Is the Higg's field neutral?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by John.P, Jul 15, 2017.

  1. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    It seems to me that if there was an underlining field such as the Higg's field, then the polarity of this field must be neutral.?
    If the Higg's field was a positive or negative polarity field, then this would have opposing force to the electrodynamics of moving bodies. i.e Likewise polarity is repulsive.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    What do you mean by "polarity"?

    What?

    Are you stretching to make some kind of analogy with electric charge? Like charges repel; unlike attract. That kind of thing?

    What has electromagnetism got to do with the Higgs field?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    My apologies I should of not put the word polarity in that sentence.

    Edit: It seems to me that if there was an underlining field such as the Higg's field, then this field must be neutral?

    I am not stretching some analogy although I was considering like charges repel and unlike charges attract, that type thing.

    I was considering fields such as an electro-magnetic field of a moving body and any possible affects on the spacial supposed field from the bodies fields. In respect to Newtons first law of motion, a body will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. In respect to a body in motions field, the supposed spacial field allows 100% permitivity ε0 to the bodies fields. The bodies fields having polarities , therefore the supposed spacial field must be without polarity and neutral?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,828
    I think you need to read a bit about quantum field theory, or have a look at some recent videos by PBS Spacetime on YouTube. The presenter knows what he's talking about, but it's geared to a more general audience.

    A field excitation in the EM regime is quite different from the Higgs field, which provides mass to certain families of particles, but not others. It's more complicated than I can understand or, Lord help everyone, try to explain. Good hunting!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    I personally do not find QFT that difficult to understand. It is not hard to visualise a underlying field that manifests point like ''particles'' (field Quanta) out of an apparent ''nothingness''. I consider these field Quanta can manifest at any random''point'' of space. I believe these field quanta are the manifestation of random quantum ''cross-over points'' where there is such a point that all energies collide isotropic at this ''cross-over'' point to create field quanta .
    Sort of an alternative to E=mc² of pE=hf³. However I do know this would be very speculative and at this stage in my thinking would not submit it as a new QFT. If you can imagine a sphere of permeating ''invisible'' photons, then imagine all these ''invisible'' photons collapse to a single ''point''. I personally imagine then having visible photons.
     
  9. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,828
    But there are different fields in different energy regimes.

    And just as a bit o'help, try not to "believe" in something that science can tell us. Try to delve deeper into why everyone but the nutbags depend on evidence and maths, rather than belief.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    John.P:

    Neutral in what sense? What do you mean by "neutral"? It seems you're still talking about some kind of polarity, even though you don't want to use that word any more.

    I don't understand what you mean.

    Which field?

    What are you talking about?

    What is this "supposed spatial field" you mention? Is that the Higgs field? You know the Higgs field isn't produced by "bodies", don't you?

    And what does this "spatial field" have to do with electromagnetic permittivity?

    Or are you talking about the electromagetic field now?

    Which fields have "polarity"? What do you mean by "polarity"?

    What is the difference between a field that has "polarity" and one that doesn't? Please give me some examples so I can understand what you're talking about.

    You sound very muddled when you're talking about fields.

    What do you mean by energies colliding? How can energies collide? What kind of energies are you referring to? Are they the same as fields or different? And what's the relevance of "isotropic" in that sentence?

    What is \(pE=hf^3\)? That equation appears to be dimensionally incorrect, so it looks like you made an error somewhere there.

    How can a photon collapse? What does that look like? What would cause it?

    You're not making a lot of sense.
     
  11. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    When discussing Neutral I avoided saying polarity, I considered a plus polarity and a neg polarity then considered neutral as an equilibrium between the two rather than saying a neutral polarity. Sort of +0-



    Every action has an opposite reaction


    In respect to which field, I am referring to fields in a general manner. I consider the fields of independent bodies are interwoven.


    An equal and opposite force, the supposed underlying field of space offers no opposing force to the fields of bodies.

    I think you have got confused somewhat, of course I know the Higg's field is not of bodies. I mentioned the Higg's field already, I assumed you would easily understand spacial field is meaning to this.

    It offers no opposing force to the fields of bodies.

    I assume all fields have polarity, by polarity I mean an equal and opposite

    I assume that a field that has polarity is dynamic and assume a field without polarity is constant.

    That would be understandable because the title of the thread is asking a question, I am not an expert in fields.


    Colliding would not be our typical understanding of colliding . Perhaps a better word would be over-laying. I am referring to a ''mass'' of photons over-laying at any spacial point , equally from all directions. To explain this maybe a bit easier, imagine I had 100 photons in/at a single point, but the 100 photons are still not visible.
    Now imagine a second point, but this point had 101 photons and was visible.



    Well it is not a new theory or speculation at this stage, I was just saying what I thought about fields so the maths does not exactly need to be correct. pE is potential energy , hf is photon, I was trying to explain the prior explanation.


    A light sphere collapses not a photon, imagine a light sphere contracting/collapsing to a central point, however you can not see the light sphere, the light sphere is ''invisible'' , but once it ''collapses'' , you can then see it , the photons become visible as a ''dot''.
     
  12. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,828
    Well, that went south pretty quickly.

    Plonk.
     
  13. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,502
    Well, you do not need to be an "expert", but you do need to know what a field IS. Clearly you do not.
     
  14. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Don't talk so silly, I know where cows graze.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    John.P:

    In your opening post you wrote:

    Explain this statement.
     
  16. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Newtons third law or rather the lack of Newtons third Law. Space does not push back.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,376
    John.P:

    I don't seem to be making any progress in understanding what you're trying to say, so I'm out of this thread. Sorry. You don't make a lot of sense.
     
  18. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    John P,

    The problem is the term "polarity of field" as used by you, so please explain what you mean by that.

    For example in physics we can have both scalar as well as vector fields, but that would primarily speak about the nature of parameter associated with field, like temperature distribution will be scalar field while charge or gravity related forces will be vector fields.

    Now I see your confusion probably is due to direction of field lines, let me elaborate, a test particle (unit positive charge) will move away from a source in a field as created by a positive charge source while it will move towards the source if the source charge is negative. I am sure now you understand that polarity of field makes no sense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2017
  19. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Your inability to understand seems a rather strange reason to pull out of the discussion, surely the aim of a discussion is to reach an understanding by discussing?

    What don't you understand about the nature of force? I do not understand why you are having difficulties understanding something as simple as opposing forces and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Space offers no opposite action or opposing force to things travelling through it. If it did apply any force things would slow down to a stop in accordance with Newtons first law. A magnetic field can ''push'' or ''pull'' another magnetic field, space has no opposing force to magnetic fields and allows things to pass through it unhindered.
     
  20. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Have you heard of the North and South magnetic poles? The vector field lines curvature is caused by the North polarity being attracted to the South polarity and vice versus the South polarity vector field lines are attracted to the North polarity.

    Are we on the same ''wave-length '' here?
     
  21. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    No, we are not on the same wave-length. You need to fiddle with your knob.

    I avoided this magnetic field example because I thought this would confuse you due to absence of monopole.

    Vector field lines are not at all attracted or repulsed towards any pole, these are the force lines as traced by a test particle albeit explanation is more detailed then the electric field lines.
     
  22. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58

    Can you please provide a link to this, I am not familiar with this.
     
  23. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    I would suggest, pl refer to wiki on magnetic fields. It is quite informative.
     

Share This Page