I had this idea to tweak string theory a bit, wedge in the Higgs-Boson, and to my limited knowledge, the result is a robust model for a grand unification theory. I mean that or people should please help me find where I am going wrong. In my mind, I keep throwing "mysteries of physics" at my model and it seems to chew them up and spit them out. Anyway, I have been trying to get some feedback on my wild speculations as I have presented them here, but I have not found anyone willing to speak up. Anything you can do to help would be appreciated. Some mysteries of the universe that might be solved by the Higgs-Boson: 1 Quantum Gravity 2 Wave-Particle Duality 3 Particle Probability Distributions 4 Electron Shells 5 Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 6 Quantum Entanglement 7 Dark Energy 8 Dark Matter 9 Vacuum Catastrophe 10 The Casimir Effect Preamble What is a Higgs-Boson? In essence, a Higgs-Boson is a tiny particle that permeates space. Its not something we can directly measure or detect. Its presence can only be known when it interacts with other particles which can have the side effect of causing “mass”. Current theory says that Higgs-Bosons create a uniform Higgs field throughout the universe. Think of the pixels on a computer screen. Each pixel on a computer screen is analogous to a Higgs-Boson; however, this computer screen is 3 dimensional and fills the universe. On your computer screen, when a pixel is "on" it emits a color (other than black), when it is off, it is black. A Higgs-Boson, when it is on, it creates mass and when it is off, it is undetectable. First let me wonder aloud and ask for specific feedback from anyone who might know the proper terminology pertaining Higgs-Bosons. I see professionals use the term in conflicting ways. That is, apparently it is popularly the term for the parent particle that decays when not in a high energy environment and which, after it decays, causes the Higgs Field and the Higgs effect. However, I have also commonly heard it referred to as the specifically durable daughter particle that is directly causing the Higgs Field. I have also seen this form rarely referred to as the Higgs Particle as well. For some reason though, I want to call the parent the Higgs-Boson and the widely active particle a Higgs-Boson Condensate (HBC), but maybe this is inappropriate. It does seem to parallel BECs as a low energy state (apparently low). OK - let me just say HBC for now. 1 - Quantum gravity Gravity has been a persistent hindrance to unifying classical physics and quantum physics. The primary issue is that everything in classical physics has substantial mass, but many mechanisms in quantum physics are treated as points. The problem with a point is that it takes up no space so an infinite number of points can occupy the same space and thus create infinite gravity. The mystery then is how to deal with infinite gravity as predicted by current quantum theory. String theory was developed to deal with this problem. That is, if instead of being treated like a point, these quantum could be “stretched out” and represented as "strings" then this eliminates the problem of infinite gravity in quantum physics. The HBC may give insight into this phenomenon. That is, imagine an electron as being similar to an HBC, undetectable, with zero mass, until it reacts with an HBC. Fortunately, like everything else, electrons “live” in an ocean of HBCs. Assume then that as an electron approaches an HBC, the interaction of the two particles begins, continues as the electron passes the HBC, and ends some time after the electron passes. If this interaction causes mass - it would take the form of a line beginning when the two particles get close and ending when they travel apart. The mass would literally look like a string as required by string theory and would solve the issue of quantum gravity, see Fig 1. That is, if an electron's mass is derived by passing by an HBC, then other particle’s with a bigger mass might be stuck in a powerful and constant dance with an HBC, others might well be fused to one or more HBCs. “Mass” then would be a function of how intensely and how long a particle interacted with one or more HBCs. This interaction would coalesce a “string” of mass that connects the center of the HBC and its interacting partner particle. Circular strings may form as a perfectly divided strand or by tracing the orbital centers of two intermingling particles (e.g. Proton and HBC). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- .................ooo|ooo..............ooo|ooo..... Time -> . electron in flight, no mass o electron close to an HBC w/mass | HBC ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fig1 2 - Wave - particle duality String theory postulates a twisted knot of “extra” dimensions at every point in the universe. The “shape” of this knot correlates to the vibration of a string, which correlates with a specific particle. These particles don’t just vibrate in our universe, they also vibrate in their associated “knot”. Oh, lets call it a Multi-Dimensional Knot (MDK). It follows then that every HBC has a natural frequency and thus a natural shape for its MDK. By definition, other particles have other frequencies and other MDK sizes and shapes. When other particles interact with an HBC, the result is a disturbance or change in the HBC’s frequency and thus its MDK shape. Normally an additional common side effect is what we perceive as matter. An interesting idea then is that the natural frequency and shape of MDK’s would fit together and form a lattice in multidimensional space. This would well explain how space can bend and warp, like a stack of rubber Legos ™. Each HBC would then effectively be a window into this lattice as the string is both