Post by: Tass on 29/06/2020 15:14:39
Is it possible that the ''fabric'' of space is the Higg's field and this field is likewise in electrical polarity to everyday objects ?
Newton said an object in motion will remain in motion unless an external force acts on that object !
Space quite clearly having no opposing force to the objects motion which suggests likewise properties .
Post by: yor_on on 29/06/2020 15:16:48
Not sure what you mean?
Post by: Tass on 29/06/2020 15:38:31
Positive and negative?Yes ! Positive and negative like everyday objects .
Not sure what you mean?
Post by: yor_on on 29/06/2020 16:15:42
" The Higgs effect occurs because nature "tends" towards the lowest energy state. The Higgs effect will happen because gauge bosons near a Higgs field will want to be in their lowest energy states, and this would break at least one symmetry."
And a gauge boson is any particle carrying a fundamental force, as a photon carrying a energy. Fermions are the other side of that description. " In particle physics, a fermion is a particle that follows Fermi–Dirac statistics and generally has half odd integer spin 1/2, 3/2 etc. These particles obey the Pauli exclusion principle. Fermions include all quarks and leptons, as well as all composite particles made of an odd number of these, such as all baryons and many atoms and nuclei. Fermions differ from bosons, which obey Bose–Einstein statistics.
Some fermions are elementary particles, such as the electrons, and some are composite particles, such as the protons. According to the spin-statistics theorem in any reasonable relativistic quantum field theory, particles with integer spin are bosons, while particles with half-integer spin are fermions. "
The idea differing bosons from fermions is that fermions reserve a 'place' in space whereas bosons are able to be stacked into each other infinitely (superimposed)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field
=
the really mind blowing idea behind it is that it is a symmetry breaking. It's not a 'force' it's a symmetry break, another thing that makes it hard to assimilate.
=
And one way to think of it could be that mass doesn't exist. What exist is a resistance to motion. But that doesn't explain why a particle becomes 'matter', as well as it clashes with relativity in where a constant uniform acceleration becomes a equivalence to gravity. You will have a weight, if standing on a scale, both ways .At least I think it clashes with relativity? As earths gravity then actually is a acceleration.
https://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/
heh, seems we agree.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/06/2020 23:45:08
Is it possible that the ''fabric'' of space is the Higg's field and this field is likewise in electrical polarity to everyday objects ?
The Higgs boson is electrically neutral, so no.
"Likewise in electrical polarity" is a phrase that sounds rather familiar. That combined with the unneeded exclamation points and the spelling of Higgs as "Higg's" make me suspicious that this is Thebox under a new account name.
Post by: evan_au on 30/06/2020 00:18:01
Quote from: OP
is the Higg's field ... likewise in electrical polarity to everyday objects ?Everyday matter is composed of negative electrons and positive nuclei, which have an electrical polarity. It is this electrical field that holds together atoms and molecules into larger objects like plants and animals.
The Higgs particle is uncharged (no electrical polarity). The Higgs particle is an excitation of the underlying Higgs Field.
The Higgs Field is a scalar field: It has a non-zero strength everywhere in the universe, but not a direction.
- This is quite unlike the more familiar Electromagnetic Field, which is a vector field: it has a strength everywhere in the universe, and also a direction (sometimes drawn as magnetic field lines from North to South, or electrical field lines, from positive to negative).
In the mathematical formulation of the Higgs Field...
Quote from: Wikipedia
The Higgs Field consists of four components: Two neutral ones and two charged component fields. Both of the charged components and one of the neutral fields (give mass to) W+, W−, and Z bosons. The quantum of the remaining neutral component corresponds to ... the massive Higgs boson. This component can interact with fermions via Yukawa coupling to give them mass as well.In my primitive understanding, this means:
- The Higgs Field does not produce a large-scale electric field in the universe, like the electromagnetic field does
- The Electrical component of the Higgs Field does produce the large observed mass of the W+, W−, and Z bosons which transfer the weak nuclear force. This large mass explained why the Weak Nuclear force has such short range.
- Prior to the Higgs Field hypothesis, calculations with the Standard Model of particle physics suggested that these W+, W−, and Z particles should be massless and have infinite range (like the photon), which was obviously false.
