Mass Is Given Mass and Energy Has An Energy

The Higgs Boson is a hypothetical particle thought to give matter the actual substance of mass. It is a massive Scalar Elementary Particle, and was predicted by Peter Higgs in 1964.
It is the only particle that has caused major controversy in the Standard Model, as of YET, it has not been found. But it turns out that the LEP Collider might have found evidence for it, which is still inconclusive. It explains why bosons like the energy particle of electromagnetism, the photon, should be massless, and why weak bosons, the W and Z bosons are critical to the electromagnetic force.

The Higgs Mechanism is a physical field, accompanied by its own Higgs Boson. Even the field itself provides the Higgs with mass! In empty space, it turns out that the Higgs forms a non-zero value, which is said to permeate all locations in the universe simultaneously. This is so that the field can reach every particle, despite the distance. The non-zero value, which is found to be something like 246GeV, predicted by the Vacuum
Expectation Value or (VEV), is what provides all matter with mass. The Higgs is predicted to then have a mass about 1TeV, and an upper limit of 5TeV. It is thought to come from the shell decays of W and Z massless electroweak Bosons.

The Vacuum Expectation Value, which has also been referred to as the Condensate Vacuum, is the expected operator value of the Vacuum, given by <0>. The Casmir Effect, which is an electromagnetic fluctuation between two plates in the vacuum, is a perfect example of the expectation value given by the Operators. Its implements are pivotal for physics, as it is important in spontaneous symmetry breaking.

There are many examples, including Gluon-Condensates that are responsible for Quantum Chromodynamics, which is itself a renormalization process of the electrostrong force, and may also provide hadrons with mass. In the standard model, the Higgs Field is accompanied by two charged and two neutral components. These two field components that are charged and one of the neutral are given by the Goldstone Bosons, which are Pseudo-Particles. Goldstone Bosons are massless bosons, which appear in spontaneous symmetry breaking, and are also predicted by like Condensate Fields. It appears that these particles are only massless if spontaneous breaking of symmetry is not broken. In other words, it is a very delicate process. Any slight change and they become to have mass.

They are very light particles, moving at very high speeds. The idea for these particles, was first hypothesized by Jeffrey Goldstone, and he postulated that there was [one] Goldstone Boson, to every broken symmetry to their component generators.

Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking is found to be relevant to the energy being produced. In example, the theory shows that at high enough energies, about 15GeV, the strong force is unified with electromagnetic and weak forces. At these high energies, the coupling constant of QCD, is found to decrease to nearly zero at these energies. The phenomena is called ''Asymptotic Freedom.'' It means that quarks act much like free particles in high-energy collisions inside of a Hadron. Then they are said to ''perturbate.''

At low energies, the Coupling Constant becomes very high, and now perturbation is said to break down, and explains why quarks can couple into groups of two's and three's. The energy at low enough temperatures, find to be consequent to a phenomena of spontaneous symmetry breaking. The best example we have of this, is matter-antimatter production early on in the universe. There is about one antiparticle to every 10^8 photons in the universe.

Anyway... i've gone off topic a bit explaining these concepts. The question is, do we need a Higgs?

What do you think?

Reiku :m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

mmm... I should have put ALPHA at the topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now, here comes the second excerpt to the work.

The Laws of Energy

Energy [has] an energy, whilst mass [is given] mass.

When we say energy [has], we are referring to the energy of the universe, which has no mechanism, because it is totally self-consistant. If you like, you could say that a particular mechanism can be found between energy having an energy through spacetime curvature, but in a sense, this isn't really true, since relativity states they are the same.

Now, i don't think the universe can have an energy. For this to be true, a collapse would have to be made, and for a God to know how much energy is being distributed through a space, including His own energy, he would need to be outside of the universe to measure it. Conversely, He would need to observe Himself.

Now since He is imnipresent, perhaps self-Reflection isn't a problem, but measuring the energy of the universe is, since nothing can be outside a self-consistant framework.

Now, if energy is being consumed, then there will be a finite sum. But potentially, there is an infinite amount of energy to have. But if we have a beginning in relativity, then there NEEDS to be an end**. So, let's assume there is an end, a Big Crunch, with its own singularity. Then there will be a finite sum the universe will have attained during expansion.

** This is one other reason why the concept of relativity could be wrong, because all the evidence suggests that this universe is open. Meaning, that it will expand eternally.

Recently, i proposed an idea for universal acceleration. The idea was that the energy being consumed was ''speeding'' up the cosmos. The energy though wasn't going to be local. I invited that the energy was being used in each split in the parallel universe theory. I consulted Dr. Wolf, but he told me that my particular theory was flawed, because no energy was required.

I think he was wrong.

Energy has an energy. Nothing gives it. So, in effect, the energy of the universe is proportional to an infinite amount of universes... and renormalization would state that an infinite potential of energy minus an infinite amount of users, the energy would total to zero; thus an affect would be found in an infinite amountof like universes... and to some extent, this can be allowed, since a single peice of matter and energy is paradoxically spread out over the parallel universes.