inside its MDK and inside our dimension. If this is the case, it is useful to think of an HBC’s natural MDK as a carbon atom. That is, much like carbon, the physical properties might well be dependant upon the particular arrangement of the constituents. If the constituents are arranged uniformly, then carbon is a translucent diamond, if the constituents are irregular, then carbon is an opaque lump of coal or graphite. As such, when an electron interacts with an HBC under the right conditions, the result is a photon that doesn’t just interact with the MDK, it enters the HBC's MDK completely. It is as if the photon unties its MDK and forms a wave that is completely unobstructed inside the HBC lattice such that it can propagate freely (like a wave) from one HBC MDK to another - like light passing through a crystal. As a photonic wave propagates through this lattice, it may bump into an HBC whose MDK is shaped differently as a side effect of a current interaction with another particle. From the photons point of view (POV), this HBC MDK would “look” like a flaw in a diamond or an opaque lump of coal stuck in the lattice, and the photonic wave would have to propagate around it. The photonic wave travels without resistance through the lattice until it bumps into an MDK which has a shape that tends to “scoop” the photonic wave out of the lattice and bring it back into our dimension, and in the process, “tying” the wave back into a particle with an MDK and recognized as an electron. Any particle behaving like a wave is likely traveling through the HBC MDK lattice in this fashion. In essence, the conjecture is that all “particles” are strings expressing mass in our dimension with an associated MDK. When the string encounters an HBC MDK with the appropriate shape, under the right conditions, the particles MDK unravels, it enters the HBC MDK lattice as a wave, and propagates in a fashion consistent with the MDK’s it encounters that it will perceive as translucent, opaque, or as a “scoop”. Passing through “scoops” of different shapes would tie the wave into different MDK’s, with different side effects, and thus, expressed as different particles in our dimension. 3 - Particle Probability Distributions Waves are likely to be mildly chaotic as they propagate through the MDK lattice. That is, the wave should have a crest or absolute point of highest energy that can travel freely along the wave. Then, when the wave encounters an array of MDK’s, each with a tendency to “scoop” the wave up, the wave should prefer the single individual “scoop” that is closest to the waves highest energy or the first scoop the high energy point encounters in its direct line of travel. The scoop will suck the wave up like a pool of liquid and fold it into an MDK. The resulting particle will then coalesce in our dimension following the probability function that describes the wave as it had traveled through the lattice. Importantly, different particles traveling through this MDK lattice in the form of a wave will behave differently as they encounter differently shaped MDKs. MDK shapes that are transparent to photonic waves may be opaque to radio waves and vice versa. MDK shapes that “scoop” photonic waves might not “scoop” gamma rays, etc. 4 - Electron shells The preceding concepts have application to describe electron shells as well. Why do electrons tend to coalesce in funny shaped shells around a nucleus? If Protons and Neutrons have fused to HBCs or if they are interacting with HBCs strongly enough to cause mass, then they have certainly disrupted the underlying MDK lattice. The effect might be strong enough to disrupt, bend, or twist the MDKs of nearby HBCs. It might force them into a regular pattern like a “sub lattice” randomly apart from the primary HBC MDK lattice. That is, in this model, electron shells are a multidimensional analog to electromagnetic lines of force. The effect is to warp or arrange HBC MDK’s into chaotic forms that interact with electrons without giving them an easy escape route into the MDK lattice of “open space”. From the electron POV, it is randomly united, propagated through a randomly coherent translucent path, “scooped” up by random HBC’s and coalesced (tied) back into an electron. From the observational POV, the electron will pop in and out of existence according to the currently accepted Particle Probability Distribution for an electron in an electron shell. 5 - Heisenberg uncertainty principle In this model, the probability wave of an electron, for example, exactly duplicates its wave form it had while a passing through the chaotic HBC shell “sub lattice”. Areas that have a higher probability for it to “pop into existence” merely represent facets of the shell/lattice as a side effect of the nucleus on the primary HBC MDK lattice. That is, HBC’s with different shapes are collecting and defining the electron shell “sub lattice”. While the electron is in its wave state, it simply does not exist in our dimension. As a wave, it can touch many HBC’s at the same time any one of which may have the “scoop” that ties it back up into an electron. The result is, the wave can never be directly, measured its behavior is simply inferred. For example, the size and energy of the wave can be inferred in a way that is not expressed when it is tied up into an MDK. Once the electron has coalesced, in our dimension, its location can be directly measured, but most of it is energy is locked away in its MDK. Thus, if it is moving as a wave its MDK is “untied” and you can infer its energy, but if it has coalesced into a particle, you can only know its location (its MDK, with most of its energy is not detectible). Another aspect of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is the opposite case. If you know the