Urgent need for another (exotic) kind of Higgs boson (God Particle)

All the matter we can see amounts to about 4% of the universe. Let's hope future experiments reveal a more exotic version than the Standard Model Higgs, which would merely confirm understanding of how particles and forces interact. An exotic Higgs could lead to comprehension of that other 96% of the universe, and this is how I believe (after 30 years of research) that it must all work. I’ve posted more details about related subjects on that repository for new science articles called vixra.org - scientists have mentioned travelling at the speed of light while I've developed ideas allowing instant intergalactic travel and its relations, interdimensional and time travel.

As globaldemocracy.com suggests, I'll expand on my thinking in the comments section.

Vote
100%
0%
Votes
2
Views
1442

7 Comments

  • I began by writing the following email to America’s Discover magazine (it was about an article of theirs concerning Julian Barbour). Unintentionally, my email started talking about a subject which fascinates me – the Higgs boson/field (I’ve been thinking about this for years, and I spent hours deciding on the best words to use in a short email). I used Albert Einstein’s theories to come to the conclusion that what we call the Higgs is our name for ALL particles (not simply this one or that one) being composed of quantum mechanical "wave packets" formed by the union of gravitons and photons – the notion of the Higgs actually being all particles implies that its discovery by the Large Hadron Collider would be another experimental verification of the existence of quantum entanglement in time and space and on Earth. In turn, gravitons and photons – along with all time and space - are composed of electronic binary digits (this may be termed the Higgs field).* I suspect this idea of binary digits composing space-time is highly unfashionable in the present worldview of quantum fluctuation. Also, people believe in strictly linear time where effects do not influence causes, but the “binary digits” idea requires a looping subroutine where electronics from the future is transmitted nearly 15 billion years into the past in order to create the subuniverse we currently inhabit (on a separate note, I believe we live in an infinite universe made up of subuniverses shaped like figure-8 Klein bottles that are made flexible enough to seamlessly – except for wormholes – fit into each other by their construction from binary digits). Dark matter could be explained as matter travelling from future to past, or past to future, or in the process of being teleported between places in the present (the matter is invisible but still has gravitational effects). Dark energy could be explained as gravity or space-time (i.e. the product of binary digits) being programmed to accelerate and expand (I prefer to regard acceleration/expansion being the result of more space-time continually being created, which is what the Big Bang’s rival – Steady State theory – proposes). Anyway, the unfashionableness of my ideas does not automatically make them wrong.

    * The University of Edinburgh scientist Peter Higgs pointed out that the Higgs field would produce its own quantum particle (the Higgs boson) if hit hard enough, by the right amount of energy. The Higgs field is the name given to the unification of space-time by the binary digits creating it. Therefore, the Higgs boson would necessarily indicate this unification and “…its possible discovery by the Large Hadron Collider would be another experimental verification of the existence of quantum entanglement in time and space and on Earth.” Why does data from the LHC “… see tantalising hints consistent with making Higgs bosons with a mass of around 125 times as heavy as the proton?” (http://www.ph.ed.ac.uk/higgs/laypersons-guide) I don’t know why there are hints at this specific mass. I can only suggest that we use quantum physics’ wave-particle duality and think of all the subatomic particles in the universe – and throughout all time – as a beam of light from a torch. If the circle of light cast by the torch represents all subatomic particles, then the centre of that circle (which is its brightest part) represents the masses’ energy of 125 billion electron volts (125 times as heavy as a proton).

    Here’s the email I sent to Discover –

    I'd like to comment on the article "Is Einstein's Greatest Work All Wrong—Because He Didn't Go Far Enough?" by Zeeya Merali (March 2012 issue).

    "Long before Einstein, (Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst) Mach had advocated a ‘truly relative’ theory, in which objects were positioned only in relation to other tangible objects—Earth relative to sun, pub relative to farmhouse—and not against any abstract background grid." (“Is Einstein’s Greatest Work …”) This makes sense as long as we assume that space-time is an unverifiable abstract grid and matter, such as objects, is the only component of reality.

    "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence, Einstein said: time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." - PHYSICS: ALBERT EINSTEIN’S THEORY OF RELATIVITY at http://www.spaceandmotion.com
    Einstein's thinking claims that space-time is as much a part of reality as matter is, and his thinking can potentially be verified by the Large Hadron Collider. This is because the Higgs boson/field sought by the LHC could turn out to be a non-Standard-Model Higgs where subatomic particles are composed of quantum mechanical "wave packets" formed by the union of gravitation's gravitons. To give matter a different appearance from gravity, this union could include electromagnetism's photons. The amplitude of gravity waves might taper from a central point to the sides while the amplitude of electromagnetic waves remains constant - in which case electromagnetism would be modified gravitation and Einstein would have been correct when he said gravitation and electromagnetism may be related.

