Higgs Mechanism Loophole and Emergent Space formulation for Gravity

Two colleagues of mine and I have been collaborating on and off an LHC related blog for several months regarding some ideas about the Higgs discovery that won't seem to go away.

Our concept is consistent with both the Standard Model of particle physics and the General Theory of Relativity, but takes them both a bit further toward explaining gravity in terms of quantum interactions than has been successfully done before.

Basically, there is a loophole in the description of the Higgs mechanism that allows for gravitation. The Higgs mechanism imparts inertial mass to electrons, quarks, W and Z bosons, and their anti-particles.

Particle physicists tend to either ignore or otherwise neglect the idea that the Higgs mechanism is a continuous process, not something that happens once for a couple of picoseconds to permanently bind atoms together with electroweak charge.

Because it is continuous, and because energy is conserved (the Higgs mechanism slows down particles that would otherwise escape at the speed of light), the energy exchange affects vacuum energy in the vicinity by spreading the energy out in all directions. Even virtual particles cannot exceed the speed of light, so changing direction is the only degree of freedom remaining to the vacuum energy. The next 10^-21 seconds or so, the vacuum Higgs field must once again provide inertial mass to the same particles, only this time, the vacuum energy field itself is in motion, has accelerated as a result of the previous energy exchange of the Higgs mechanism. In this way, acceleration IN ALL DIRECTIONS is continuously imparted to masses that are party to the Higgs mechanism. This is exactly the way that gravity works for masses large enough for the acceleration not to be negligible. This is the specific reason that inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent.

But the theory we have developed and will shortly publish goes much deeper. It resolves two relativity paradoxes related to time. First, consider the event horizon of a black hole. Does time stop there? The Higgs mechanism just described says 'no'. It imparts inertial mass both to everything inside the event horizon of the black hole, as well as matter that may be falling into it. Because the motion of virtual particles are not completely stopped at the event horizon, and the Higgs mechanism therefore works even there, we must conclude that time does not have any discontinuity there. If time actually stopped, the Higgs mechanism would also stop, and even gravity could not escape. What about photons of energy that are orbiting the black hole? Does time actually stop for them, traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum? Again no, but this time the reason is different. If time were to stop for a photon, that would mean that both the electric and magnetic fields needed for the energy to propagate would freeze, and hence would not propagate. The conclusion to be drawn from these examples is that time is a property that derives entirely by virtual particle energy interactions in the vacuum. The mechanism we describe defines exactly why inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent. Now for what this idea really means.

Only energy and time are fundamental in this universe. Both space and matter are emergent. Space would not emerge if not for the acceleration of energy. Matter would not emerge in space if the vacuum energy did not first create the substrate in which fields and forces are able to interact.

Gravity derives of energy transfers between matter and the vacuum by means of the Higgs mechanism. This is the principle reason that for any gravitating body, the force of gravity is in all directions, just like the acceleration of virtual particles in the vacuum that result from the Higgs mechanism.

There's much more for us to work out, but we have already developed the idea in enough depth to explain some previously perplexing recent experimental results, including the origin of dark matter. Any thoughts about the concepts presented so far?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you could clarify by what you mean by "Vacuum energy" in this snip:

and elaborate as to what/how you define energy as, in a way that removes ambiguity...
btw. Welcome to sciforums where the minds are cool and the pizza is hot!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I like the sound of most of it. I would add space to the fundamentals, but I do understand why you don't. The way you associate the creation of space with the acceleration of energy works, but you sacrifice some credibility with those who leave open the possibility of preconditions to the Big Bang.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are poking the theory in the right general area. Danshawen says that energy existed before, and even caused space to exist. Simple dimensional analysis shows the flaw here. Energy is defined in terms of space, time and mass. Remove space (or mass, or time) from the mix and energy ceases to even be a concept. But then he doubles down and says that it is the acceleration of energy that causes space. Acceleration is normally a concept that requires a space to accelerate in. It is possible that he he is just being imprecise in his language and using the word "accelerate" in some analogous way, but the fact that he did not specify that it was analogous would just enforce the idea that the his theory is less than half-baked.

I just picked one flaw out of many. Not worth the time to address them all.

 

Aye, there's the rub!

