🚀 go-pugleaf

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 23 Mar 1997 05:00:12 -0500, Chris Wagner
> <wagnerc@ucunix.san.uc.edu> wrote:
> >It seems perfectly logical to me...  Consider this analogy:  What is
> >the volume of a black hole?  It is a quantum singularity, it has
> >*zero* volume.  But its *effective* volume is the radius of its
> >event horizon.  This very intuitivly transfers to all subatomic
> >particles.  They can all be thought of as quantum singularities of
> >*fixed* mass.  Therefore they don't blow up in mass and size like
> >a black hole.
> 

> It is postulated that the entire universe is bathed in an as yet undetected
> field called the Higgs field. And the particles that make up this field are
> known as the Higgs boson; the Higgs boson is thought to be the very
> smallest particle of mass in the universe. So it looks like mass is not so

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.  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.


> much a basic inextricable property of matter as just yet another type of
> particle that matter particles attract. So the matter particle known as an
> electron attracts much fewer Higgs bosons than a proton would; and
> particles like photons attract no Higgs bosons at all therefore they are
> massless.  Once we discover our first Higgs boson experimentally, then we
> will start work on a theory that explains how many Higgs boson can be
> expected to be attracted by individual particles, and therefore we will
> know the nature of mass. 

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.  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.
 
> The reason I brought this up is because you were starting to picture quarks
> and leptons as some sort of mini-blackholes, because they were
> dimensionless. However, in order to have blackholes, you need a
> concentration of the Higgs field, which attracts more Higgs bosons, which
> makes the Higgs field even stronger, etc. That's not the case here, each
> particle attracts whatever number of Higgs bosons it was predestined to
> attract, and no more than that.

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

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.


> Oh, and BTW, I believe that the Higgs field is somehow attached to the time
> dimension. The field moves with the time dimension, but it doesn't care
> about the space dimensions. Because our matter particles attracted to this
> Higgs field, and this Higgs field is attracted to time, we get washed along
> with the tide of the Higgs field and therefore we get washed along by time.
> If we were massless, we'd all be travelling at the speed of light all of
> the time, and we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between time or
> space, because it would all be the same. But because we have mass, we have
> an awareness of a certain dimension (time) as something different from the
> other dimensions.

This does fit in with time dilation.  As we speed up we shake off Higgs
bosons hence slowing our progression through the time dimension.  
However, it would take infinite energy to completely get rid of the
Higgs field and thus we can never fully stop the Higgs field from 
taking us with it in time.