# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?  (Read 7090 times)

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #25 on: 16/03/2013 13:04:50 »
Lattices won't work. Can't put that one strongly enough. I know I used it too to describe a equilibrium getting disturbed, but it do not take into consideration observer dependencies. Neither does it explain 'fractions', and fractions is incredibly important to defining spin etc. You will have to find another way to define basic math to make it work.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #26 on: 16/03/2013 14:48:59 »
And yes Ethos, that was how I thought too. Talking about 'forces' being associated to the mass. But then, what is 'space'? Not to forget that it is the major thing defining a distance for us, inside us as well as outside us. And what would 'forces' become? If they don't use a 'space'?
Maybe space is nothing but a geometry of dimensions and the fabric we speculate about is only the re-organization of dimensions thru the influence of energy. I realize this doesn't explain things like how a virtual particle comes into being unless one assumes that the definition for energy is much more basic than just assigning a simple value to it. When we speak about the four forces as being different forms of energy, I'm not so sure that we may not be misleading ourselves. Maybe all four forces are only different representations of a single attribute? A simple change in the natural geometry of space/time.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #27 on: 16/03/2013 22:10:10 »
Maybe :)

Or the standard model is correct, which it seems to have been 'mostly' so far, and then we need a Higgs. What I get most irritated about is the inability to explain it simply, and correctly. We have this idea that for something to make sense you should be able to simplify it down to some few elegant equations that sort of 'catches it all'. I don't think this do that, because if it did you could start your explanation from those, maybe? Hmm, thinking of the stress energy tensor maybe not the simplest choice, would it be? Or the field equations :) Still, then there is my feeling that the Standard model is one description, and that 'behind it', another will lurk. But I guess it's close to what particles are, although I don't think it agrees with relativity.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #28 on: 16/03/2013 23:19:44 »
Maybe :)

Or the standard model is correct, which it seems to have been 'mostly' so far, and then we need a Higgs.
Yes, of course we need to consult the standard model because it has lead us this far and been very accurate in most cases. My point about the four forces is however, not really in disagreement with the standard model. The notion that all four forces were contained within one super force at the moment of the Big Bang has gained acceptance among cosmologists today. But I feel that, just because this super force divided itself into the four we observe today, does not suggest that they are independent one from another. It may suggest, as I have said before, that they are only different geometric representations of the same basic attribute. Sometime within the next few years, I suspect that string theory will give us a better understanding about the Higgs. But even then, gaining a mental image of this will be even more difficult than string theory is as we speak.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #29 on: 16/03/2013 23:36:35 »
Well, if you want a particle universe defined from a field, then this is it. But it don't fit how I think about relativity. Because the 'field' is in our regime, and so are relativity. They should fit together, but I can't make them do it. Maybe some other guy here know how the field can show us those macroscopic observer definitions?

#### LetoII

• Full Member
• Posts: 64
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #30 on: 18/03/2013 16:00:43 »
nice question but isnt stationary impossible in space?

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1818
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #31 on: 18/03/2013 17:13:52 »
Quote from: LetoII
nice question but isnt stationary impossible in space?

My understanding is that it is impossible to claim that anything is stationary in an absolute sense.  It is equally impossible to claim that something is moving in an absolute sense.  If we are neither moving, nor stationary relative to space, what is our relationship to space?

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1277
• Thanked: 14 times
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #32 on: 18/03/2013 17:39:57 »
Quote from: LetoII
nice question but isnt stationary impossible in space?

My understanding is that it is impossible to claim that anything is stationary in an absolute sense.  It is equally impossible to claim that something is moving in an absolute sense.  If we are neither moving, nor stationary relative to space, what is our relationship to space?
Perhaps our understanding of movement is wrong. There is a view of reality that suggests that it is only a change in time. And because there is no movement thru time, only quantum shifts of 5.39106 X10^-44 sec. with no intervening positions, motion is an illusion.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2013 17:43:27 by Ethos_ »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #33 on: 19/03/2013 16:21:29 »
Well, if you define it from yourself, and what you measure locally in a uniform motion there is no 'energy' due to what speeds you might define relative a subsequent acceleration. So in that sense the acceleration haven't changed a thing for you locally. If you measure it relative another object in a space you can define the relation to have changed but you are free to define it to you or the other, and that's 'relative motion'. It all depends on what you think and how you define it. Einstein, and as far as I get it, defined a uniform motion to be equivalent all other uniform motions, and as you can define it as non-changing any relationships locally, you are free to define it as being 'at rest'.

Then you have the question of 'c', if you accelerate your frame of reference relative infalling light (from fixed stars for example), using that as your confirmation of a speed. If you now go the front of that relativistically moving 'spaceship'  and turn on your flashlight, is there a speed where you won't expect the light from that flashlight to move at 'c', relative you?