This is straining the energy. This is making things accelerate unconditionally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the universe doesn't have an energy, [which it can't], then what is energy really?

We could go all philosophical on its ass, but it's probably best to remain scientific about this. If theory states energy is an illusion, then there should be mathematics that show this: and there is. I use it in my avatar... it's very simple, and physicists use like calculations for spin as well.

E=Mc^2+E=-Mc^2=0

Here, positive matter is added with negative matter. In other words, the vacuum has a level amount of negative energy and positive energy. And we add there spins: here we shall work with only Fermions:

x,y=1/2+x, y=-1/2=0

But there arises a problem. The vacuum has a non-zero energy, we think. This means that there is a non-zero total of energy the is left over when you renormalize everything. We haven't been able to explain yet why, but i think there is some unpresidented talk about the zero-point energy field.

If you remove all the matter and energy in the universe, you still have an enormous amount of energy left over. This is the zero-point energy field. It is an electromagnetic sea which is related to the permeation of all matter. In other words, zero-point is where nothing exists. This means that a particle-antiparticle pair must come from nowhere.

This is lazy i think. It's just another way for mathematics to say, ''Mmmm.... We can't explain why, so we won't.''

But here is another problem. We have no better theory.

 

That's harsh... considering you never took into account it might be your understanding of my work. Perhaps some of the terminology granted could have been worded better.

''I'm having trouble following this.

What kind of energy are you talking about? There are many kinds of energy: kinetic, potential, electrical, chemical, etc.''

All energy; yes i know there are different forms, but that is just like matter as well.

''What's a "self-consistent framework", and why do you think the universe is one?''

We say in physics, that universes are self-consistant. If you had done a physics course, you would have known this.
It says that [even] in a parallel universe scenario, that each universe is self-consistant within its own frameworks.

''Energy is not consumed. As far as we can tell, energy is conserved in the universe. You can't create or destroy energy; you can only convert it from one form to another.''

Yes i know. This is where i think my terminology took a slump. I mean, that energy will be converted from potential to kinetic. From zero-point to real. You see? There will remain a finite sum used, if there is an end.

''I don't understand how you can claim the universe doesn't have energy.


“ We could go all philosophical on its ass, but it's probably best to remain scientific about this. If theory states energy is an illusion, then there should be mathematics that show this: and there is. I use it in my avatar... it's very simple, and physicists use like calculations for spin as well.

E=Mc^2+E=-Mc^2=0 ”

This equation makes no sense. '' ''

But its a real equation. It's used in physics. You can find the same equation in Fred Alan Wolfs book, spiritual universe. Granted, it isn't his equation, but a very old one, still used in physics. Why have you been so critical, especially with things you don't seem to understand?

''No. We think the vacuum has non-zero energy fluctuations, which is quite a different kettle of fish.''

Not at all. This is what i meant. You have only given a fuller explanation.

''I don't understand what you're trying to do here, either.''

The x and y are coordinates: Spin up (+) and spin down (-), which are simultaneous before ay resolution has been made.

''But there is mathematics to explain it. The entire area of quantum field theory is concerned with such issues. These ideas aren't pulled out of nowhere, you know. Physicists don't just make guesses. They combine theory and observation to reach justified conclusions.''

Fine.

''The big question is: do you understand the theory we have? So far, I'm not getting that impression.''

James, don't patronize me. I can talk about subjects round here that only a handful of people can do. This is because i've studied it. Why wouldn't i know what i am talking about>?

 

Consider the following.
I like to think about the Mind of God.

How can the universe [have] an energy. For that to happen, there needs to be a single collapse in all the energy, but that cannot be so, because everything is just made up of quantum waves, unless we come into the picture.
This means that God cannot know everything either. To know a small amount, about 10^8 particles locations and paths would cause disruption in the universe, and tear everything apart in less than a second. So God would need to be a bit niave of cetain probabilities, to make sure that the universe can be summed up by all histories: Such as Feymans Sum over Histories.
And how can the universe have a unique radius? For that to happen, a collapse also has to be made. An answer has come about though, suggesting that we are creating the early universe. We change the past, making it more and more real.

 

Reiku,

Reiku, James R is very highly educated in physics.

 

Then he surprised me.

If he hasn't heard of self-consistency, then i would advise him to push the math to the side for a few month, and go over his physics again. Either that, or i am simply incorrect, which i am positive i am not.

In this case, I can understand why he pointed out my terminology on energy. He was quite right to do so. I made a dogs dinner of it.

However, he attaced the equations, with very little understanding into them. He could have asked, instead of provoking some arguement.

 

Glass house, stones, etc...

 

Mmmm 38 posts, and you think you know us all enough to make such a profile?

Also, do you even know what we are talking about?

 

''I wrote you a post saying "I don't understand what you mean when you say X. Can you please explain Y?" and so on, and instead of answering you want to attack my level of knowledge of physics, without even knowing to what extent I am educated in physics? It seems to me that this is not a good way to establish a basis for discussion.''