Very grateful for the well considered feedback. Remember, this is a collaborative effort, but I will try and address the flaws you have mentioned. Until the math is solid enough, these will have to do.

The acceleration is applied to the energy of virtual particles in the vacuum. We presently only know of a few that are in the vacuum for certain: virtual photons, mesons, gluons, and Higgs bosons might be enough, but the Higgs mechanism and its continuous interaction with matter alone is enough to explain gravitation. "Continuous" is critical to the concept. In current quantum theory, time evidently has been both neglected and subordinate to probability for some time. This is the principle reason, we think, that this particular loophole was missed.

 

But you failed to address the fundamental problem of energy without space. Energy is a property of a system involving space, time and mass. A quick look at the Wikipedia entry for Energy would verify this. Remove space and energy fails to be even a concept. If you really had a workable theory, you should be able to explain this flaw simply and quickly.

 

This is my colleague's bailiwick, but I'll try

This particular flaw is the one that almost prevented any of this idea from making as far as it has come. A lot of discussion I had with a colleague to try and justify the idea of emergent space was mitigated when I finally read chapter 15 of Lee Smolin's "Time Reborn", which also attempts to address the idea and has brought the idea to the forefront of mainstream physics, but I actually found it only marginally as convincing as my colleague's.

Reflecting on what happens to energy when acted upon by a force (such as a boson, for instance), I realized that because the Higgs itself has mass, and other particles only have mass because the Higgs mechanism provides it, energy cannot be made to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum either. But changing direction is possible. Splitting or scattering the energy into more than one direction is also possible, and provides a resolution in which energy is conserved. The mathematics of the specific scattering mechanism is something that can be derived from first principles or from experiment.

Bosons are force carriers, distinguished by the property that they can occupy the same space as other bosons, or even fermions. But if they occupy space in any sense, then where did the space come from? I propose that it derives from the mechanism explained in the previous paragraph, perhaps (accelerating energy causes the space to emerge). But in truth, my two colleagues have some other ideas about this, which they have already expressed to me and to each other, but which have not solidified. So if my answer is not sufficient, I apologize for not being more definitive about the issue at this time.

 

In one of our last discussions about emergent space with one of my colleagues, we tentatively agreed that Minkowsky space-time also provided a means for space to emerge out of a the idea that only time and energy were fundamental. Minkowsky proposed that both time dilation and space contraction were effects that could be explained by a 4 dimensional rotation in the direction of motion.

Spatial component(s) of a stationary universe undoubtably appear much different (spatially contracted) to energy traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum. Therefore it makes sense that when energy slows down, accelerates, or otherwise presents a temporal gradient, there is a corresponding spatial expansion that is the inverse of Lorentz contraction / time dilation that always seemed to be the focus of the theory of Special Relativity. This is another means by which space can emerge, and in the vacuum, in all directions at once.

In our formulation, in case I haven't explained it before, time never flows at the same rate at any two different points in the universe, particularly on a quantum scale. It varies from place to place according to the relative motion of virtual particles and energy, and it varies from place to place depending on the strength of any gravitational fields, which are equivalent to each other. Did I also neglect to mention, this sort of explains the origin of the uncertainty principle as well?

Which formulation (accelerated energy or relativity or a little of both) do you think is clearer?

Special Relativity of course has so many conflicts with the Standard Model that few particle physicists actually use it for anything other than E=mc^2. Time does not mean the same thing on the quantum scale as it does in cosmology, either, but we have here presented concepts useful for stitching the two back together.

 

Well, I didn't really find that much clearer. Either you are just very loose with your language or you have some basic misconceptions about how the world works.

From what you have said, it appears that you have time all wrong. Time does not slow down or speed up and it certainly can't stop. To talk about the rate of flow of time is wrong. If time can be said to have a rate or some sort then it would be 1 second / second. A meaningless concept. Time is however relative, and time dilation depends on the observer and the observed's relative conditions. That is a different thing.

So when you said that time stops at a black hole's event horizon, I immediately knew you didn't understand the subject. If you were inside a spaceship traveling into a black hole, time would just continue on just as it always does. You would not even notice when you crossed the event horizon. At least that is what I have heard several experts in the field say. Don't take my word for it, google it. However, an outside observer would see you slow down and stop. But that is something different than time slowing to a stop at the horizon.

