# Thread: The Higgs particle/field and gravity

1. ## The Higgs particle/field and gravity

I dont know where to post this musing, so i will try here
this is an incomplete idea and there is no data that i know about to back this up and i am completely incapable of deriving any sort of equations to model or describe this train of thought.

From what i understand, the Higgs particle/field is just a guess that is based on the current standard model, meaning that with what we have, there should be a particle that imparts mass to baryon matter.

I am under the assumption that the question is open and no real evidence has shown either way that a Higgs particle exists.
nor do we really know what it is.
I understand that we might have a good idea of what its properties are expected to be based on the standard model.

now going with the second law of thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics
stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
if i have a system that is being stressed, the result should be a measurable effect on the system.

to say it in very simple terms,
since the universe is expanding meaning that space/time itself is expanding, every single "point" in space time would be expanding in every direction that it can expand in.

would not this simple expansion impart a stress on the very "fabric" of space time?

could this stress be the mechanism that is imparting mass to matter?

so could the Higgs field be an effect of the conservation of energy from the expansion of space-time?

thanks

2. what if the 'fabric' is expanding?

3. just to be clear on my part,
my assumption from what i understand according to the standard model, is that the universe is expanding.
now does this mean that space-time itself is expanding?
and is every "point" in space time expanding in every direction?

 my conjecture is based on the expansion of space-time. and i am reading that every point in space-time is expanding in every direction.
is this correct?
if i am miss-interpreting how the expansion works, then this conjecture is trashed already.

4. Originally Posted by sabianq
just to be clear on my part,
my assumption from what i understand according to the standard model, is that the universe is expanding.
now does this mean that space-time itself is expanding?
and is every "point" in space time expanding in every direction?
[
Yes, the assumption is that space-time itself is expanding.

5. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
Yes, the assumption is that space-time itself is expanding.
ok
so if spacetime is expanding then would it seem that there should be a stress on space-time itself?

this would be based on the assumption that the expansion is caused by an outside influence.

what is causing the expansion of space-time?

according wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
The expansion is due partly to inertia (that is, the matter in the universe is separating because it was separating in the past) and partly to a repulsive force of unknown nature,
if this unknown repulsive force is caused by an outside force (outside of our universe) meaning something is pulling our universe apart rather than something is pushing our universe apart, then would not it stand to reason that that force pulling apart our univers is causing a stress on spacetime?

according to the standard model, gravity is an attractive force caused by mass, researchers are looking for the particle that imparts mass to matter.
they are looking for a field.
rather than saying that there is a force pushing apart the universe in the form of some sort of anti-gravity, would not a model that represents an outside force pulling apart our univers be more in sync with the standard model?

6. so what would be the evidence for this?

7. Originally Posted by sabianq
ok
so if spacetime is expanding then would it seem that there should be a stress on space-time itself?

this would be based on the assumption that the expansion is caused by an outside influence.

what is causing the expansion of space-time?

according wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

if this unknown repulsive force is caused by an outside force (outside of our universe) meaning something is pulling our universe apart rather than something is pushing our universe apart, then would not it stand to reason that that force pulling apart our univers is causing a stress on spacetime?

according to the standard model, gravity is an attractive force caused by mass, researchers are looking for the particle that imparts mass to matter.
they are looking for a field.
rather than saying that there is a force pushing apart the universe in the form of some sort of anti-gravity, would not a model that represents an outside force pulling apart our univers be more in sync with the standard model?
Our universe is considered a closed system. (no outside interactions)

In M-theory cosmology, all fundamental forces, except gravity, are bound to our 3D brane universe. They are open-end strings, with the end-points connected to our brane. The gravition, however, is a closed string and can escape our 3D brane universe, and enter a higher dimension.

The negative gravitational force is currently termed "dark energy".

In current thinking, no outside force can exert an influence on our universe.

8. http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy...cle/higgs1.htm
Matter is made of molecules; molecules of atoms; atoms of a cloud of electrons about one-hundred-millionth of a centimetre and a nucleus about one-hundred-thousandth the size of the electron cloud. The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons. Each proton (or neutron) has about two thousand times the mass of an electron. We know a good deal about why the nucleus is so small. We do not know, however, how the particles get their masses. Why are the masses what they are? Why are the ratios of masses what they are? We can't be said to understand the constituents of matter if we don't have a satisfactory answer to this question.
according to Peter Higgs, as far as i understand it, Empty space has a field of no energy particles that matter must "wade" through, as matter moves through this field, the field pulls at the particle and imparts mass to it.

