If space was filled with just electrons then the medium would offer the ability to form a dark energy type of substance. We know like charges repel and all the electrons would be repelling each other and creating a non collapsible medium around the object they are still bound to. Im not just blindly guessing, im trying to find relationships between the small and big (GR and QM) with what is proven and available. it is imaginative guessing, but not blindly since I am using whats available to work with. If you dont try and find, you'll never find anything. And I accept that a lot of the time I will be wrong, but being wrong isn't bad or stupid, because it will eventually expose whats right.
It would? I don't see that at all. Not sure how or why you would have the mass of free electrons. Besides, even if this were somehow possible it would simply mean that the electrons would repel each other, which is completely different than the accelerating expansion of space. If we are honest here, I think it is true that you do not have a suffincient understanding of GR and QM to find relationships. I know that I certainly do not. Here is a prediction that I would easily bet my paycheck on; you and I will never contribute any new knowledge to the field of physics. I like to learn about physics and the universe in general and that is more than enough.
You and I don't have a complete understanding of Higgs (the boson, the mechanism, or the field), but neither does anyone else. Even if the Higgs coupling to atomic structure were weak (and I believe that it is), that much mass pelting atomic structure from all sides, as boson force pairs tend to do, will have a more than slightly noticeable effect. Photons, the bosons associated with the EM force, have no mass at all, and everyone notices them. And without the Higgs mechanism there to slow the electrons down so that they don't fly off atoms at the speed of light, it likely you wouldn't be seeing very many photons either, because you would not even exist. There is good reason to refer to it as the "God particle", protestations of its founders, cofounders, and Leon Lederman's appeal to his publishers notwithstanding. At 125 GeV, and before it decays in about a zeptosecond into a pair of gluons, or a pair of electrons and two muons, the Higgs is all by itself as massive as the nucleus of a tellurium atom. At 750 GeV, some of its cousins or related, recently discovered particles are even heavier. Goody. The heavier the 200 lb Gorilla everyone is determined to ignore is, the more difficult it becomes to continue business as usual. Before the Higgs was discovered, the Lagrangian term describing its role in atomic structure was ignored as though it were of little or no importance. At least, that has changed. Stephen Hawking lost a bet that it would never be discovered, and when it was, complained that everything was "so boring" because it was. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth than that statement. If you take this thread or questions about Higgs any further than that, you will be labeled "crank" as I am, and you'll be sorry you ever mentioned it here. If you look up the derivation of "crank", you will no doubt notice that they are correct. Welcome to the club. My only advice to you is to read more, post less.
thanks for the good advise and Im proud to be in the club Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I try to read more, but its just confusing when you try read something about physics and they dont talk about anything physical. When you talk physical things to physists, watch them run or revert to insult... A higgs field, say what? where is it? what is it? and you ask and you branded. Where I've gone with this thread has long left the Higgs and now I just talk of physical things and not fairy tales. A particle that has properties allowing it to decay. I like what you posted, because you talk about physical things, so I can follow. A zeptosecond on the cosmic scale is maybe thousands or millions of years worth of evolution on the atomic scale. I cant agree that a particle just decays without explaining the mechanics for it. I believe nature is a lot more subtle than just momentum driven collisions that land up creating complete systems. As I was trying to show in this thread the sun is decaying into electrons, protons and neutrons. The gluons can be the forces holding the neutrons in the nucleus. Im not sold yet on electrons in atoms having to orbit the nucleus yet.
??? http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital Electron cloud orbitals and even their respective shapes is hard, established science. The image in the first link is not your Bohr atom. The dynamics of halo nuclei are also known in some considerable detail. Quantum physics of atomic structure is as real as it gets. I'm sorry if I have given you some other impression.
Not as crazy an idea as it sounds. There is Paul Dirac (the theoretical physicist who predicted the existence of the positron) who believed that there might be only one electron in the entire universe: https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/the-theory/ Despite the fact that if this were true, the first positronium self-annhilation event would have resulted in the destruction of every electron in the entire universe. Then there is John A. Macken: http://onlyspacetime.com A noted retired laser physicist with over 20 patents on laser technology to his credit, largely regarded as a "crank" because of his theory of dipoles. His book is definitely one for the "crank physics theory" box. And THEN there is this: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1756226 Which makes you wonder if either or both Dirac and/or Macken might have been onto something important. But it is useless for either of us to speculate about such things. Neither of us own colliders, which would seem to be a prerequisite tool for finding out what such events actually mean.
You didn't its my own impression. I've gone back to work and dont have time for this anymore. Good luck and bye for a while.
The star should rather be the neutron decaying into e- and p+. The plasma the e- and the planets the p+.
The electrons would repel each other and create a bubble around the solar system like a huge atmosphere that can interact with other bubbles. The greater the heat the more the bubble inflates pushing other bubbles further away.
I can see no logical scientific reason for something like that to possibly occur. Why would there be this large excess of electrons? Why would they stop moving and "hover" in a sphere around the solar system? Why would the electrons have a sphereical structure that allowed one structure to interact with another structure? What is the density of the electrons in this sphere that would allow the sphere to interact with other spheres? What would be the observational evidence of this?
electric field? Do you think plasma can evaporate from the sun and not only released in CME's? like water evaporating into the atmosphere. Depends on the systems mass/gravity. The mass of the electrons in atoms spread over the bubble volume. It doesn't need Pauli exclusion principle. Got none sorry. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Higgs Particle is an artificial particle that is only created in the LHC, and it does not exist naturally in nature are far as anyone knows. The Higgs was theorized to exist because of symmetry breaking. Basically, Peter Higgs connected all of quantum mechanics together, and he discovered that the particle should be able to exist if the Standard Model was correct. Then most of all the laws of physics have symmetry, it can be ran forwards and backwards and then around a bend to come back and get the same answer again. As far as purely technical lingo, symmetry breaking is as about as far as anyone goes to explaining why or how the Higgs occurs. One thing that doesn't make sense about the Higgs scientist are working on is trying to figure out how it can be more massive than the particle from which it came from when it is created or the nucleus of the atom. The theory didn't define it's mass. Then it only exist for a very brief small instance of time. Another problem it has is that it can create photons, but it is not a charged particle. It was supposed to prove quantum mechanics (since it used all of it), but everyone decided to ignore this small detail of it not fitting in with it. Then it really doesn't make any sense, because the theory is mostly just purely mathematical. It is just pages and pages of pure quantum mechanical mathematics. The way I tried to make sense of it is that symmetry breaking in quantum mechanics could be like hitting a physical temporal paradox. Particles are intimately connected through time. In the Grandfather Father Paradox, theoretically you couldn't kill your own grandfather. Then I believe you would hit a physical barrier if you tried to kill your own grandfather in order to stop you. It would be the only way to preserve temporal symmetry. Then the Higgs could just be this physical manifestation of this temporal paradox. Symmetry could actually not be able to be broken, and causality preserves itself by preventing certain actions from occurring which would jeopardize its current state. Then it would actually be like two layers of spacetime hitting itself. Then the Higgs Field could be like spacetime itself. They also share a lot of the same properties. I think that collision could cause two ripples in spacetime, which would be observed as photons. Then the mass could be however strong it needs to be depending on the energy of the mass of the particles used in the collision. That would explain a lot about it, but that is just my own pseudo-interpretation of it. But hey, this is the pseudo-forums, and I am in a free country right now... lol Hopefully, they don't end up creating a crack in spacetime.