Likewise you talked about space and time from the viewpoint of a photon. Time does not stop for a photon. 1 second per second always. The problem for the photon is that from it's emission to it's absorption, there is no elapsed time. This is a very different thing from slowing down. It is also why talking about a photon's point of view is not useful. A photon has no point of view. It has no reference frame. A reference frame has to allow for the laws of physics, and since a photon experiences no elapsed time, no events ever happen and so no physics ever takes place. Nothing can be observed by a photon.

Accelerated energy sounds like something from the department of redundancy department.

 

Read the top of the post

QUOTED FROM THE BEGINNING OF MY POST:

"First, consider the event horizon of a black hole. Does time stop there? The Higgs mechanism just described says 'no'. It imparts inertial mass both to everything inside the event horizon of the black hole, as well as matter that may be falling into it. Because the motion of virtual particles are not completely stopped at the event horizon, and the Higgs mechanism therefore works even there, we must conclude that time does not have any discontinuity there. If time actually stopped, the Higgs mechanism would also stop, and even gravity could not escape. What about photons of energy that are orbiting the black hole? Does time actually stop for them, traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum? Again no, but this time the reason is different. If time were to stop for a photon, that would mean that both the electric and magnetic fields needed for the energy to propagate would freeze, and hence would not propagate. The conclusion to be drawn from these examples is that time is a property that derives entirely by virtual particle energy interactions in the vacuum. The mechanism we describe defines exactly why inertial and gravitational masses are equivalent. Now for what this idea really means."

So, did I say that time stopped, either for a photon or a black hole event horizon? I never said any such nonsense. You must be confusing this one with another alternative theory post?

Apology accepted.

 

Minkowsky Spacetime in Only Two Dimensions

I have also received objections (from my colleagues) to the use of Minkowsky space-time rotation as an interpretation of emergent space because it is a theory which seems to require four dimensions in which to operate. Strictly speaking, this is not true. It requires only spatial motion in the direction in which relative motion occurs, and time in order for us to observe the Lorentz changes in time and one dimension of space. The other (non-contracted) emergent dimensions, if any, only present themselves as a side effect of the motion of virtual particle energy that is constantly exchanging energy with the mass traveling at relativistic speed.

Higgs Loophole gravity and emergent space is a solid concept for any theoretical test we have thus far given it. It makes more sense than quantum loop gravity because the interaction does not involve exotic constructs such as gravitons in order to operate. It explains both the direction and the disparity of force magnitudes for gravity because it is a side effect of accelerating space itself.

Experimental evidence has also presented, in terms of dark matter and the anomalous Allias gravimeter effect observed during a solar eclipse in China. The masses of gravitating bodies including the moon extend into what was previously considered empty space. Space that has been accelerated by the Higgs contains sufficient energy to affect such sensitive instruments, but you would have a difficult time explaining this with either Newton's, or even Einstein's formulations of gravity using General Relativity.

 

Dan, don't despair. It takes time for some things to catch on.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=kp&v=WShZVxPZETw

I would suggest simply putting space, time, and energy in place before the Big Bang (preconditions), and you get a possible solution to the forces at work driving expansion. You don't need expansion to be the source of space, you get expansion from the force of energy density equalization as the high energy density (Higgs) space expands into the low energy density space surrounding the Big Bang event as the energy density differential equalizes. Gravity is strong in close quarters, but a Big collapse/bang to give expansion a jump start, and gravity is out classed (for some time).

 

That is pretty close to my first reaction to the idea that only time and energy are fundamental. It took some getting used to, but as more pieces of the theory fell into place, I could see my colleague (Ted's) point.

Time has always been a sticky wicket in physics; not quite a dimension on its own, yet capable of changing our ideas and especially the math relating to the other three. So sticky, in fact, it was almost completely purged from the Standard Model. This is why it isn't possible to treat time in this manner and understand how the universe works. I know, it's a really tough concept for most people at first. So was relativity. So was the the Higgs.

Get used to it. The Higgs exists. If you are firm about the idea that inertial mass exists because of it, and that the process is continuous in time, the rest sort of falls out of it. Space doesn't exist unless vacuum energy accelerates (changes direction). That process defines everything about space, from the scale of atoms to that of the immense vacuum in which they are held together by the Higgs mechanism.