A picture that corresponds to the mathematics is of the lowest energy state, "empty" space, having a crown of H particles with no energy of their own. Other particles get their masses by interacting with this collection of zero-energy H particles. The mass (or inertia or resistance to change in motion) of a particle comes from its being "grabbed at" by Higgs particles when we try and move it.
now if there is no field then according to Higgs, there must be that there is a force between two particles that imparts mass to the baryon.

if the expansion of spacetime is caused by an outside force pulling apart the univers then it would stand to reason that a stress on space-time could act as the field that Peter Higgs is describing.

if the Higgs particle is not found, then there would be more support for a Higgs field rather than a boson imparting the mass to matter.

I am thinking that Peter Higgs's idea of a field filled with non-energetic particles is akin to an aether and i would assume that this is not a comfortable idea with physicists, however, if a "stress" caused by the expansion of space-time is imparting mass to baryonic matter, rather than a field of that matter has to "wade" through, it seems to me that that concept would conform a bit easier with the standard model.

the best evidence would be two fold, not finding the Higgs Particle, and learning why the universe is expanding.

matter is made up of Baryonic matter quarks and Non-baryonic matter like free electrons and neutrinos.

i would surmise that
i would think that the existence of gravity would be evidence of this
it might be possible

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by sabianq
From what i understand, the Higgs particle/field is just a guess that is based on the current standard model, meaning that with what we have, there should be a particle that imparts mass to baryon matter.
It's a bit more than a guess. It's specifically used to combine the electromagnetic and weak forces into one force.

Originally Posted by sabianq
I am under the assumption that the question is open and no real evidence has shown either way that a Higgs particle exists.
That's not quite right. Most particle physicists expect to find it once the LHC starts looking, later this year. There were several potential events at the Tevatron at Fermilab that were possible Higgs discoveries, but there wasn't enough data to say for sure. The masses of the two massive charged and one massive neutral bosons (the two Ws and the Z) for the weak interaction depend on there being a Higgs. Since the masses of those three particles were predicted to 5 decimal places, and agree with experiment, the existance of a Higgs is almost a given to most physicists. As for the Higgs giving mass to the rest of the particles, that is much less understood.

Originally Posted by sabianq
nor do we really know what it is. I understand that we might have a good idea of what its properties are expected to be based on the standard model.
This is mostly true. We have a range for its mass and don't know whether or not it's more than one particle.

Originally Posted by sabianq
now going with the second law of thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics

if i have a system that is being stressed, the result should be a measurable effect on the system.

to say it in very simple terms, since the universe is expanding meaning that space/time itself is expanding, every single "point" in space time would be expanding in every direction that it can expand in.

would not this simple expansion impart a stress on the very "fabric" of space time?

could this stress be the mechanism that is imparting mass to matter?

so could the Higgs field be an effect of the conservation of energy from the expansion of space-time?

thanks
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to show here. You start with the second law of Thermodynamics, then end with the first law and I'm not sure exactly where you make the change. This paper shows where entropy may be a separate field from the Higgs. So I'm not sure where this would fit in with your idea.

10. Originally Posted by gzhpcu
Our universe is considered a closed system. (no outside interactions)

In M-theory cosmology, all fundamental forces, except gravity, are bound to our 3D brane universe. They are open-end strings, with the end-points connected to our brane. The gravition, however, is a closed string and can escape our 3D brane universe, and enter a higher dimension.

The negative gravitational force is currently termed "dark energy".

In current thinking, no outside force can exert an influence on our universe.
well we cannot say that for sure.
we do not know why the universe is expanding, and we do not know that the universe is indeed a closed system.

M-theory actually seems to supports this conjecture
and incidentally, is the basis of this random thought of mine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

in m-theory there are 11 dimensions and there are branes that move through these dimensions, they even interact with each other and collide.
when they collide, new universes are created with their own space-time.

M-theory predicts that there are actually multiple universes everywhere all taking up their own space-time.
the universes are inside of a larger universe.

if this larger universe that encompasses all of the other universes is at a lower energy state than the "bubbles" of universes that fill it, it would seem that the external pressure of the larger universe is pulling apart the space-time of the individual universes that are inside of the larger universe.

so an energy "pressure" differential could be the mechanism that is pulling apart our universe and imparting mass to matter.

an anti-or negative gravitional force

11. Originally Posted by Tensor

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to show here. You start with the second law of Thermodynamics, then end with the first law and I'm not sure exactly where you make the change. This paper shows where entropy may be a separate field from the Higgs. So I'm not sure where this would fit in with your idea.
I have shown that M-theory does not preclude a larger universe that our universe resides in.

and if your universe is just one of many in a larger universe, and if the larger universe has a lower "energy pressure" than our own, then our own universe would be pulled apart just by being inside of a larger universe.

i am suggesting that maybe, just maybe if the expansion of space-time is caused by an outside force pulling apart our universe rather than an internal force pushing it apart, the force that is pulling us apart would show up in the actual stressing of space-time from being stressed. like pulling on a rubber band, the energy that is imparted to a stretched rubber band shows up as potential energy and is equal to the force that streached it in the first place.

if space-time were being pulled apart, then there would be a sort of potential energy bound up in it, could this energy from the expansion of space-time be the mechanism that gives mass to matter? could it be the hypothesized Higgs field?

none of this conjecture violates any of the laws of thermodynamics.