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #34 on: 19/03/2013 16:41:05 »
All of it relative uniform motions. In a acceleration turning on that flashlight things will behave differently when it comes to blue shift perceived relative yourself, by a thought up spaceship existing in front of yours (at rest with yours), to you countermanded by the 'gravity' you find yourself to feel. And that's the 'bending of space' or a 'preferred direction' by 'gravity'. And I'm simplifying the relationships a lot here :)
=

that wasn't a very good explanation. Better to consider it from a spaceship, being at rest with whatever speed you defined before accelerating, but placed in front of you. He must find the light to blue shift. You will not though, as you and the flash light are defined as being 'at rest' with each other. Although that becomes a tricky thing in acceleration as you have constant displacements of all points due to the acceleration. Anyway, it's all about comparisons between different frames of reference in relativity. And each frame of uniform motion becoming locally equivalent. And? I would define that as being 'at rest', locally defined and measured.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2013 16:50:59 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #35 on: 19/03/2013 17:05:42 »
As I think then. If you want to define a speed you need another frame of reference. But, although using light as that frame may fit from a conception of a whole universe, and using some fixed star as your definition, locally any uniform motion will give you 'c', and in a two way experiment at rest with you I don't expect the light to blue shift due to what speed you defined relative that acceleration before. If you can prove me wrong there we have a definition of how uniform motions differ from each other, and locally so with all being 'at rest' relative each other macroscopically.

But to me it also has to do with 'scales' and what they may mean for introducing new 'frames of reference', relative each other? I'm not sure there? I better point out that even if you introduce new frames of reference Einstein will have the last laugh here. As he will have defined it correctly although what consist of a frame of 'uniform motion' then becomes relatively smaller, per definition :)

To make it wrong I suspect you will need to prove that no 'uniform motion' exist, anywhere.

And of course, it's also about how to define something being 'at rest'?
Can two spaceships, accelerating together, be defined as being 'at rest' with each other?

That becomes a real tricky one to me.
==

Keep jumping over words when I write :)
ah well.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2013 18:08:30 by yor_on »

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #36 on: 10/05/2013 09:59:17 »
There is one more thing. To assume the Higg boson explaining mass then presume that it has explained what a 'rest mass' is. And if one presumes that, one then also must presume that it explains gravity, as that is directly related to rest mass. Which indeed would make it a Toe of sorts to me. As we then find Higg bosons not only defining a mass, but also somehow, and quite mysteriously so, lining up geodesics for that mass.

Higg do not explain gravity to me, neither do I find it to explain a rest mass, uniformly moving in a vacuum. And I still need someone to explain how it define observer dependencies, from a 'global' definition.

I don't think you can use local definitions and principles to define a 'globally same common universe', 'closed', and being of one magnitude 'energy'. As what I'm talking about is local definitions of energy, relative what might be considered as 'global definitions'. I don't hold to mix mathematical propositions and definitions, without checking how the principles and definitions fit this idea of a 'global field'. Using locality and strictly local definitions to define a globally same universe, is not correct as I think, unless someone can show me how it knit together the observer dependencies, experimentally verified.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #37 on: 10/05/2013 10:15:55 »
And using 'c' to describe that global definition, will only tell me that you're as much in the dark, as I am :)
Unless you really can explain from what and where 'c' must exist, locally the same as well as being what join 'frames of reference', which then should pass what we can measure into some theoretical domain.

#### Bill S

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1818
• Thanked: 11 times
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #38 on: 10/05/2013 13:38:18 »
Returning to the OP, I have had some thoughts on the subject:

The Higgs field permeates space, and alters space; it does not fill space in the same way that air fills a room.

How, then, can we visualise the mechanism by which the Higgs field gives mass to elementary particles, such as the electron?  We will try to visualise it, first, by thinking of a more familiar field, the electromagnetic (EM) field.  It too permeates space, where, on average, its value is zero; only locally is it non-zero.  At a time and place at which it is non-zero it may have visible effects, for example, a person's hair might stand up.  Thus we can think of the EM field as being turned on (non-zero) or turned off (zero).  Manifestly, the EM field, when it is turned on, does not have the same effect on everything.  Some things react with it, others do not.  For example, an elastic band, even if it were as fine as a human hair, would show no visible reaction.

Unlike the EM field, the Higgs field, is, on average,  non-zero throughout space.  In other words, it is permanently turned on.  Those things  which react with it, the known elementary particles, react with it all the time simply by being in its presence.  No motion is necessary.

#### yor_on

• Naked Science Forum GOD!
• Posts: 11993
• Thanked: 4 times
• (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #39 on: 10/05/2013 21:59:09 »
Still doesn't explain rest mass, unless you assume it to be some sort of pressure, always being 'on' when meeting mass. And your explanation doesn't take up observer dependencies. Also, how would you define a geodesic from it?
=

Imagine a equal pressure around all particles in uniform motion. How would that lead to a preferred direction, aka Earths gravity, pointing in one direction toward Earths 'approximate middle', for us all?
« Last Edit: 10/05/2013 22:05:48 by yor_on »

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: Is everything stationary relative to the Higgs fielld?
« Reply #39 on: 10/05/2013 21:59:09 »