What Imbues The Higgs Boson With Its Mass?

[G Anthony Kent]

What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?

 

 

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no? In some way or another, this is true. If we were all in the business of writing texts, we would be paid. OR, we would pay journals to publish our junk if we wanted to propound fully qualified articles or developed papers. I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists’ descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations and recount their descriptions just to make a point. There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

 

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

 

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

 

Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model.

 

Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint. The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

 

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, if they are already merged as best they can be?

 

This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the same reality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is a fantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud

 

Much less than mass, there is no implicit validated account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand ...

 

******

 

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

 

Suddenly, it decays. It decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else").

 

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle. The daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson" distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. It would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way. Perhaps this process would result in very ancient super-massive BH masses indeed following a Poisson distribution. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

 

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is very different, however. If one asks that the solutions to the simultaneous nonlinear partial differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

 

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored.

 

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are.

 

******

 

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His raw data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not used this way by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where?

 

WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic 1/kr black-hole galactic gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

 

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

 

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. This is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves.

[Guest MacPhee]

That's what puzzles me. Why are LHC physicists trying to find the Higgs, by looking for its mass? If the Higgs gives everything else mass, then how can the Higgs itself have mass?

 

It'd have to get mass from another particle, and that particle would get mass from another one. So there'd be an infinite regress (delicious phrase!).

 

Perhaps what the physicists mean is this - the Higgs must have a certain strength (to cause the dragging effect it's supposed to exert). And that's what's really being looked for. But the word "strength" isn't allowed in modern Physics. So the physicists have to resort to the word "mass" instead?

[maddog]

That's what puzzles me. Why are LHC physicists trying to find the Higgs, by looking for its mass? If the Higgs gives everything else mass, then how can the Higgs itself have mass? ...

It is by way of Einstein's equation of E = mc^2. So mass can be expressed in terms of energy. It is my understanding that what people are looking for is the resonant energy for a Higgs Boson. For the need in the standard model of having a Higgs, I am sympathetic as to why it is needed. We may well find that the Standard Model is insufficient and more needs to be added. The latest from Fermilab seems to indicate something else is happening. This may be more particles or forces than the Standard Model has currently. Some confirmation needs to happen with LHC in energy range between 850 GeV - 8 TeV.. This may still take a couple of years yet. We shall see.

 

maddog

[newdealtn]

I can't get enough of this stuff, guys. Ya'll just keep on talking about Higgs and mass-energy coefficients and how mass can warp space and all this other good gravity stuff. I don't know what it all means, but I'm lovin' it! :)

 

Samm

[CraigD]

Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no?

Oh, yeah! :thumbs_up

 

I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists’ descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations and recount their descriptions just to make a point.

I’ve read some physics popularizations explanation of the Higgs mechanism, but to my enduring shame, with my inadequate understanding of the math involved, can’t duplicate their formulations, so would stop well short of saying I understand this physics “perfectly well.” If you can, and do, Gak, I’d love to read your synopsis here!

 

‘Cause we’re here not just to speculate, but also to learn.

 

There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

Sure there is! Storage is cheap, and humans type so slowly it’s a rare one who could fill up a cheap 8 GB thumbdrive with his personal text output, let alone the TBs we can rent from hosting services. Storage of human-readable text has been pretty much a non-issue since the late ‘90s.

 

That's what puzzles me. Why are LHC physicists trying to find the Higgs, by looking for its mass? If the Higgs gives everything else mass, then how can the Higgs itself have mass?

The Higgs boson, which is what the LHC folk are so intently looking for, isn’t what gives other particles their mass. The Higgs mechanism is.

 

The Higgs boson is predicted to exist under conditions that can be produced now by the LHC by some, but not all, theories including the Higgs mechanism. So, if experiments to detect the Higgs boson don’t find it, we know those theories are wrong, and need to abandon/rewrite them so that they don’t predict the Higgs boson. There’s no shortage of theories that explain the Higgs mechanism without predicting the Higgs boson, so, as Gak noted in the OP, “The standard model will not collapse” if it’s not found – attention will just shift to theories that haven’t been disproven.