12. further more, i am thinking that this idea that the universe is expanding by means of an outside influence rather an internal influence relaxes the idea of the mysterious dark energy and "negative gravity" notions.

13. as for the second law of thermodynamics and how it works into this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics

stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
if one looks at the universe with M-theory, then it can be postulated that the smaller universes inside of the larger universe will want to equal out to the "energy pressure" of the larger universe that they reside in, fulfilling the law of entropy.

14. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by sabianq
I have shown that M-theory does not preclude a larger universe that our universe resides in.

and if your universe is just one of many in a larger universe, and if the larger universe has a lower "energy pressure" than our own, then our own universe would be pulled apart just by being inside of a larger universe.
Ahhhhh, OK. Your original post was a little schetchy on the idea and the connection between the first and second laws. That's what was confusing me.

Originally Posted by sabianq
if space-time were being pulled apart, then there would be a sort of potential energy bound up in it, could this energy from the expansion of space-time be the mechanism that gives mass to matter? could it be the hypothesized Higgs field?
The problem with this, outside of not having any supporting mathematics, is that spacetime doesn't expand "locally" due to gravity. As such, there would be a different value for the hypothisized Higgs field depending on the mass and energy nearby, thereby giving the particles different mass depending on where they were. For instance, the mass of a particle would be different close to the Sun, as opposed to close to the earth, as opposed to close to the moon, as opposed to close to Jupiter, etc. Or for another example, stars with similar masses, would burn at different rates in elliptical galaxies, than dwarf galaxies, as their particles would have different masses to make the two star's masses similar. Neither of the above has been observed.

15. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by sabianq
as for the second law of thermodynamics and how it works into this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...thermodynamics

if one looks at the universe with M-theory, then it can be postulated that the smaller universes inside of the larger universe will want to equal out to the "energy pressure" of the larger universe that they reside in, fulfilling the law of entropy.
Considering the Superstring theorists have yet to figure out what shape the Cabali-Yau space is, the actual value of the string tension, and even what kind of equations (much less the actual equations) should be used to figure the above out, I'm willing to wait a bit before jumping pre big bang string hypothises.

16. Originally Posted by Tensor
Ahhhhh, OK. Your original post was a little schetchy on the idea and the connection between the first and second laws. That's what was confusing me.

The problem with this, outside of not having any supporting mathematics, is that spacetime doesn't expand "locally" due to gravity. As such, there would be a different value for the hypothisized Higgs field depending on the mass and energy nearby, thereby giving the particles different mass depending on where they were. For instance, the mass of a particle would be different close to the Sun, as opposed to close to the earth, as opposed to close to the moon, as opposed to close to Jupiter, etc. Or for another example, stars with similar masses, would burn at different rates in elliptical galaxies, than dwarf galaxies, as their particles would have different masses to make the two star's masses similar. Neither of the above has been observed.

17. Originally Posted by sabianq
... and if your universe is just one of many in a larger universe, and if the larger universe has a lower "energy pressure" than our own, then our own universe would be pulled apart just by being inside of a larger universe. ...
Uh, no. You're making the same mistake as someone who talks about being "sucked" out of an airlock and into the vacuum of space.

It's not the lower pressure that "pulls." It's the higher pressure that "pushes."

18. Originally Posted by Jim
Uh, no. You're making the same mistake as someone who talks about being "sucked" out of an airlock and into the vacuum of space.

It's not the lower pressure that "pulls." It's the higher pressure that "pushes."
even so, that still does not change my conjecture.

a lower "energy pressure" causing a push or a "higher energy" pressure causing a pull would cause the same effect.

What i am suggesting is that the expansion of the universe is causing a stress in space-time, if conservation of energy is true, then the expansion of the universe should stretch space-time and like a stretched rubber band the energy imparted to space-time would seem to have to manifest itself in some way. maybe creating the forces we see around us and imparting mass to matter which in turn shows up as gravity.

current models which hold that there is a form of anti-gravity pushing everything apart postulates that the force that is pushing everything apart is derived from an internal cosmic or physical architecture. does this postulation of an "anti-gravitational" effect actually sit well with current models?

if that force that is pushing (or pulling) everything apart is external like a pressure variance, then the laws of thermodynamics would seem to be kept intact.