Hypocrite. You attacked my level of intelligence first.

''You haven't answered my question. I asked "What is a self-consistent framework?" and you have merely repeated your assertion that the universe is a self-consistent framework.

So, I'll ask again: what is a self-consistent framework? And what makes the universe an example of a self-consistent framework?

By the way, I say that I have done a physics course or two would be to considerably understate my qualifications in this area.''

I'll give you a scenario. The time in this universe is self-consistant, because it would do us no good to say in the multiverse theory that times run the same. This means that each universe has a time that is self-consistant.

''Look at the first part:



I read this as "Energy equals rest energy plus energy". By simple algebra we get:



Since c is not zero, we conclude that M=0. So, are you saying the universe contains no mass? Or what? What does the equation even apply to?''

No this math is perfectly correct. I can imply that the universe has no mass, because of two reasons, which extend from several:

1. That time will end. When it does, all matter and energy will have reversed back to the singularity [back through time], destroying entropy. In this case, when everything is finally shoved back into the gravitational singularity, time will not have ever have existed, becuase nothing exists again. And the time that ''had'' passed, also reversed on itself, removing any time that was a dillusion.

2. The second, is that everything [should] be able to be renormalized.

''Taking the second equality, we have:



Again, by simple algebra this reduces to:



What does that mean? The energy of something (the universe?) is twice negative Mc^2? What does that mean?

Finally, we have your last equality:



Again, this implies M=0.''

And again, this work is tip top. Just the same principles apply above though.

''May I ask to what level you have studied physics at university? It's ok if you prefer not to tell me, and it doesn't matter for our conversation here. I'm just curious.''

I'd rather PM you.

''I've heard the term "self-consistency" in a number of different contexts. I'm just not sure of how you're using the term here. That's why I asked.''

Well... now i've told you. In this sense, anything that happens in a universe, is unique and totally within its own boundaries.

''Hopefully, with my further explanation above, my questions are now clearer.''

That's ok. I think it was just misunderstandings.

 

By the way, don't mix the two together.

(Mc^2)+(E=-Mc^2)

Keep the (Mc^2) equation totally consistant with only (E=Mc^2) part of E=Mc^2+E=-Mc^2=0, and treat both (E=Mc^2)+(E=-Mc^2) seperate calculations, until when added.

This was my fault, and i apologize. It should have had brackets.

 

If you wanted to do it your your way, it could have been presented like this:

(E=Mc^2)+(E=-Mc^2)

And:

E=Mc^2+E

Led to:

Mc^2=0

So: the same can be said,

-Mc^2=E+Mc^2

-E=0

So then we can say:

Mc^2=E+-Mc^2 > E=0 >< 0= -Mc^2 < -Mc^2=E+Mc^2

 

''You have made an algebraic error here''.

Yes i did. I saw it.

''No. I questioned your understanding of the topic. There's a difference.''

Fine. Let's just forget about it.

''I have two problems with this. The first is that I can't see how it follows that the universe has no mass now because time will end some time in the future. The second problem is that all the evidence currently suggests that time will not end - that would require that the universe be closed, and current data suggests the universe is open.''

If time ends, then the universe has an end. I'm sure though that this is what you meant, and i'll pass it by as an mistake.
On that note, i agree that the evidence suggests this. But there might arise many errors with an open univese - such as ''what it basically means to have a storyline... Or timeline.'' If it doesn't end, and is open, then we must give up all notions of a beginning.

''Everything?''

That was the general goal - and still is for some physicists.

''You still haven't answered my question. I asked you "What do you mean by self-consistent?" So far, all you have done is given examples of things you think are self-consistent.''

All i can finally say then, is that self-consistant, means:

That no matter how bizarre or complex a universe is, it must abide by its own sets of principles. Does this explain better?

Reiku

 

Hi James... this is better.

''No. The current best-fit cosmological model of the universe has the universe starting with a hot big bang about 13-15 billion years ago and expanding forever at an accelerating rate. This model has a definite beginning to time but no end.''

Yews... of course it does.

But let me explain a theory to you. In relativity, we are told that the beginning, when it happened, happened alongside ''all time.'' This means, as big bang happened, then so did a big crunch. In fact, according to relativity, the end is happeneing right now? Strange eh?

So what happens if one says there isn't a big crunch? Well, we don't have a proper storyline.

I've never heard of a situation in physics which has a beginning but no end. It doesn't make sense or logic. So we can help remove the beginning. Using Imaginary Time, we can look back at the universes history, and the universe will be seen to have a surface much like that of earth.
This means, just like it did on earth, that you could journey spacetime forever, and never fall off the edge... or in this case, a gravitational singularity. This is what i meant.

 

Reiku,

I've never read that. I have read an interpretation that says the big bang happened 'everywhere at once'. Do you have any links?

Philosophy without data is just a storyline, proper or not. Data suggest there isn't enough mass in our universe to halt the expansion, in fact the expansion is speeding up. What data do you have to support a closed universe?

Whether they make sense or not, infinities are common in physics.