 

As I noted above, I don’t really understand the Higgs mechanism, but have read enough explanations of it to vaguely understand the fields, particle, theories, and experiments enough to give the above description.

 

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass.

From my spectators perspective on the Higgs, quantum gravity, etc., I’ve long hoped that an explanation of particles acquiring mass would either outright explain their mutual gravitational attraction, or strongly hint at a theory explaining it. From what I’ve been able to gather, though, this isn’t the case.

 

General Relativity is essentially a classical theory, no more an explanation of the underlying cause of gravity than the law of universal gravitation it supersedes by rendering a special, approximate case.

 

“Fundamental cause” theories like quantum mechanics have be written to be compatible with relativity, but relativity doesn’t have to be made compatible with any given fundamental cause theory. Relativity’s postulates are, like universal gravitation, more physical law than theory – explanation-less statement of how things are to some approximation.

[G Anthony Kent]

What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?

 

 

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are.

 

 

 

 

Some criticize because GR must result in gravitation with a 1/r² dependence. They say GR cannot tolerate any other geometry. It is this kind of "inside the box" thinking that cannot bridge the gap between GR and quantum. The hyperbolic black-hole galactic gravitational field formally does indeed have a 1/r² dependence, or else it would be dimensionally bankrupt. Okay, so this is contrived just to provide dimensional integrity. But, it in fact DOES SO! So, in effect, it really is a 1/r² relation. It is just that r² is repressed by the intense gravitational field inherent in a black-hole.

[Cyberia]

I have speculated elsewhere that gravity and so mass comes from higher dimensions. If say the Higg's boson has a few more dimensions and has mass there, so that the 3D object we call the Higg's boson is only a small part of it, then unseen by us it can be connected to nearby particles and so literally hold them together.

[G Anthony Kent]

I have speculated elsewhere that gravity and so mass comes from higher dimensions. If say the Higg's boson has a few more dimensions and has mass there, so that the 3D object we call the Higg's boson is only a small part of it, then unseen by us it can be connected to nearby particles and so literally hold them together.

 

This may be relevant to the Higgs discussion:

 

Some thoughts: Why should the material inside a black hole be a point mass? We have no evidence that fundamental particles like electrons and quark can break down. And we have neutrons in neutron stars with an escape velocity of 2/3 c. A point mass suggests a one dimensional dot, so it would not spin, and we know that all black holes do spin.

 

Well, Karl Schwartzschild’s analysis of general relativity results is the Schwartzschild metric which has solutions that proceed toward infinity at the event horizon and at the center of a black hole. He defines the event horizon by the singularity that he finds at the “Schwartzchild radius”. Kretschmann’s invariant results from an analysis that shows that the singularity at the event horizon is an artifact of poor coordinate choice, but the singularity at the center is real and not an artifact of coordinate selection. It is independent of coordinates and is therefore called an “invariant”. He showed that by “real” he means that for all intents and purposes the singularity, as a singularity, is probably infinitely deep and infinitely dense. But, we cannot actually measure it this way because Heisenberg’s Uncertainty will intervene.

 

Perhaps a one dimensional dot cannot spin, but the space immediately around it can. This space is filled with the intense (approaching infinite) gravitational field which can spin. It can spin relativistically too, i.e. “frame dragging”. The North and South poles on Earth are said to not spin (formally), but the rest of the Earth certainly does. The fact that an infinite depth in the gravitational field profile necessitates an asymptote is lost on many. That symmetry demands another asymptote as one proceeds toward larger radius is not recognized because Birkhoff’s Theorem and its congeners seem to prohibit it. Gravity must be “asymptotically flat”. That is, a hyperbolic gravity field is impossible.

But these are the results of interpretations of GR. It is not necessary to interpret it this way. If one desires, the right assumptions and boundary conditions can be selected that will permit a hyperbolic gravitational field. Perhaps one must drop a dimension and treat a black hole as a 2-D entity. This will certainly permit a 1/kr proportionality. Furthermore, such a hyperbolic gravitational field is renormalizable and the inverse square form is not. This unrenormalizability of inverse square gravity is what makes it impossible to merge gravity and quantum mechanics/dynamics. Inverse square gravity has a hyperbolic gravitational potential energy profile.