time a radioactive body will decay, you don’t know which atom in the body will emit a particle. All the atoms in the entire body have to “agree” which atom will emit a particle and only one particle should come from the entire body. Additionally, if you divide the body down to a single particle, you won’t know the time it will emit. The proposed model gives good insight into how this could happen. In this case, the unstable shape of the atoms nucleus might be enough to twist all the HBC’s associated with the entire body slightly out of alignment from the primary HBC MDK lattice and isolate the body as a moderately closed system in an intermediary-lattice. That is - radioactive body’s could create a lattice that engulfs the entire body, including the sub-lattices that form the electron shells within the atoms of the body, but is not fully connected with the primary lattice of “open space”. If we then assume that a slight charge could “leak” into or build up on the intermediary-lattice, the resulting build-up could form a local wave that is finally “scooped” into a properly warped MDK, where its charge would interact with a candidate particle in our dimension and cause an emission. The charge might come from the very twist in the intermediary-lattice itself. 6 -Quantum entanglement In this model, an electron shell is basically an isolated HBC sub-lattice that might well have chaotic aspects. However chaotic the MDK’s shape or size might be, it should be stable enough to always correctly untie electrons into waves and tie them back into particles. To correctly manage the spins of electrons in a shell, the HBC sub-lattice must a have feedback that represents the current state of the shells electron population. “Entanglement” is simply a perceived consequence of that type of mechanism. This might take the form of a simple ratchet like feature of an MDK shape. The essence here is that MDK shape can be compared to molecule shapes in biological systems. If the shapes changes slightly, the function in and interaction with the environment will change. “MDK shapes” might well be an analog of proteins, but for physics. 7 - Dark Energy A side effect of MDK’s is that they should “hide” from us a lot of the energy that makes up the universe. Fortunately for this model, this type of phenomenon has been observed in the accelerating expansion of the universe. There is not enough measured energy in the universe to account for its continued acceleration. The primary postulate in this model is that MDK’s are knots of alternate dimensions that can be untied and may even “want” to untie. As they try to relax their shape, they expand. Essentially, these knots could be storing potential kinetic energy in 9 dimensions that we can not directly measure. MDK "size" or tension would be a new token to trade for energy or mass. 8 - Dark Matter The outside edges of observed galaxies are moving very fast. So fast that it is estimated that they should fling themselves apart. That is, as galaxies spin, their centrifugal force should overcome the estimated gravity for the galaxy. The mystery then is why can’t we see the extra mass that must exists in all galaxies for them to be rotating so fast without overcoming their own gravity. This phenomenon may be based on the assumption that the Higgs Field is uniform through the universe. The implication of a uniform Higgs Field is a uniform distribution of HBCs. However, if MDK size or tension can be exchanged for mass and energy, then HBC’s interacting with particles and waves may have less energy in their MDK which could result in HBC’s collecting and increasing in density in areas of the universe where there is mass. Assume for a moment that a proton “string” gets its physical properties from its MDK / frequency and thus a particular type of interaction with HBC’s. If it interacts with more HBC’s, it could retain all of its physical properties regardless the number of HBC’s it is interacting with. In the deepest void of space, because of HBC density, it may only be able to interact with a single HBC at a time. In a galaxy or galaxy cluster, it might always be interacting with two HBC’s and have twice the mass with all the same relative properties. Near a supermassive black hole (apparently common in the center of galaxies), a single proton might interact with 4 HBC’s simultaneously. A halo of Dark Matter around a galaxy might likely be a currently unknown side effect of a supermassive black hole. To clarify, this model supposes that all physical properties, nucleus stability, for example, is a function of particle MDK shape and relative HBC density and not an absolute gravity from an absolute constant for mass. The mass of an electron, for example could be considered an average that depends on the number of HBC’s it traverses in a fixed period of time. If the HBC density increases, it might not have any more mass at any given time, but it will have mass more often. 9 - Vacuum Catastrophe "The worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics!", may simply arise as a consequence of assuming the HBC’s MDK lattice is uniform through the universe. That is to say, if MDK "size" or tension can be traded for energy or mass, then the vacuum energy density as measured in our local area (this galaxy or even this cluster), where HBC’s are expressing significant mass, should be lower, and may be significantly lower, than the average as calculated by assuming a uniform vacuum energy density for the entire universe. 10 - The Casimir Effect Conservation of MDK "size" or tension could explain the Casimir Effect. That is, as stress propagates through the HBC MDK lattice, it could cause HBC’s to “spontaneously” generate strings in our dimension, to relieve the pressure on it’s MDK. .