 

How about a link to the blog or a presentation or paper. I have no standing to discuss things on your level, but I do like to look;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

A whole lot of things wrong with this concept as currently presented. For one, according to QM virtual particles can travel at any speed whatsoever and can even travel backwards in time, which isn't such a big deal since they're impossible to directly detect and may simply be mathematical artifacts with no real existence of their own. Secondly, the Higgs doesn't impart mass to particles, its existence is simply required in order for particle masses to be modelled in a mathematically self-consistent way. There's no interaction between the Higgs field and other particle fields happening every few picoseconds, but rather infinitely many interactions are taking place between these fields at any given moment.

 

You make two good points about time. 1) How time seems to be purged from BBT, at least as far as GR is concerned, being part of spacetime instead of time as an independent dimension, and 2) And yet time is an element in the equations where motion is involved.

In theory specific terms, time and its role is "theory specific", and so any tinkering with the theory like you propose must accept time as defined by the theory. I did suggest that you could invoke preconditions including preexisting space, time and energy, and I know it is tempting to do that as an independent thinker, but we both know you can't as a theorist in this case, and I think that was your point.

And that is the same thing as saying that if you are going to discuss the standard model as it evolves, and try to incorporate the data provided by the LHC, then you are subject to those findings, the Higgs exists.

That is a very key point to me, that the Higgs process produces inertial mass, and that process is continuous in time. The sticky part of that is that GR is not continuous in time, which is sticky, if I understand your problem. Is that right?

I hope to explore that further with a coulple of questions, but I'm not even sure you are still participating, so that can wait.

I'm surprised you didn't comment about the "Atlas Boogie" that I linked to above. Did you not recognize it, and didn't you mention it on Sean Carroll's blog? I could be mistaken about that.

 

Yes, I post occasionally to Sean Carroll's blog. I went there frequently just after reading 'The Particle at the End of the Universe', to prepare for giving a presentation about Higgs to my Maryland Mensa group which included my friend Jack, a neutrino physicist and instructor at CUNY (who traveled all that way just to hear me!). My presentation in March 2014 did not include anything about Higgs Loophole Gravity, which came suddenly after months of consultation with my colleagues who also had a keen interest in how the Higgs discovery connects with other physics. Reading Smolin's 'Time Reborn' was another critical piece, particularly chapter 15, which reminded me of one of my colleague's descriptions of emergent space, an idea which I had resisted for some time believing at first that it wasn't necessary, later understanding that it's actually critical to any theory for which time on any scale becomes the centerpiece.

For whatever reason (and I sincerely hope it wasn't anything I posted here), I seem to be abruptly out of touch with the colleague I had been consulting with. I have more ideas about directions to explore before diving into the math and digging out the parts we will need to make more predictions. The Standard Model certainly deserves a lot of credit for getting us this far.

In case you hadn't noticed it, under "Architecture and Engineering' you will find a related post with a suggested design for a differential gravimetric observatory (for observing gravity waves via time differentials). This is, as far as I am aware, a completely new design for such a detector that takes advantage of the ideas we have already developed. In order to complete the design, an estimate of the required sensitivities will be necessary. For starters, such a device would need to be sensitive enough to detect the motion of every major planet in our solar system. I believe this is finally a practical idea, within the limits of existing technology to implement.

 

BTW, My audience, including Jack, loved the Atlas boogie, which I played at the end of my presentation last March.

 

I loved it. I sent it to a friend, my regular Wed. Quantum Coffee chat partner, and coincidently, my guitar jam partner, and he wrote this back: "Those LHC folk really know how to cut loose! The video was almost entirely made by LHC employees. Looks like The Canettes Blues Band is fronted by Steve Goldfarb, Research Scientist and Software/Database Developer and Connie Potter, head secretary at ATLAS. Simon Baird, deputy head of CERN's engineering department on guitar. My terrible French makes the other members hard to identify. A 2009 article said they had been together for ten years. Their website was updated in 2013. Very inspiring!"

 

Why the Higgs and Gravity are Unrelated, Prof. Matt Strassler
http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/