What Imbues the Higgs with Mass?

What Imbues the Higgs Boson with its Mass?


Speculation or fringe theory is really what we are all about here on this forum, no? In some way or another, this is true. If we were all in the business of writing texts, we would be paid. OR, we would pay journals to publish our junk if we wanted to propound fully qualified articles or developed papers. I understand Brian Greene's, Alan Guth's and other astrophysicists’ descriptions perfectly well. But, I am not about to duplicate their formulations and recount their descriptions just to make a point. There is not enough space in the forum server for me to do this anyway.

Take my whistling in the wind for whatever it may NOT be worth. My MAIN POINT, these days, is always that the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole singular galactic gravitational field is acknowledged to be for real and is being studiously ignored...

Now, if that other big unfalsifiable massive particle we call the Higgs Boson is the particle that imbues all other particles with their mass, what imbues the Higgs Boson with its mass?

Higgs theorists are pulling their "pud". The Higgs is an ad hoc addendum that is a poor band-aid for the kink it was supposed to fix. Just what was that, anyway? Oh yeah, no explanation of "mass" in the standard model.

Higgs is not really part of the standard model (yet). If the Higgs is not found, they will simply add in another ad hoc splint. The standard model will not collapse. Eventually, they'll get it right, though, I'll bet.

Funny, there is no explanation of the origin of gravity in GR either, only that it exists mathematically associated with mass. Why cannot we be satisfied with two sides to the same coin? Yin and Yang? If mass and gravity are two ways of looking at the same thing, is it not futile to try to merge them into one - when they are NOT one? OR, if they are already merged as best they can be?

This implies quantum and GR are just "so" - two facets of the same reality. If we try to merge the two, we shall go blind. The GUT or TOE is a fantasy. What if I am right? Millions, perhaps billions more will be spent pursuing Harvey down his rabbit hole. We will get just a mouthful of mud

Much less than mass, there is no implicit validated account of gravity in the standard model of particle physics either. If there is a Higgs boson and Higgs field, it should be possible to derive the existence of the full fledged macroscopic gravitational field from them by means of the "correspondence principle". Then we shall have quantum gravity. Nah! Too easy. On the other hand ...

Part 2 Try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle

But, as far as other unfalsifiable new hypothetical heavy bosons are concerned - try Alan Guth's "inflaton" particle: A hyper-massive excited particle in a humongously excited "inflaton field" that cannot be distinguished from gravity itself, except by its degree of excitation.

Suddenly, it decays. It decays into daughter particles and these then decay. Some of this decay debris has a long half-life. And enormous mass. The rest decays into matter and energy as we know it. But, the long half life particles remain as ultra-massive black holes. These decay, not via Hawking radiation, but by virtue of their intense infinitely deep singular gravitational fields that cause them to erupt into this same universe (somewhere "else").

They spew out smaller black holes and matter/energy detritus like a Roman candle, (The Big Barf). Because of dependence on random processes and/or temperature, the daughter black holes they generate this way should follow a "normal" or "Poisson" distribution, perhaps. Statistically, this might be verified. Yet, it would take time for these BHs to start gathering in more matter to form full fledged galaxies. Some additional BHs may then form by accretion in the expected way.

Perhaps this process would indeed result in very ancient super-massive BH masses following a Poisson distribution. If I was a mathematical physicist, I am sure I could derive it. But, I am just a modeler.

Note that this process will result in sufficient inhomogeneity without invoking acoustic anomalies, quantum instabilities or other forms of additional turbulence to give the energy/mass distribution we see today, especially in the CMB.

Now for Black-Hole existence: the singularity case of a mass with radius r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solution set to the simultaneous homogeneous nonlinear partial differential equations in GR be valid for all r, one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant (which says) at r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point, the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined, but not undefined.

For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the GR theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to exist and are termed black-holes. Because they certainly are gravitational singularities, they must have a unique gravitational potential field profile. By simple geometry, they must be distinguished by a hyperbolic (1/r) fall off in the gravitational field strength. This fact is currently being ignored.

F = GMm/kr, k = 1m (S.I., for dimensional integrity) means black-hole gravity falls off hyperbolically, not parabolically as according to Newton. This F equation is fully Newtonian, however. It just focuses on black-holes as being unique, and, of course, they are. Note that k = 1m is an explicit reminder that we deal with a gravitational singularity here.

Part 3 ... Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker

Mordechai Milgrom is a reputable careful worker. His data are used to support the idea of Dark Matter, not MOND. Not by him, though, he still teaches MOND. Where do we get Dark Matter from GR or from the standard theory of particle physics? Where?

WIMPS are even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable. DM itself is just a patch used to fill in the blanks in Friedmann. If one can derive Newton from GR, then one can derive the hyperbolic (1/kr) black-hole galactic gravitational field using the right assumptions. These would be interesting in themselves...

Unfalsifiable hypotheses cannot be used to refute facts. TeVeS theory is such an hypothesis like such quantum/GR hybrids all are. They have never predicted one single unique item and no such prediction has ever been verified. A theory that does not predict competently is not a theory and does not deserve the attention of mathematicians nor scientists.

All math, all science, is metaphor. All language is ultimately just metaphor including, and especially, Scripture. It is impossible to fully capture reality with any kind of human language. Prodessionals' neglect of this principle is what many people mean when they claim that scientists are insufferably arrogant and grossly naive. These critics go too far, though. Then they claim science is Myth. They create this Myth. Let us endeavor NOT to do so ourselves.


Gak

No cynic is happy.

Dark Energy & Dark Matter As Pseudoscience

If one carefully reads the papers submitted to ArXiv astrophysics, one sees that Saul Perlmutter's and Adam Riess's supernova research groups were not independent and that they were in deep collusion. Perlmutter and Riess actually wrote a paper together.

The data that the two groups got regarding the distances to supernovae and other bright extremely distant objects was not concordant at first. In order to make the two data sets conform, together, they had to apply an "adjustment". This fudge factor was used to bring the data of one set into alignment with the other so that a smooth plot could be made that included all the data points. The sense of this fudge factor alone is the sole "evidence" that they cite for an accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. The adjustment could have been made in the other sense. Then, the universe expansion rate would have been seen as decelerating. But this is unexciting, uninteresting and unmarketable. So acceleration was "in".

Furthermore, Mordehai Milgrom's discovery of the MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) effect does not recognize that spiral galaxies almost always contain supermassive black holes in their nuclei. Black holes are enormous relativistic point masses with infinite density. Such "singularities" must have singular gravitational fields also. Such fields decline as 1/r - hyperbolically (not as 1/r^2 or parabolically, as assumed by Newton's Law of gravity).

The difference between the hyperbolic gravitational potential and the Newtonian parabolic one accounts for Milgrom's residual centripetal acceleration constant that he found for stars near the peripheries of spiral galaxies. So, the invention of supernatural "Dark Matter" to acount for the MOND effect is as unnecessary as the concoction of spiritual Dark Energy to account for non-existent "acceleration".

So, what do we do about the "missing mass" necessary to account for the flatness apparent in the anisotropy shown by the cosmic microwave background radiation? The easiest way is to postulate that the universe is about 22 times as massive as our little telescopes can discern.

If the universe is that much bigger and more massive, it would account for the CMB characteristics, the red-shift effects, the gravitational lensing effects and the SZ effects that are being used to give credibility to acceleration and Dark Energy. In other words, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are scams on the scale of Piltdown Man and Cold Fusion. Remember, many reputable scientists fell for these frauds. Clearly, this kind of pseudoscience is still going on today!