I don't see any tweaking of string theory because I don't see you doing any string theory. You can't just take wordy overviews someone else has provided for you, make additional qualitative suppositions and declare you have 'tweaked' string theory. Tweaking any model requires you alter the mathematical details, else you have no idea if the thing you're adding to it or altering is consistent with the rest of it. For example, someone saying "I tweak quantum field theory to include general relativity" might then claim to have got a unified model of both gravity and the other forces but they wouldn't. Sure, the qualitative overview might sound viable but when you examine the details the two ideas are completely inconsistent with one another in their formalisms. All you have is arm waving. Saying things like "In my mind, I keep throwing "mysteries of physics" at my model and it seems to chew them up and spit them out." doesn't cut it. It's easy to arm wave and just say "These ideas explain those ideas" but you haven't shown anything. Do your ideas have a working model of anything? You cannot claim to have dealt with protons or electrons unless you can demonstrate your idea leads to a working predictive model of phenomena related to them. Can you show you can derive the Standard Model from your idea? Nope, because your ideas completely lack details. Theoretical physics isn't taking qualitative ideas and taping them together because you like the sound of them. It is about constructing formal logical constructs which describe quantitatively the behaviour of gravitational and quantum phenomena. If all you have is supposition and arm waving then you have nothing. If you'd spent enough time learning physics to have a working grasp of string theory you'd not be making this fundamental mistake about the nature of physics. You have wild speculation which lacks any formalism or quantitative capabilities. That's pretty bad, you didn't even learn the quantitative structure of one of your inputs, which means you didn't use string theory as an input, you used your interpretation of some of the qualitative ideas someone else extracted from string theory for you. As Prom has already done, this is not for the main maths/physics subforum.
Holy Cow! KE jist might be my long-lost quantum bro' Good luck KE . . . trying to improve on the SM system!
There was a guy in my honours course who burst into my prof's office and declared "I've unified Gravity and Quantum Mechanics!". On further questioning the young lad explained: "I've set G to H BAR". They get everywhere these sorts. -- There are four lights!
Those people with ideas that ask for help with them - the nerve! My apologies - I tried to made it clear that I was doing exactly as you mention so that it wouldn't need to be explicitly repeated. Did you have something specific?
Don't you think that claiming to have bridged the gorge between all the disparate domains of physics is a little bit beyond "asking for help"? It's almost as bad as claiming one understands humanity. -- Things are only impossible until they're not.
Do you purposely select signature lines that completely undermine the arguments in your own posts, or was this just a happy coincidence from a random signature generator?
On the contrary – you are still impossible. -- It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness; that is life.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, assume someone shot your dog today (or something similar), and suppose you may return in the future with a better, productive, sincere, disposition.
I don't have a dog. Or anything similar. ... walking away... slowly... -- What we need is a climbing song.
Most ideas start with a bit of hand-waving. String theory itself began when somebody asked "I wonder what would happen if we had strings instead of point particles?". The physics happens when the idea is formalised (a parameter to represent length in the Lagrangian), and then the mathematics comes in to bring the idea to the point where it can be used to predict more physics. @RR_Edwards' problem is that he goes on with the hand-waving too long without getting to the physics. I think he's asking us to do that for him, but he needs to wind back to his fundamental idea before anyone can do that for him. -- What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived. After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
Oh excellent, thank you. In reality, that is all I am looking for, constructive criticism, which I feel this is. However, I would argue that you are taking something that must be subjective, applying your own standards, and treating your perspective as the absolute. From my perspective, I have had this benign idea bouncing around in my head for a few weeks and when it started to coalesce, I realized how monumental it would be to "prove", assuming it even could be. So I started with a short cut, trying to find ways to convince myself it is nonsense. With my current and admittedly limited knowledge I quickly ran out of "theoretical challenges" for the model. So I wouldn't say I am asking anyone to do the "physics" for me. Rather, I am just asking, "where are the obvious flaws that show that this model is nonsense?" so I can pack it up and put it away before I start on some monumental endeavor. If it is nonsense and I kind of assume it is, then THAT should be easy to show.
Your fundamental problem is that you haven't really got an idea to share with us. What is the kernel of the idea you're proposing? I understand from your original post that you are talking about a Higgs Boson and String Theory. You might not be aware, but the reason why String Theory became so popular is because it tries to predict the standard model (and relativity, etc) – which includes predicting the Higgs. If you could rewrite your "idea" without extrapolating, you'll get a much more concise response from the community. If you claim to have solved all of physics, you will sound more than a little arrogant and will suffer much fury in response - it's also the very definition of a crank. -- I was a different person in those days - arrogant, undisciplined... with far too much ego, but too little wisdom. I was more like you.
