Higgs Boson Particle

[Bermudj]

Bermudj I don't think you will get an answer that you can actually reply to.

I think you missed a on this and you are 100% spot on.

[Xris]

All about space, time, energy, matter and gravity and how the Higgs Boson imparts mass to matter. Matter moves thru space like a bubble moves thru water. See YouTube video "Space,Time, Energy, Matter and Gravity Simplified".

sorry but this only makes it even more fictitious.If it is a particle, what gives it mass?

[Xris]

IMO the Higgs Boson is what makes the aether of space so dense as to make particles traveling thru it slow down.This slowing down or drag gives particles the property we call mass.

So is there an ether or not? Is this Higgs Boson a particle or a field. If it is a particle what gives it mass? If it is a field, a field of what exactly?

[Xris]

BUT the science that informs us that this particle exists also admits there is no field, no aether. So is it a particle or a field. Science constantly keeps altering its values without considering the consequences. This is not a metaphysical question. If we speculate without reference it becomes meaningless.

[Xris]

Just call the aether with the properties that scientists measure for the vacuum of space a "vacuum" and forget the field. It is just notations. What is important are the properties.

What properties? A vacuum has no value, only what might inhabit it. So it is not a field. So is it a particle?

[Xris]

It is still not answering the question. EM radiation traverses a vacuum it does not indicate an aether and if it does are you opposing accepted science and Einstein? If like me you deny the existence of particles describing photons or electrons why should I take for granted your beliefs? Those in quantum science must make their minds up. Is there an aether or is there not?

[Wayne92587]

Andrewvecsey wrote:

For me, the vacuum of space is the aether. Aether is very dense, like water while the particles are much less dense, much like bubbles in water. It is movement of particles thru the vacuum that give matter the property we call mass.

The way I look on it, Higgs Bosons are a field of particles, but they do not move. They make up what we call vacuum.

Higgs Boson is a misnomer.

The Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything is made up of Particles, a Particle existing as an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity, the Word Singularity and Particle being synonymous.

Prior to the moment of Creation, an untold number of Infinitely Finite indivisible Singularities existed alone in the in a Highly Volital State of Singularity, alone in the Emptiness of Infinite Space.


Prior to the Moment of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, prior to the Alchemical Transfiguration, of a Singularity, an Individuality, having value only unto itself, having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O, Nada, Zip, Nothing, into a Singularity having relative value, a numerical value of One-1, a Singularity of One-1 coming into existence as the result of an Affect, a spontaneous event.

Prior to the Moment of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, of the First Singularity to have relative, a numerical value of One-1, the Reality of Everything existed as an Untold Number of Individual Infinitely Finite Singularities having no relative, numerical value, existing within a Steady, Static, State of Quantum Singularity; Time, Space and Motion not yet relative; the Motion of a particle, a Singularity alone in the Emptiness of Infinite Time and Space being meaningless, being boundless, random, existing without displacement, angular momentum, without velocity of speed and direction, each Singularity existing within its own World of Reality, being the center of its own personal Universe, Celestial Sphere.


Upon the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the existence of a Singularity became such that an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity may or may not have relative, numerical value; a Particle existing both as a Singularity having no relative, numerical value and as a Singularity having relative value a numerical value of One-1; a Singularity of One-1 having relative, a numerical value of One-1 simply because a Singularity of One-1 in part, exists as part of a greater whole while at the same time maintaining its individuality, exists as the first in a chain of events, in a series, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, a Big Bang.


The Reality of First Cause, the uncaused cause coming into existence as the result of an Affect; the Relativity of Time and Space, the Law of Cause and Effect coming into existence at the Moment of the Creation of the Reality of First Cause; First Cause, the First Singularity to have relative value, a numerical value of One-1 coming into existence as a result of an Affect, as the result of a Singularity of little value, a Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-O, Nada, Zip, Nothing, being Alchemically Transfigured into a Singularity of One-1, the Reality of First Cause, the beginning of a continuum such as Space-Time, the beginning of a process such as the Evolutionary Process, the Reality of First Cause being the direct cause of the System of Chaos that has brought about the physical manifestation of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything.

