# Is the Higg's field neutral?

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

1. ### John.PRegistered Member

Messages:
58
I do not want to get into a discussion about the semantics of ''anti-gravity''. You say there is no polarity , so it is neutral then? How does a polarity ''act'' relative to Neutral? Would a polarity for example travel through a Neutral with out restriction?

Messages:
10,916
deleted

5. ### sweetpeaValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,329
John, saying something is neutral in polarity implies there are other polarities. With the Higgs field there are no polarities and so there is no neutral.

7. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,069
The point (in my speculation) I was trying to make, is that energy (the Higgs field) was created by the force of an implosion of an energyless vacuum state and a subsequent energetic expansion. IMO, once we know how the Higgs field was created, only then can we begin to analyze it's natural properties.

@ origin,
Can you give me your "perspective" of how a pure state of nothingness would (could) possibly give rise to a dynamic state (of any kind)?

I started from the perspective of nothingness becoming a somethingness. The only other answer is an i priori state of somethingness, which would preclude a beginning and that sounds just as implausible as my imaginary state of an I priori timeless state of total nothingness.

One does not need to know the maths to propose a fundamental pre-universe condition.
The universe was the beginning, no? So what was before the beginning?

It is really not a scientific statement, but rather a probing question.

IMO, before the beginning of this universe (a BB) there are two possible prior states and one of them precludes a beginning. Nothing to do with the maths of the Higgs Field.

I am asking about a function, which might have caused the BB and the formation of the Higgs field.
Once we know how the Higgs field formed, we can analyze its properties. Or perhaps we can work backwards. If we do know the properties, can we deduce a causality?

From another post by Paddo; A Universe from nothing.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

Anyone?

Last edited: Jul 24, 2017
8. ### exchemistValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,517
"Polarity" implies the existence of polar opposites, such as positive and negative in electrostatics or North and South in magnetism.

But there can be a field in which there is no such pair of polar opposites involved in its production. A Newtonian gravitational field is one example. There are no opposite "poles", only a source of gravitation and a field that weakens progressively towards zero at increasing distances from the source.

The term "neutral" , however, has no recognised meaning in relation to fields. So I am struggling to make the best sense I can out of what you are trying to say.

9. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
neutral in respect to what? fields are not polarized in general, a field is usually caused by continuously opposing polarities.

10. ### John.PRegistered Member

Messages:
58
Neutral in respect to the north and South Polarity, i.e in the middle of a compass needle.

11. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
sure, a field experiences a neutrality as it transitions from one polarity to another, that would be what we think of as the zero point of the sine wave, but never just neutral, there literally wouldn't exist a "field" if it were neutral.

12. ### Write4UValued Senior Member

Messages:
12,069
Question: Could entanglement be used in this context?

13. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
I don't know to be honest. In my opinion entanglement is more of a theoretical argument. I realize that there was supposedly some tests regarding some photons that apparently were twins that ejected from a single electron and went on their merry ways in opposite directions and once one was observed it changed it's state to something or other which in turn simultaneously caused the twin to change states. I don't know how they could have known that if they hadn't observed both photons simultaneously, which would be impossible due to delay that would occur when switching from one observation to another, and how do they know that it wasn't the actual observation of both that caused the change in state instead of just the observation of one? Anyways, i don't think that inductance is related to entanglement so much.

14. ### John.PRegistered Member

Messages:
58

Thank you for answering my question, this will help me with my thoughts. Another question I have is, if two different polarities were interwoven into a single manifold , would this also be observed to be neutral? One cancelling the other out?

Added- I will extend on this to help with the understanding of the question.

If we had a positive polarity ''sphere'' and a negative polarity '''sphere'' , if these two ''spheres'' were to merge, what is the consequence of this when regarding the ''new '' polarities?

My question relates to a 3 dimensional XYZ matrix where all X values are positive and all Y values are negative and Z just defines it is 3d.

Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
15. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
I'm getting the idea that you don't fully comprehend "polarity". think of a sinewave with a line drawn through the center.....the middle line is zero, above the zero line (reference point) is positive numbers like 1,2,3,4, below the zero line is negative numbers like -1,-2,-3,-4, negative one is exact polar opposite of positive one, same for the rest of the numbers, they are only positive or negative in reference to the numbers on the opposite side of their zero point. If you have multiple sinewaves, the polarities don't count unless their zero points are tied together as a common. The upper group is positive polarity with respect to the bottom group, which is negative polarity with respect to the top group. Also, the zero point can be considered negative polarity with respect to to the positive group.

16. ### John.PRegistered Member

Messages:
58

I would rather think about the actions than the numbers. Opposite polarities attract, likewise polarities repel, merged polarities must do neither and remain neutral?

17. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
but you can't have one without the other is my point. In order to have a positive polarity you have to have atleast an equal and opposite negative polarity, just like north and south poles. one is a by product of the other.

18. ### John.PRegistered Member

Messages:
58
Can't have one without the other or have not discovered one without the other as yet?

It is strange you say that though, atoms are merged opposite polarities that do not have a north or south that I am aware of?

19. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
electrons are negatively charged with respect to proton in the nucleus, which is positively charged. that is why electrons form a cloud around the nucleus, they are all attracted to that proton, but they are repelling each other which is why they are a cloud.....there is no such thing as a polarity that isn't in respect to itself......

20. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
By definition a polarity is the opposite of itself. It is just a reference description for two equal and opposite sides of the same coin basically.

21. ### John.PRegistered Member

Messages:
58
Ok, but that does not say that we do have independent polarities ? (A mono of the opposite)

22. ### TralayRegistered Member

Messages:
86
There are no independent polarities. You are trying to objectify the word polarity when it's not an object, it is a reference point.

23. ### John.PRegistered Member

Messages:
58
An electron shell/cloud, could not hold itself together , I understand the electrons repel each other and the attraction to the proton holds.retains their orbit of the Proton like the gravity of the Earth holds the air close to the earths surface.