    Since the great physicist claimed gravitation is the warping of space-time, time and space would have no separate existence from matter and would be the ultimate composition of the non-Standard-Model Higgs particle. Continuing from Einstein's deductions, space-time cannot simply be an abstract background but must be composed of something, or else it could not give rise to the matter we see, touch, and probe with instruments. But that something also gives rise to immaterial space, time, and gravity. What could be the source of things we see, and also of things we do not see? Why not the electronic binary digits of 1 and 0? After all, we can view a webpage but can never view its ultimate composition.

    So Julian Barbour’s approach is only good for people who only believe in what they can see. Albert Einstein’s approach is the one to follow if we ever hope to achieve a Unified Field Theory or Theory of Everything which has meaning in physics, as opposed to purely in mathematics. A mathematically defined unified field could be accurate and detailed, but it would only be relevant to mathematicians and would therefore be somewhat abstract. A physical unified field would be relevant to everybody, enabling us to understand and manipulate both what we can and can’t see in the universe.

  • I will have to reread your submission a couple more times - it's very interesting. As a comment for now, can I ask whether you are looking for answers to what 'is' by reducing all things to smaller and smaller components. Given that string theory, which is a mathematical process that suggests the best 'unified theory' will include other dimensions, do you think it is possible that the answers lie in those other dimensions, which may exist outside of our ability to reduce, sense, observe or, at this stage, calculate? If you are able to answer, that may assist me to understand your submission (I'm not a phsyicist as you can tell).

  • I find your work very fascinating. I encourage you to keep working on this regardless of how well the idea(s) are or are not received. Thinking outside the main stream is where, I personally feel some of our greatest discoveries of the future wait to be found... just as so many geniuses of the past have proven.

    I sat here thinking about quantum entanglment, and the Higgs field, how both may interact. After surfing the internet to find the norm being, "Quantum entanglement and the Higgs field have nothing to do with one another". I am finally getting a breath of fresh are reading your work. The greatest minds are those that are not narrow, that are open minded, that question long held laws and theories, that realize that almost anything is possible (though the percentage may be very close to nonexistent at times), and dare to walk paths of the mind others are too blinded or entrenched to journey.

  • If we're talking science, we are talking "lucifer and gabriel".
    It was just "Enos, son of Seth, grandson of adam".
    All the world of science, energy, health, etc, about the "angel of war, our war, from the" book "dead sea scrolls".
    Read all comments at, translate first from Indonesia:
    www.niochengyam.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/3/
    Help orphans (their families from 9:11 Pentagon in year 2178), from karma and reincarnation who are not compassionate.
    TQ.

  • The answer silpmy isn't known; but all evidence from theoretical considerations suggests that these properties are indeed contingent. There is nothing about the laws of nature that seems to require that the elementary particle masses and the strengths of the elementary forces take the values that they do. If you look at the equations we use for nature, and you imagine changing the masses of the quarks and electrons and the strengths of the strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces, you will find that doing so does not make our equations behave any worse or better than they normally do; they describe a different world than ours, but one that seems just as sensible. And if the particle masses and/or strengths of forces were different, then not only would the properties of iron and silicon be different, but in some cases either or both atoms might not exist at all [because their nuclei are then unstable.] So as far as we can tell at the moment, there appears to be something quite contingent about the specific properties of our universe. It is possible, of course, that this appearance is misleading. The only way forward is to learn more from experiments.

  • Well, it is important to rmemeber always that humans are creatures made from flesh and blood, but still we sometimes represent them as stick figures because it is easier. Representing elementary particles as little balls is somewhat inaccurate, but a lot easier to draw and interpret than a depiction of them as little ripples, once you're looking at many of them from far away. It's a short-hand, like a stick figure; the truth is more elaborate.Protons, however, are something more complicated; because they are made out of so many quarks and antiquarks and gluons, they are a lot more like little balls than the quarks and gluons themselves. And yet they're still ripples of a sort. So they're a lot harder to draw and depicting them as balls is more accurate. In fact this is also true even of atoms; atoms are ripples, but they have an internal structure which makes them also like balls. This is easy to state in math formulas, but very hard to draw. It's as though the ripple is made from multiple colors, and the different colored parts of the ripple can move apart from one another by a certain distance, which may be much smaller than the length of the ripple. [Yes, that's confusing - easy to say in math, but not freshman math.]

  • I took that puitcre. What is in the puitcre is the craft flying away from me at about a 45 degree angle to the east. It flew up into the sky in an instant. It was about 4-5 blocks in front of me about 300-400 feet in the sky. I turned the corner stepped into the street noticed some kind of craft floating slowly into the middle of the street. The craft had 2 very bright orange/ yellow balls of brilliant, glaring light shining down onto me. The light was so bright, i had almost no choice but to see the craft. The lights also obscured my vision such that i was unable to discern the shape, distance or altitude of the craft. 1 second later it seemed to be fading, i grabbed up the camera off my chest, pointed it and took the puitcre as i watched the craft vanish into the sky in an instant. It flew into the sky as fast as lightning. I'd like to tell my story if anyone has any questions. I'm a US Air force brat, born and raised on military bases around the world and have extensive experience in that area. I can articulate exactly what i experienced with some degree of accuracy as i do have a scientific background and education.

Similar Ideas: