matter being energy anyway.  The
>Higgs theory doesn't conflict with my idea.  

Yes, but no feedback loop of infinite attraction. The proton will attract
what it attracts and no more than that.

>But, I don't like the Higgs
>theory.

You'll get used to it, don't worry.

>To recap:  A proton (forget the quarks, role with me) is a conflux of
>positive electric field potential bound by an infinite distortion of
>the space time continuum.  The mass of the proton is in fact the energy
>according to E=mc^2 trapped within the event horizon.  When antiparticle
>annihilation occurs the E fields cancel out allowing the singularity to
>evaporate.  The energy is released.

But it's *not* an infinite distortion of the space-time continuum. It is
just a distortion, but not an infinite one. For it to be infinite it would
have to be in the aforementioned feedback loop.

					Yousuf Khan
--
Yousuf J. Khan
ykhan@achilles.net
Ottawa, Ont, Canada
Nation's capital