- It is thought that at the earliest instants of the Big Bang, the Higgs Field would have been in a different state than it is today, and the Weak Nuclear Force would have been more like the Electromagnetic Force and Gravitational Force, with massless force carriers.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Properties_of_the_Higgs_field
A representation of the Higgs Field "Mexican Hat" or "Champagne bottle" structure is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mecanismo_de_Higgs_PH.png
PS: For catastrophe theorists: There is no guarantee that the Higgs Field today is in its lowest possible energy state - there is a theoretical possibility that at some instant, as the universe expands, the Higgs Field could collapse to an even lower energy state, changing the physical laws of the universe, and rendering life as we know it impossible...
Oops! Crossover with Kryptid...
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 09:14:29
Is it possible that the ''fabric'' of space is the Higg's field and this field is likewise in electrical polarity to everyday objects ?
The Higgs boson is electrically neutral, so no.
Aren't everyday objects electrically neutral which would make everyday objects likewise in electrical polarity to a Higgs Boson ?
Post by: evan_au on 30/06/2020 11:22:51
Quote from: Tass
Aren't everyday objects electrically neutral which would make everyday objects likewise in electrical polarity to a Higgs Boson ?Everyday objects are a (pretty) equal mix of + and - charges, making them overall (pretty) neutral.
The Higgs boson is a fundamental particle made out of the neutral part of the Higgs Field. So the Higgs Particle is fundamentally neutral (as far as we know, today)...
The W+ and W− bosons obtain their mass from the charged component of the Higgs Field.
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 12:54:44
Thank you , just one more question on this subject ! If a proportion/section of the Higgs field became ionized to either + or - , would this change the permeability of the field in respect to a bosons motion through the field ?Quote from: TassAren't everyday objects electrically neutral which would make everyday objects likewise in electrical polarity to a Higgs Boson ?Everyday objects are a (pretty) equal mix of + and - charges, making them overall (pretty) neutral.
The Higgs boson is a fundamental particle made out of the neutral part of the Higgs Field. So the Higgs Particle is fundamentally neutral (as far as we know, today)...
The W+ and W− bosons obtain their mass from the charged component of the Higgs Field.
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 13:13:14
don't ask me what it will do the universe, I'm not sure..
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 13:26:37
=
I wouldn't mind that, topological explanations leaves something for me, but symmetry breaks are, well, almost like thoughts. They exist, they don't have a mass, but they produced 'physics' and all other sciences we have, as well as emotions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/06/2020 13:39:36
If a proportion/section of the Higgs field became ionizedThings are ionised by gaining or losing electrons. The Higgs field can't do that.
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 14:09:51
I am aware of that but a Higgs field would be substantially larger than an atom and the physics may not necessarily work the same on a large stage . If the Higgs field had an equality of + and - , interior or external forces could act on the field and possible create distortions in the Higgs field .If a proportion/section of the Higgs field became ionizedThings are ionised by gaining or losing electrons. The Higgs field can't do that.
I will rephrase the question !
Would an ionised atom affect the Higgs field ? (Would it attract the opposite charge in a - and + HIggs field ?
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 14:25:28
=
Actually this can be questioned. Some fermions can behave as bosons (cooled down). The simplest definition is that a fermion takes place (Pauli exclusion principle). But if you want to dive into it then both seems depending on circumstances.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-quantum-copycat-bosons-fermions.html
https://www.tessab.net/what-are-bosons-in-particle-physics/
It's a really tricky question, and you have to turn your head.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/06/2020 14:27:18
If the Higgs field had an equality of + and -
It doesn't have any positive and negative charges at all.
Would it attract the opposite charge in a - and + HIggs field ?
No, because there are no charges in the Higgs field to attract.
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 14:47:20
If the Higgs field had an equality of + and -
It doesn't have any positive and negative charges at all.Would it attract the opposite charge in a - and + HIggs field ?
No, because there are no charges in the Higgs field to attract.
Quote from: evan
Everyday objects are a (pretty) equal mix of + and - charges, making them overall (pretty) neutral.
The Higgs boson is a fundamental particle made out of the neutral part of the Higgs Field. So the Higgs Particle is fundamentally neutral (as far as we know, today)...
An atom shows us that neutral is a measure of - and + that equates as 0 net charge . Evan said the HIggs particle is neutral , which is suggestive that the HIggs is also - and + .
