[jeffreyH]

It would be better if each fan the rock star encountered passed them a heavy autograph book to sign. Therefore increasing the rock star's inertia. The rock could receive the book in his right hand and pass it back from his left hand. Mimicking the handedness of particles.

[Bill S]

The Higgs Field is one of many fields that permeate all of space. Because of the symmetries of Relativity you can't ascribe a rest frame (a rest velocity) to the fields…..

Are you saying that it makes no sense to talk of motion relative to the Higgs field?  If so, I would agree with that.

…..ALL particles have an associated field. Particles are quantized excitations of their associated field.

 Unless I am misinterpreting this, we are in agreement here, too.  Particles are excitations of their associated fields, they may have an observable effect on the field, e.g. they may enable us to detect the field, but they do not (necessarily?) give rise to the field.

[Bill S]

It would be better if each fan the rock star encountered passed them a heavy autograph book to sign. Therefore increasing the rock star's inertia. The rock could receive the book in his right hand and pass it back from his left hand. Mimicking the handedness of particles.

Nice one, Jeffrey, but you have still not got rid of relative movement in the process. 

[jeffreyH]

On that point it is interesting to read up on lattice gauge theory where spacetime is 'quantized'. This breaks up the continuum and removes infinities as best as I can remember.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_gauge_theory

[yor_on]

" My point in mentioning this is to suggest that the properties attributed to the Higgs Field are much more consistent with the properties of an entire space than with a field contained within such a space."

Nice observation and true. It should be that way if it is correct.

The question then becomes, what makes a 'SpaceTime'? The Higgs field? I don't expect that to be correct, I would expect it as a 'property' of SpaceTime, but not SpaceTime itself

[Petrochemicals]

Yep if a field is created by the presence of body.

The field and the field , the chicken and the egg, what came first. Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because matter is given its form in space and a gravitational field becomes apparent, and to attempt to infuse matter with more energy than the speed of light breaks thisrelationship leading to destruction and energy release! Likewise the mass is only apparently present when the boson is, but an underlying field is always present.  A causation field

I really do agree with you about the futility of researching this to such a degree, they are now seeking another higgs boson, becausee the one didnt match, and im sure that after that they will be off again.

All these fields seem to be point to the need of a god field, wherein all fields are ultimatley the off spring of this single field, perhaps a 'MIASMA ' of some sort.  I may need a £50bn particle accelerator to discern it, plus a cushy job for 40 years.

[Greylorn (OP)]

" My point in mentioning this is to suggest that the properties attributed to the Higgs Field are much more consistent with the properties of an entire space than with a field contained within such a space."

Nice observation and true. It should be that way if it is correct.

The question then becomes, what makes a 'SpaceTime'? The Higgs field? I don't expect that to be correct, I would expect it as a 'property' of SpaceTime, but not SpaceTime itself

yur_on,

Surprising to find someone who actually comprehends the difference between fields and spaces.  Appreciated! 

However, I wrote nothing referencing "space-time," which is another topic entirely.  Since Big Al died, I'm not convinced that anyone actually understands that concept, self included.  I do not understand why you would introduce the unnecessary complication of space-time into a conversation intended to resolve problems. 

The trick behind solving physics problems is to isolate the relevant variables and eliminate irrelevant variables, not to introduce more variables.  Kind of like basic mechanics-- set up a configuration of things subject to forces, analyze their geometry and apply basic force equations with motion (and therefore time) out of any equations.  In other words, freeze time for an instant so as to take motion out of the picture, then analyze whatever vectored forces might act upon the geometrical configuration so as to cause motion.  My OP was deliberately time-independent. 

In that context, your question would reduce to the more fundamental, "what makes space?"  My answer is simply, "nothing."  If I tried to elaborate, this conversation would be transferred to the zombie sections of this forum.  But I think that according to the rules, you could answer the simplified version of your own question without killing the entire topic.  I'd certainly be interested in your answer.

[Greylorn (OP)]

Yep if a field is created by the presence of body.

The field and the field , the chicken and the egg, what came first. Matter cannot travel faster than the speed of light, because matter is given its form in space and a gravitational field becomes apparent, and to attempt to infuse matter with more energy than the speed of light breaks thisrelationship leading to destruction and energy release! Likewise the mass is only apparently present when the boson is, but an underlying field is always present.  A causation field

I really do agree with you about the futility of researching this to such a degree, they are now seeking another higgs boson, becausee the one didnt match, and im sure that after that they will be off again.

All these fields seem to be point to the need of a god field, wherein all fields are ultimatley the off spring of this single field, perhaps a 'MIASMA ' of some sort.  I may need a £50bn particle accelerator to discern it, plus a cushy job for 40 years.

Petro...
You seem to be taking a constructive approach to the question, but if you were to rephrase your comments so as to distinguish between fields and spaces, I could produce a non-ambiguous reply.   As you've phrased your comment, a "god field" would require a "god." 

This "god" typically expands into the omnipotent and almighty God of Christianity, an entity defined to be without limits and therefore not relevant to any intelligent conversation.   

[Petrochemicals]

Basicaly i do agree. If a field is a force that is only apparent in the presence of a body in a localised area then you would have to say the higgs field is named incorrectly, as from my understanding of it, it is supposed to permiale space, like a "Miasma" of some sort, being equal in all directions. Gravitational fields are in relation to a locality and have varying potential, although they are said to have potential to infinity.