19. Originally Posted by Tensor
Considering the Superstring theorists have yet to figure out what shape the Cabali-Yau space is, the actual value of the string tension, and even what kind of equations (much less the actual equations) should be used to figure the above out, I'm willing to wait a bit before jumping pre big bang string hypothises.
They do seem to have narrowed down the number of Cabali-Yau shapes which are candidates, however:

A Calabi-Yau shape with three holes would therefore provide an explanation for the repetitive structure of three families of elementary particles. Indeed, a unumber of such three holed Calabi-Yau shapes have been found. Among these preferred Calabi-Yau shapes are one that also give just the right number of messenger particles as well as just the right electric charges and nuclear force properties to match the particles.

20. i would doubt that the shape itself would be static, I mean by observing nature, very few things (if any) are static, I would think that the membranes are in constant motion with compression waves and ripples propagating through the space.

21. thinking further,
does anyone know if the measured cosmological constant is the same as what is predicted by the standard model?

i would think that if the expansion of space time were causing the forces that we see, then the actual measured value for the constant would be lower than is predicted by the standard model.

and here is why i think it would be lower.
the expansion produces a stress on spacetime, this stress according to conservation of energy has to manifest itself in reality, if this stress is showing up as the forces we see in nature, then the energy imparted to spacetime from the expansion would be dissipated greatly as it shows up as fundamental forces.

I would think this can be tested by looking at the spectrum from really distant sources (close to the beginning of the big bang) to see if the spectral lines of elements show up differently than the spectral lines of elements here on earth.

in the distant past, the forces should be stronger and hold the atoms together tighter. because the expansion was happening faster in the past than it is now, there would have been more stress on spacetime.
just thinking here...

22. Originally Posted by sabianq
t
does anyone know if the measured cosmological constant is the same as what is predicted by the standard model?
The cosmological constant, or Λ, was first introduced by Einstein in 1917 to explain why the universe did not appear to be expanding. Edwin Hubble later showed that the universe was expanding, causing Einstein to call the constant his "biggest blunder". But when scientists first measured a value for Λ in 1998, they found it had a tiny, positive value -- indicating that acceleration of the universe is speeding up.

However, it is unclear why this value is an incredible 120 orders of magnitude smaller than would be expected if the universe formed under the "standard" Big Bang theory. Solving this mystery is one of the most important challenges in cosmology today.
source: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24844

23. 120 orders of magnitude smaller ????????

really???

its that far off?

what does that mean?

24. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by sabianq

I would think this can be tested by looking at the spectrum from really distant sources (close to the beginning of the big bang) to see if the spectral lines of elements show up differently than the spectral lines of elements here on earth.
They don't. Spectral lines from Quasars (some of the most distant object known) have the same spectral lines as those here on Earth. Albeit, they are displaced toward the red end of the spectrum due to recession.

Originally Posted by sabianq
in the distant past, the forces should be stronger and hold the atoms together tighter. because the expansion was happening faster in the past than it is now, there would have been more stress on spacetime.
just thinking here...
One key against this can be found on earth. It is the Fine Structure Constant. From the natural reactor found in Oklo in Africa, the Fine Structure Constant hasn't changed in at least two Billion Years. The spectral lines in the distant quasars also argue against this.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by sabianq
You're arguing for some highly speculative ideas, with no support or presenting any sources and and you want sources for an idea (gravity overcoming expansion) that is well known? You're joking right?

You do understand that the higgs field has an expectation value that would have to be the same everywhere. If the field was caused by the stress of expansion, then where gravity overcame the expansion, the expectation value would be different, giving different masses to the different particles.

26. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by gzhpcu
They do seem to have narrowed down the number of Cabali-Yau shapes which are candidates, however:

While they have narrowed down the number, there is still too many to be able to tell which, if any, actually conforms to what is observed in our universe.

27. Originally Posted by Tensor
You're arguing for some highly speculative ideas, with no support or presenting any sources and and you want sources for an idea (gravity overcoming expansion) that is well known? You're joking right?
.
That's what I thought, If someone is putting up an ATM idea then they should already have some understanding of the basic Mainstream theory.

28. hey, wait
in almost every one of my post i have put up a source or a link that sort of backs up what i am trying so hard to express here.

I am just suggesting a conjecture based on evidence that i know about.

I was looking for information related to the expansion of space and could not find the information that "spacetime doesn't expand "locally" due to gravity",

i thought it would be courtesy if the source was provided as the informatrion stated would absoutly make me need to rethink my conjecture.

29. It's not a controversial or little known piece of information.
Maybe what you need to do is some reading on the basics. I am sure that the other posters in the thread can suggest some good basic books.

30. Originally Posted by sabianq
I was looking for information related to the expansion of space and could not find the information that "spacetime doesn't expand "locally" due to gravity",
.
Not sure if I understand your question correctly.

But isn't it because the expansion of space is far too inadequate for sub-galatic-scale objects to expand (the forces between stars/stars and stars planets are just way too strong)?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•