Can you please provide reference where it says the Higgs has no charge ?
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 14:50:05
Solitons?
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 14:52:44
Maybe a mammalian analogy would be more enlightening. Think of a conductor as a long field of gopher holes. Every hole is an atom with it's own set of gophers. There is exactly enough room in each gopher hole for 29 gophers (copper gopher holes). And every gopher hole needs 29 gophers to keep itself maintained.
Along comes farmer Battery and he shoots a gopher on one end of the field and releases one gopher on the other end of the field. The gophers in the hole where one was shot, now need an extra gopher. However the new gopher is WAY on the other end of the field. It's much easier to steal a gopher from a nearby hole. So the gophers charge (Yup, the mystical charge) over to the other hole (atom), and steal a gopher (electron). Now that gopher hole needs a new gopher and does the same thing to another hole that's closer to the new gopher.
Rinse and repeat until you get greasy grimy...no wait wrong analogy..Until you reach the far end of the field, and the new gopher gets pulled into the nearest hole that's missing a gopher.
In the end, the new electrons (gophers) don't actually move very far, since there is always a nearby atom needing a negative charge. For an electron to actually move all the way down the field, it'd take a whole lot of gopher killing.
If you want to get really confused about it. Try figuring out the actual electron flow involved in receiving an FM radio signal.
=End of Quote.
this guy, whose name I don't remember anymore, something with carbon I think, was excellent.
Carbonlife?
Ahh so sorry, I seem to have him mixed up with Corvidae.
Both had, or has, a gift of understanding the subject they discuss.
I hope they still are out there, just as with JP
Post by: Kryptid on 30/06/2020 14:57:21
An atom shows us that neutral is a measure of - and + that equates as 0 net charge .
Equal amounts of positive and negative charges are neutral, but not all things that are neutral necessarily contain electric charges. Something that contains no electric charges at all would also be neutral.
Evan said the HIggs particle is neutral , which is suggestive that the HIggs is also - and + .
No, no that does not suggest that at all. The Higgs boson is electrically neutral.
Can you please provide reference where it says the Higgs has no charge ?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/08/higgs-boson-decay-quarks-lhc-standard-model-physics/
"The Higgs boson's decays have to follow some key rules. For instance, since the Higgs boson has no electric charge, its decay byproducts must combine to have zero electric charge as well."
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 15:11:51
Let us first define what you mean by charge?
Solitons?
To me , electrical charge is useful energy generated by quantum interactions .
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 15:17:07
Equal amounts of positive and negative charges are neutral, but not all things that are neutral necessarily contain electric charges. Something that contains no electric charges at all would also be neutral.
All things atomic contain electrical charge !
I don't believe there is any science anywhere that says the Higgs is not - and + charge ?
Why can't we view the field as an interwoven field of - and + ?
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 15:17:41
=
and if you want to take interactions to its extreme, then it becomes information. Information is split into two definitions, useful information versus information that you can't use at all.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/06/2020 15:20:04
To scientists, it isn't.Let us first define what you mean by charge?
Solitons?
To me , electrical charge is useful energy generated by quantum interactions .
I think that may be part of the problem here.
Now, do you think it's more likely that you will
(a) convince the scientific world to change their use of the word, and rewrite all the textbooks
or
(b) learn what the word means?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/06/2020 15:20:41
All things atomic contain electrical charge !
The Higgs field isn't atomic. If you had done the prerequisite research, you would know that.
I don't believe there is any science anywhere that says the Higgs is not - and + charge ?
I just gave you a link stating that the Higgs boson is neutral.
Why can't we view the field as an interwoven field of - and + ?
Because there is zero evidence for it.
You really need to try harder than this, Thebox.
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 15:24:46
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 15:31:24
=
solitons actually makes this understandable in a weird way, because you could see a soliton as a flaw. A 'flawed'universe :)
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 15:33:46
To scientists, it isn't.Let us first define what you mean by charge?
Solitons?
To me , electrical charge is useful energy generated by quantum interactions .
I think that may be part of the problem here.
Now, do you think it's more likely that you will
(a) convince the scientific world to change their use of the word, and rewrite all the textbooks
or
(b) learn what the word means?
''Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when placed in an electromagnetic field. ''
Or as I said a useful energy that is generated by quantum interactions which means the same thing but on a more technical note explaining the quantum mechanics of fields actions and kE ,
I am sorry but the Wiki version is a shortfall and doesn't even explain what charge is . Charge is a property of matter but useful charge is a generation .
Additionally I was asked what charge meant to me , not what does it say on Wiki , I answered the question correctly .
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/06/2020 15:41:59
Additionally I was asked what charge meant to me , not what does it say on Wiki , I answered the question correctly .I didn't say you answered incorrectly.
I said that your view was unhelpful and asked what you might do about that..
You seem to have forgotten to answer.
TheBox did that a lot.
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 15:43:17
Energy isn't split that way though. Energy is just energy.
Energy is a generalised term , I prefer the term useful energy . We could say everything that exists is a form of energy but not all energy is useful , especially when dormant and there is no interactions going on . Useful energy is generated by interactions , energy is not just energy .
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 15:51:39
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 15:57:08
Additionally I was asked what charge meant to me , not what does it say on Wiki , I answered the question correctly .I didn't say you answered incorrectly.
I said that your view was unhelpful and asked what you might do about that..
You seem to have forgotten to answer.
TheBox did that a lot.
TheBox????????
Forgotten or not got around to answering the question yet ?
You say my view is not helpful and ask what I am going to do ?
I'm going to do nothing , I didn't ask you or anybody else to accept what electrical charge means to me . I am not a dictator !
I may eventually write a new theory when I have asked more questions .
Matter emits a quantum field , when this field interacts with a magnetic field it generates electrical charge . Useful energy is generated by quantum interactions and no offence, I'll keep my better understanding .
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 16:01:51
Post by: Tass on 30/06/2020 16:07:18
Hmm, Tass, the way you split information is quantum based. Entanglements f.ex contain no useful information, defined mainstream. all 'energy' I know of will be useful, although depending on your situation relative it. In entropy they talk about the 'heat death' of the universe, a state where all energy is diluted to a same degree. That means that entropy can't do any useful work, even though 'energy still exist. Defining it from a quantum mechanical perspective you find HUP (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) in where 'interactions' still spontaneously can exist.
Well luckily for us our universe is expanding so the probability of our universe having a heat death is very low as the heat is expanding as opposed to being contained in a sealed volume , being more dense . As long as the expansion continues , the ''core'' should retain a constant density of energy and the density should be quite evenly stretched out over the universe . All energy has potential to be useful energy but dormant energy has no use , we have to ''wake it up'' .
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 16:16:29
Post by: yor_on on 30/06/2020 16:20:34
=
But mathematically I think you could get it to work anyway, as in a equation, using those parameters. the point is that suns burn out, no more flows of energy, it all dilutes into a equilibrium. If that equilibrium change with a infinite universe inflating it doesn't matter. There is no more work done, except quantum mechanically.
=
and from the aspect of it all becoming 'null' the scale you use doesn't matter. We define all scales observer dependently, as 'locally'. doing so they hold. My cm is your cm, my second is your second.That's how we get to a repeatable experiment. Ignoring accelerations for it. but 'globally' defined there is no golden standard for anything.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/06/2020 20:44:06
Well luckily for us our universe is expanding so the probability of our universe having a heat death is very low as the heat is expanding as opposed to being contained in a sealed volume
You don't seem to know what "heat death" means. It means that the Universe's entropy is increasing over time. As it approaches maximum entropy, less and less energy will be available to do work. Once no more work can be done, the Universe will be "dead".
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/06/2020 20:46:47
the probability of our universe having a heat death is very lowThe probability of our universe having a heat death is practically 1.
We do not know of any mechanism by which it can escape that fate.
Post by: evan_au on 30/06/2020 22:53:15
Quote from: Tass
the probability of our universe having a heat death is very low as the heat is expanding as opposed to being contained in a sealed volumeAs the universe expands, its overall temperature decreases.
- Today's Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) has an effective temperature of 2.7K
- Todays CMBR started out as black-body radiation at a temperature of around 3000K, so the temperature has reduced by a factor of around 1000
- We can expect that the temperature of the CMBR will continue to reduce towards absolute zero (0K)
There is no contradiction between "the temperature of the universe is declining towards 0K" and "the universe is heading towards a heat death".