 God field is merley a reference to the "god particle" Higgs, and now it seems like theres more. (Not really relevant  but if god is what man doesnt understand, before then learning of it, and this new persective thus creating new things he doesnt understand, pretty much everythint is of this nature). Since every sientific generation seems to think it has found the absolute, as with atoms, they have indeed found the god particle of there generation, at great expense and little use, this will likely be superceeded very cheaply in future. Its greatly troubling that this god mistake is repeated by every generation, and even though they are scientists, they never seem to learn from it, but I suppose if they didnt believe in there god particle, the next generation would have no reason to appear scientific by making the next breakthrough . Psycology isnt a science, so its only to be expected.

[Greylorn (OP)]

Basicaly i do agree. If a field is a force that is only apparent in the presence of a body in a localised area then you would have to say the higgs field is named incorrectly, as from my understanding of it, it is supposed to permiale space, like a "Miasma" of some sort, being equal in all directions. Gravitational fields are in relation to a locality and have varying potential, although they are said to have potential to infinity.

 God field is merley a reference to the "god particle" Higgs, and now it seems like theres more. (Not really relevant  but if god is what man doesnt understand, before then learning of it, and this new persective thus creating new things he doesnt understand, pretty much everythint is of this nature). Since every sientific generation seems to think it has found the absolute, as with atoms, they have indeed found the god particle of there generation, at great expense and little use, this will likely be superceeded very cheaply in future. Its greatly troubling that this god mistake is repeated by every generation, and even though they are scientists, they never seem to learn from it, but I suppose if they didnt believe in there god particle, the next generation would have no reason to appear scientific by making the next breakthrough . Psycology isnt a science, so its only to be expected.

The generalized "god" mistake you reference is doomed to be repeated because cosmologists have adopted classic Hebrew monotheism as their model-- the belief that a single extremely complex thing or entity is somehow responsible for the existence of the universe.  They've turned Occam's Razor from a simple perspective, into a simplistic fundamental paradigm to which both religions and science remain joined at the cranium. 

[yor_on]

"In that context, your question would reduce to the more fundamental, "what makes space?"  My answer is simply, "nothing." "

Heh :)
You seem to ponder the same sort of questions there, what is 'nothing'?

SpaceTime is, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime,  "any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum."

Well, yea. That's one mainstream cosmological definition of our universe. Or you can see the 'universe' as a result of 'laws, properties and principles' communicating. Not as 'hands on' maybe but definitely more flexible. One way to look at it is from the 'whole', aka what you see looking out at the universe.

Another is to define it as if what we see is a result of those underlying 'laws, properties and principles'. And then ask what might 'emerge' from them.

'c' is a very important concept when thinking of it that way.

[Greylorn (OP)]

"In that context, your question would reduce to the more fundamental, "what makes space?"  My answer is simply, "nothing." "

Heh

You've come up with the dead-on correct answer: Nothing.  If you consider the metaphysical fundamentals required for a universe to exist, whatever your perspective or beliefs, upon burrowing into their core you'll find it necessary to accept the existence of at least one Absolute Miracle. 

Something must have existed without cause.  Western religionists define an omnipotent God as that Miracle; likewise, Western scientists (probably all scientists) might define the "singularity" as that miracle, if they had any philosophical insights. 

I prefer to treat "space" as an essential Absolute Miracle-- something that has no origin, no creator-- something that has always existed.  However, to be useful, space must have, I think three properties.  In addition to existence it must exhibit a fundamental force of some sort, and it must have a boundary condition. 

You seem to ponder the same sort of questions there, what is 'nothing'?

SpaceTime is, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime,  "any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single 4‑dimensional continuum."

Well, yea. That's one mainstream cosmological definition of our universe. Or you can see the 'universe' as a result of 'laws, properties and principles' communicating. Not as 'hands on' maybe but definitely more flexible. One way to look at it is from the 'whole', aka what you see looking out at the universe.

I'm with you on this.  You could omit "laws" from your description because "principles" does the job, and laws are the kinds of arbitrary rules that people make up to control the behavior of nitwits lacking common sense.  (No jaywalking!) 

Another is to define it as if what we see is a result of those underlying 'laws, properties and principles'. And then ask what might 'emerge' from them.

'c' is a very important concept when thinking of it that way.

Evaluating properties and principles used to be what real physics was about, back when I fell in love with it.  Now, it's mostly mathematical nonsense.  I remain in love with the young woman from my college youth, and care little for the fat and wrinkled old crone into which she's morphed.  Keep the faiith!

I wonder about your "c" comment, particularly what ideas lie behind it.

It seems to me that the properties of "c" demand the existence of a medium (e.g. the aether).  Theoretically the existence of such a medium has been disproved, but as John Schulenberger's paper, "Isomorphisms of hyperbolic systems and the aether" points out, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment could not have detected the aether.  Thus its existence is not disproved.  Googling the Schulenberger paper brings up more stuff, of course.  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03605308008820135

[yor_on]

Yes, 'c' is indeed a weird idea. You could derive it from Maxwells equations. As I understands it, that's how Einstein explained his way to the idea. And then it falls upon others to define what implications an aether would have on those equations. Actually I'm unsure how you see that an aether is needed, still keeping in line with the demands of relativity? An aether that is 'relative' or as a 'golden standard?