Is the Higg's field neutral?

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

  1. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    I would suggest you really do not know what you are talking about except from reading things on google search when you need an answer. I suggest you are a spod and are not really serious about science.

    Magnetic field lines are not hard to observe, we all have done the iron filings field line test on a magnet. The North polarity field lines curve back towards the south polarity fields and vice versus, the spaces between the field lines are caused by the likewise polarity of the field line repulsing itself. Quite clearly you know very little about magnetic field lines.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Good, you have read something.

    Now pl tell me how much is this repulsion space? Is it 3D or 2 D or 1 D and what is the spacing between two repulsing field line and what stops them repulsing till infinity? And of course what is the repulsion force formula between two lines?

    Since you have read something, so you would know a single field line in this case links both S and N poles, so how do you know it is north polarity line or south polarity line?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    58
    Your wording is rather strange, the repulsion is not the space, the repulsion is the likewise field that separates itself into field lines by its own mechanism. The space between the field lines is the existing space . The B-field separates by the A-field. The A-field is not magnetic.
    It is 3d and the south field stops the north field repulsing into infinity and vice versus.
    A single field line is not a single field line it is dual field lines. (They are being squeezed together)
    North and south are arbitrary.
    Formula , you tell me?
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    1. Spacing between two field lines?

    2. It's your claim that field lines repulse due to same polarity, so what is the formula for this repulsion (force)? And how much spacing it will create? You can say that you don't know maths for this.

    3. And a simple one, how do you distinguish that this field line is of positive polarity and this one is of negative polarity and this one is neutral?
     
  8. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    I think this site may help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
     
  9. Contemplation Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    The book, "The God Particle", describes the Higgs Field in a lot of detail. If anyone ever actually bothered to read it, they would know the book actually describes the Higgs to be more like Satan, rather than God. It describes it as icy tentacles pervading throughout all of space. It is not like the other fields that are associated with the other forces. It doesn't transfer energy in the same way as the other types of fields or have much energy of its own. Then particles created by the Higgs Field are much different than other particles. For instance, the Higgs Boson doesn't have charge or spin. Then I would say that; yes, it is neutral. The field just shows up when there is symmetry breaking of quantum physics itself.

    It was thought to be required in order for quantum physics to be a correct theory, so that is why the discovery of the Higgs Boson was a big deal. If it didn't exist, it could have shown that there was an error in quantum physics, and it wasn't actually a self consistent theory. The most that is really understood about it is that it is just a bunch of mathematical hocus-pocus which links different parts of quantum theory in order for it to work out. The field just plays the role of connecting the links between quantum mechanics in just the right way to make it a self consistent theory.
     
  10. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    1. I will try to explain this in another manner. Have you ever squeezed a ball that was filled with air and the air ''pushes'' back? The air wants to permeate more than it can but is ''squeezed'' together. Now think about the field line, the density would certainly permeate more if it were not for the likewise opposing force of ''itself''.


    2. I do not know the maths at this time.

    3. By defining it in an abstract manner. (I will think harder about this question).


    p.s Field lines want to be a sphere but they can't by there own mechanism.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,791
    They may form by a fractal function. See Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)
    Causal dynamical triangulation

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
    Causal dynamical triangulation - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

    I may have read that all particles in the Higgs field may be entangled. If the Higgs boson is the glue in forming matter, is it not logical that all Higgs bosons are glued to themselves (entangled)

    As I understand it, the real mystery lies in the question what was causal to the BB, and if that event might have been causal to the universal soup of bosons, such as the Higgs field.

    a) Energy always existed but dispersed through a near infinite vacuum. (unlikely?)
    b) Energy was created during the BB, by an unknown event. (possibly?)

    If I may be permitted a pure speculation. A flight of fancy.

    Comes to mind if a near infinite timeless vacuum were to instantly totally collapse into itself, creating a singularity and though a vacuum itself may not have any physical properties, when a near infinity of nothing is reduced (compressed) into a singularity, is it possible that the collapse itself might produce an energetic rebound, creating bosons in the process (inflationary epoch)?