 

Quantum physicists love to renormalize infinities away. One way to do this arbitrarily for a black hole is to simply assign to the value of the gravitational strength at the center a finite quantity equal to 1 or whatever amount is appropriate for one’s purpose. This is the real mathematical meaning of “approaches infinity” anyway. It means larger than necessary to meet whatever stringent test one may apply. Setting quantities equal to 1 is S.O.P. and is often called invoking the “natural number system”. Trouble is, one cannot do this indiscriminately. The gravitational constant G and the speed of light cannot simultaneously be set equal to 1, for example. Infinite gravitational strength can be set equal to 1 or any arbitrary quantity but severe problems arise if one tries to set the hyperbolic inverse square potential energy profile at r = 0 equal to 1.

The only point I really want to emphasize is that it would be worth it to admit the hyperbolic 1/kr supermassive black hole galactic gravitational field as a postulate. It leads to the conclusion that all the phenomena ascribed to Dark Matter can better be explained by this expedient.

 

Surely "infinite gravity" is a contradiction in terms in that in the first moments of the big bang, the "singularity" was said to be so dense that gravity (and the other forces) did not exist.

 

Well, nobody really knows the nature of physical laws under these conditions. But Georgi Dvali and Lisa Randall have proposed the concept of “leaky gravity” that leaks or seeps out of our “local” expression of the universe into the metaverse or multiverse thereby accounting for gravity’s extraordinary weakness. If so, gravity can exist outside the singular point mass of the “inflaton” particle too and outside the center of a black hole. In fact, “excited” gravity may actually “be” the inflaton field, which is “like” gravity and may transform into it as it descends in energy levels to become, not a hyperbolic field, but the inverse square field that we are all familiar with.

Falling in potential energy, the residual hyperbolic gravity field that is still around after 13.72 billion years, donates its energy to the inverse square field that pervades the universe, kinematically increasing the size of the universe at an increasing rate (acceleration of the Hubble expansion). So, the hyperbolic field can account for Dark Energy as well as Dark Matter. One cannot get more parsimonious than this.

 

What I find strange is that collisions aside, the SMBH of a galaxy is about in the center. In the case of our galaxy, a 181 million SMBH in a galaxy of some 600 billion solar masses, so fairly insignificant by comparison. Why should it not wander around the galaxy?

 

. . . Because a big black hole was actually the seed nucleus around which our spiral galaxy began to coalesce in the first place. A supermassive black hole cannot spin eccentrically because it would have to emit gravity waves. It would soon lose enough energy to re-center itself. Plus, the field of the disk must be perfectly coaxial and concurrent with the field of the SMBH. So, it distorts the field of the SMBH such that Birkhoff’s Theorem and its siblings cannot apply. They are valid only for spherically symmetric gravity fields. The field of any real black hole must be so badly distorted that no perturbation theory can compensate. But, the field of the disk may add to the field of the SMBH so as to magnify its hyperbolic character. So, MOND is unnecessary to explain the anomalous orbital distribution of stars in spiral galaxies and elsewhere.

 

In order to bow to the subject of this thread: being renormalizable, the hyperbolic super-massive Black Hole galactic gravitational field and the universe hyperbolic gravitational field, if they can be allowed somehow under GR via proper selection of boundary conditions and other assumptions, offers a way to incorporate gravity into Quantum mechanics/dynamics rather easily and directly. Then, a mechanism might be found that gives better account of "mass" than the Higgs field and the Higgs boson. It might mean exactly what Einstein said it means: Gravity and mass curve spacetime and spacetime tells matter how to move. Each particle distorts the fabric of the cosmos by its very existence and such distortion makes spacetime act like a viscous fluid but without any energy dissipation. Like Helium 4, perhaps. Spacetime has been called an "Einstein Aether". Hyperbolic gravity may provide a means to incorporate this notion into quantum.