bernard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know you have a problem with the Higgs particle.
> Actually what gives particles their mass
> (including the Higgs boson) is their interaction
> with the Higgs field. Thus it is NOT one particle
> giving mass to others but the interaction of
> particles with an energy field.
> Lincoln, pp 224-235. I've recommended this book
> before Don Lincoln. 2004. *Understanding the
> Universe from Quarks to Cosmos* London: World
> Scientific.
>
>

But why say there are particles at all then ? The Higgs bosons are considered to have mass but no charge at all. A particles mass is derived in Higgs theory as you say from the fact that as they move they interact with other higgs particles, and a force is generated between the Higgs and that particle. So the interaction between a single Higgs bosun and its surrounding Higgs is that of particles with no charge generating charge in each other.

I say why not go into the origins of Higgs theory and see that its derived from the vacuum energy. All mass is generated in the theory from the fact that empty space contains energy that resists acceleration. Thats a good solid place to start. Now why the multiplication of entities ? In my opinion its because we're used to thinking of particles and its a convenient way to unify the forces. Thats not science though - thats accepting something because its compelling. Why not consider rather what the nature of this vacuum energy is ? We see it in the Casmir effect and yet that is not explained in terms of Higgs bosuns. The maths of M theory clearly points to extra dimensions - its just that no one really knows what that represents. But it would make sense that there is some kind of membrane 'phase' shift between spacetime and these dimensions, one that is more fundamental than that between space and time themselves. That again seems to me like I'm standing on solid ground. But that doesn't mean there is no interaction between them!

Take some of the problems facing physics/cosmology right now.

1) Quantum gravity
2) Dark Matter
3) Dark Energy
4) A model of a supernova
5) Entanglement
6) Inertia
7) Superposition
8) Mirror matter

I'm fairly convinced to resolve all of these you don't need to invent other universes. You just need other dimensions. Whats more natural ? We have an existing universe that has dimensions and our best mathematical analysis of it suggests there are more than the four. Mass is far better explained if particles have components outside of spacetime. The motion of galaxies is much better explained if creating motion in spacetime produces an equivalent of motion outside of space time (hence momentum and inertia). Dark Energy is better explained by these extra dimensions produce a force which 'holds' particles in spacetime. A supernova can be probably be modelled if it is considered that a star builds up pressure against the pressure of the other dimensions via the energy of fusion. Entanglement can only be explained if interactions in spacetime remain connected outside of spacetime. And a series of,lets say, odd and even spacetime equivalent dimensions gives you the parity of mirror matter.

I get annoyed with people like WG with their wacky theories maybe because I have enough of my own But I am VERY keen for any criticism. Its very difficult to be self critical when peoples only criticism is that I'm multiplying entities (when that is their own favourite hobby and I don't believe I'm doing so uneccesarily at all) and that I'm just looking for some compelling explanation for problems scientists admit through honest dilligence (when all the theories on the above issues exist only because they are compelling and fit nicely with existing theories). I'm more than happy to admit that I'm pretty ignorant in any specific area of physics. But I'm still looking for someone to tell me why I'm wrong

Can you help ?

Simon



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2005 04:19PM by Simon.