- Here on Earth, we are huddled around the 5500K temperature of the Sun, well above the CMBR temperature. We use the temperature difference between the Sun and CMBR to produce useful energy
- But the Sun will not maintain this heat output forever - eventually it will shrink to a dwarf star, and put out much less heat
- The Sun may eventually be swallowed by the galactic black hole, and put out even less heat
- Sometimes "the heat death of the universe" is called "the big freeze"
Here on Earth, we can produce useful energy out of electrical charges in the wall socket. It has only really been in the last century that we have known how to do this on a large scale.
- The universe as a whole is (pretty) electrically neutral
- So there is not so much useful energy that can be produced by electricity
- For us on Earth, at the bottom of a gravitational well, we can't produce much useful energy from gravitational fields (it takes a lot of energy to put something into orbit).
- In the universe, most useful energy over long distances can be produced by heat, and is subject to red-shifting by the expanding universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Big_Freeze_or_heat_death
Post by: yor_on on 01/07/2020 07:46:43
Potential energy f.ex is defined to be 'positive'. In a collision it adds up. But potential energy depends on your frame of reference.which then leads me to the conclusion that depending on frame it changes and in reality you can either define is as all possibilities existing simultaneously, or none of them, until one frame of reference takes over, as in a collision. Gravitational potential energy though is defined as negative, no matter your definition of a equilibrium (as in being far away from it) ? One reason might be the direction of 'flow' of gravity, in a negative manner 'attracting'. The other is purely mathematical as I understands it, depending on how you define a equilibrium, as a spring uncompressed.
but I seem to miss out on how conservation of energy leads us to negative
" In almost all frames negative energy exists, in the sense of conservation of energy, for example between potential forms and kinetic forms. Look at the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, for example, as a consequence of conservation of energy. It is only in the special and general relativity where the concept of "negative energy" becomes problematic, when it ties up with the mass energy equivalence. Otherwise, negative energy means that, from conservation of energy, positive energy also exists in the system, because of the energy conservation law. " https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/233016/how-likely-is-negative-energy-to-exist
as for the argument differing a negative mass from a negative energy, that's a totally different mass of snakes, especially if you're of the understanding that it all comes down to energy, in which case a negative mass transformed into energy now should act as this ideal negative mass. " as it would move in the opposite direction from its momentum and accelerate in the opposite direction of an applied force. It would also warp space time in the opposite way from ordinary matter meaning that it would warp space time in such a way that it will produce repulsive Gravity. "
' All these are results from the existence of negative mass, not negative energy, which exists in all classical systems.'
=
Looked at another way the expansion becomes a purely geometrical thing. In effect, it has no meaning for us, the forces and constants keeping us together and existing. Saw a argument in where it was coupled to proper mass, stating that with a lower matter density (matter spread out) this expansion should slow down, presuming no other 'forces' acting. Calling this conclusion 'intuitively correct'. Another thing I didn't get :) Why should it? Gravity acts in a 'negative manner'. It attracts so with a lower matter density the intuitive assumption for me would be the opposite, as gravity weakens depending on mass distribution the expansion rate accelerates, or, you can't and shouldn't connect those two at all.
and presuming that a accelerating expansion exist, connecting it to a Big Bang, it doesn't seem to connect at all, the matter density relative this expansion. If you assume that it all comes to 'null' it becomes a even stronger argument for it, because then, if we stop calling it matter distribution, instead defining it as a 'energy' distribution the amount of energy should be the same no matter the geometries involved. And that one you can see two ways, either assume that 'new energy' comes to be, keeping the geometry in a same 'energy density' equilibrium no matter how fast it expands, or that this 'energy' becomes diluted (red shifted) with the geometry expanding. One of those is experimentally confirmed, namely the redshift, the other? It depends on how you define it I guess.
Then again, it depends on how seriously you define energy to be able to be 'negative'. If it exist a annihilation of a 'negative' particle colliding with a 'positive' should mean that there are no release of energy from them. They just 'disappear' from the universe's balance sheet, creating a deficit globally defined, assuming we define the universe as consisting of both. Does that make sense?
( I will assume that doing it shouldn't change a universe equilibrium though, as it steals equally from both sides of this 'number scale' ( negative--positive), letting the overall proportion and balance stay the same. But I think it should be noticeable as it happens.)
