0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field.
What you seem to suggest is that though electrical charges exist, locally measured, a field will not?
What I find harder to accept is a definition of a field as co-moving without defining from what principle. You can use uniform motion for it, thinking from locality, but I don't see how you can use anything else?Locality is simple.
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 Or the standard model is correct, which it seems to have been 'mostly' so far, and then we need a Higgs.
nice question but isnt stationary impossible in space?
Quote from: LetoIInice 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?