    There has to be a logical if not mathematical causality for the BB. Strange as it may be to our current understanding of the physical universe, I doubt that it was created by magic.

    I find it highly unlikely that some form of energy always existed. IMO, energy was created by an event.

    So if we begin with the assumption of the existence of a near infinity of pure nothingness, how can nothingness be brought to produce an energetic event. If nothingness = pure vacuum, would there exist a natural imperative (a potential) that it must collapse unto itself? If that riddle could be solved, might it lead to a logical answer of "in the beginning"

    In a timeless pre-condition, this event would be instantaneous and might produce a mega quantum event, creating a virtual Higgs field and the subsequent assembly of primary particles.

    I'm in deep, deep water here, but hey if the pre-condition to the BB is still a mystery, perhaps a flight of fancy might provide a creative spark in the mind of a knowledgeable fellow.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
  12. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58

    I like to see people having an educated guess (speculation) at answering questions we have no answer to . I also quite like your speculation and with more thought on the matter, it could probably develop into a hypothesis before the eventually of a theory. I believe you are correct in your thinking that there has to be a logical cause and affect. Things don't just appear by magic.

    If nothingness= absolute infinite space-time , why not absolute infinite space-time = Higg's field? An interwoven field that is undetectable.

    I can imagine your notion and can imagine the whole of absolute infinite space-time being attracted to a single point , imploding and '''exploding'' at the same time. However I would be certain that energy was not the cause, polarity would be the course that made a zero point energy. I imagine a negative polarity point or a positive polarity point and the vice versus being attracted to that point, the Higg's field acting like a neutral ''ether''.

    However I do not think we could ever be 100% certain of the before's when we only have experienced the after.
     
  13. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,892
    This thread is nothing more than speculation and is drifting farther and farther from any scientific ideas, so I am requesting the mods to move this out of the science section.
     
  14. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Interesting, so how do you suggest anybody discusses anything we do not know the answers too? Are you saying looking for answers is speculation? I am not following your logic.

    Can you give an answer?
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    No, you are not looking for answer. You proposed something, then when questioned you showed false aggression or complete ignorance, but you continued with your misconceptions.
     
  16. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,892
    The science section is a great place to discuss ideas that are based on known science. If you begin to make things up then the discussion should proceed in the "alternative theories" section. Just seems appropriate to me.
    No. I am saying guessing on answers based on ignorance is just speculation - it is not science.
    Sorry.
     
  17. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    I am sorry I am still not following your logic. A new theory involves math and scenarios and extensive citations etc, nobody is making a new theory in this thread. People are discussing something we do not have an answer to. I asked the question is the Higg's field neutral?

    Guessing answers? nobody is guessing anything, we are trying to reach a conclusion(s). If you think we are all so ignorant, perhaps you can give us your input then and correct us?

    If not I can only presume you are not really interested in discussion but more the type that just likes to disrupt threads.
     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    On the contrary, he is not a disruptive poster. But he is giving up because he, like everyone else, cannot work out what you are talking about in most of this thread.

    I will have a quick try at your original question:-

    If by "neutral" you mean something with no net electric charge, then all fields are neutral. No field has an electric charge. Objects have electric charge, not fields.

    If however by neutral you mean something else, then please try to explain what you mean.
     
  19. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    Polarity
     
  20. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,892
    I am not trying to disrupt the thread, I am just suggesting that this thread belongs in a different section. By all means you can speculate to your hearts delight, it should just be done in a section that is not devoted to science.
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,892
    There is no polarity in the higgs field since gravity only has an attractive componenet. Speculation about polarity starts to bring in anti-gravity and that moves us into pseudoscience land.

    If the mods decide to move this thread that is fine if they decide not to that is fine, not my call. But by all means have fun with your speculations where ever the thread ends up. I am too busy to continue in this thread - so like I said have fun.
     
  22. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    There are no opposite poles required for the Higgs field to be present, no.
     
  23. John.P Registered Member

    Messages:
    58
    So it is neutral then in polarity?
     

Share This Page