Post by: Tass on 01/07/2020 13:23:16
I have made no new theory suggestions
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2020 13:59:18
So is postulating that the higgs field might be ionised.
It might be better if you found out what the current theories are before trying to come up with new ones.
Post by: Tass on 01/07/2020 14:12:57
The idea that we might not have a heat death of the universe is a new theory.
So is postulating that the higgs field might be ionised.
It might be better if you found out what the current theories are before trying to come up with new ones.
That wasn't a new theory ! It was in reply to a poster who mentioned heat death before I did . .
My questions was about whether or not there was a chance the Higgs field is - and + which as we know equates to 0 net charge . If the Higgs field is an electrical neutral field , how do we determine that neutral in this case is not the same neutral as - and + ?
I am here for discussion on present physics , I have no theories at this time .
Post by: Kryptid on 01/07/2020 16:11:46
Can somebody explain why a mainstream question thread has been put into new theories ?
You insisted that the Higgs boson contains electric charges. Mainstream science says it doesn't.
My questions was about whether or not there was a chance the Higgs field is - and + which as we know equates to 0 net charge .
And when your question was given the mainstream science answer, you argued with it.
I have no theories at this time .
Good, because this was starting to sound a bit like your "N field".
But on a related note, the quantum vacuum is filled with electric charges in the form of virtual particles (but the Higgs is not one of those charged particles). Electrically-charged particles do indeed have an effect on those charges: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/07/2020 17:20:33
I have no theories at this time .I doubt it stopped you before.
Post by: yor_on on 01/07/2020 18:50:11
Post by: yor_on on 01/07/2020 18:58:51
Post by: yor_on on 01/07/2020 20:23:25
Post by: Tass on 02/07/2020 10:33:15
Actually this section is more or less becoming what the section it was moved from was before the new rules Tass. If you take a look at posts from around 2010 and before the section " Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology The truth is out there, somewhere..." was a mix of what you find here and more serious questions. Today the rules seems to be that if your question leads to no defined answer it may be placed here. It seem as if TNS want that section to become one in where only stringent questions with clear answers should exist, as you can see from the way it is formulated as being questions ending with a question mark. It's slightly boring sometimes, but if that is the way, then that is the way TNS wants it.Then they may as well just link the section to wiki information , that which we can all google anyway !
Science discussion suppose to be in the aim of trying to determine the truth , not some sort of dictatorship .
The replies were ''no'' , the Higgs has no electrical charge . This answer may not be true as - and + equals a neutral charge .
How do we know it is a no if we can only measure electrical neutral ?
What if the HIggs field does have charge properties and the HIggs field could be split like an atom ?
What if Einsteins space-time curvature was actually a Higgs field curvature ?
Post by: Tass on 02/07/2020 10:50:55
Can somebody explain why a mainstream question thread has been put into new theories ?
You insisted that the Higgs boson contains electric charges. Mainstream science says it doesn't.
I didn't insist anything , I asked a question with the expectation the question would be discussed and considered as opposed to wrote off in one swoop !
I'd rather agree with Tesla and an electrical universe or rather an electrical neutral universe . Tesla is a giant and to overlook his physics theory is a mistake for anybody .
What if the HIggs field is the quantum singularity , the mother of creation within ?
1.png (15.64 kB . 2800x1152 - viewed 2307 times)Post by: Kryptid on 02/07/2020 16:10:42
Post by: yor_on on 04/07/2020 16:13:00
Post by: yor_on on 04/07/2020 16:13:54
Post by: yor_on on 04/07/2020 16:56:30
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 17:45:40
Post by: yor_on on 04/07/2020 17:52:22
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 17:59:13
but it's a lot harder to educate them.Especially when they refuse to learn.
Post by: yor_on on 04/07/2020 18:05:19
But it's life.
You have to have patience.
Post by: yor_on on 04/07/2020 18:11:10
that's it Kryptid, that's how I look at you.
the rest is a mistake
Post by: Kryptid on 04/07/2020 22:20:34
(2) Colin2B was the one who encouraged me to ban him. I initially had no such plans.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 22:22:22
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2020 22:23:18
It's easy to pull someone down,That's what TheBox was banned for.