[Xris]

No one appears to accept the conflicting scientific fact that the aether has not been proven but now this god particle is supposed to be it. As for the big bang. It is concept not a fact of science.

[Wayne92587]

The aether could be the Emptiness of Infinite Space or the untold number of Singular Particle that fill the Emptiness of Infinite Space; the God particle being an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity that has no relative, numerical value: an untold number of God Particles being that from which the Reality of Everything is derived .


The definition of the word ether may be a clue.

Ether;

a colorless, highly volatile, flammable liquid, having an aromatic odor and sweet, burning taste, derived from ethyl alcohol by the action of sulfuric acid: used as a solvent and, formerly, as an inhalant anesthetic. 3. the upper regions of space; the clear sky; the heavens. 4. the medium supposed by the ancients to fill the upper regions of space. 5. Physics. a hypothetical substance supposed to occupy all space

I would say that the Reality of Everything prior to the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity to have relative value, to have a numerical value One-1, the aether, ether, the Emptiness of Infinite Space was filled with an untold number of God Particles, Individual Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities having no relative, numerical value.

The aether, ether, although Highly volatile ( there being no Cause prior to the Creation of the Reality of First Cause, the First Singularity to have relative value, a numerical value of One-1) there was no possibility of the existence of a material, physical Reality.

After the Reality of First Cause ( being an Affect) came into existence without cause ( the Reality of First Cause being the direct cause of the system of chaos that that has made manifest the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything) the existence of the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything became a Given, Absolute Fact

[TeenPhilosopher]

First off, I read the first page of this post and tried to read the second, but it was too masochistic for me. The Higgs Field and Higgs Boson particle are NOT what you envision. They are formal scientific theories and are not subject to interpretation (at least, as to what they are!). Second off, The Big Bang is almost certainly what happened as I will explain later, and dark matter and dark energy are two separate concepts, that like the Higgs Field and The Big Bang, are formal scientific theories and are not subject to interpretation as to what they are (didn't it ever occur to any of you that what you were talking about was science and not philosophy and it would be plain incorrect to say “Well for me, this is [insert random belief here]”? And third off: I am sorry for writing in this style but each increasingly incorrect and at times, plain strange misconceptions and stereotypes involved in the posts here make me want to bang my head against a brick wall screaming out “Mankind has no future with Philosophers!”

Now that that's done with, let me get down to explaining (neutrally and scientifically) the concepts of dark matter, dark energy, the big bang, and the Higgs field and Higgs Boson particle. Let me start off with the Higgs field and Higgs Boson particle.

First off, they are two different things. The Higgs Field is an invisible (although now almost certainly proven true) field that exists everywhere, even in empty space. It is responsible for giving mass (weight, if you don't quite understand the concept of mass in this context) to every particle. Imagine a mob of paparazzi as the Higgs Field and Johnny Depp and an unknown actor as two different particles. Now because the paparazzi is very interested in Johnny Depp, he has a hard time getting through the Higgs Field and has to push and shove to get to his limo. Because he is interacting with the Higgs Field (as well as the other way around), he gains lots of mass by “moving” through this field. Now, the relatively unknown actor walks through easily, as the paparazzi just isn't interested in taking his picture, or anything of the like. Ergo, he moves much easier through the Higgs Field, gaining less mass. The Higgs Boson particle is an “excitement” of the Higgs Field that is basically a way of proving that the Higgs Field exists because the equations require that particle. The Higgs Boson particle does not give mass to anything.

Now, to tackle dark matter and dark energy. Again, they are two completely unrelated concepts, which just happen to have similar names. In order for you to really get the gist of dark energy, I have to explain something more historical in the field of cosmology, known as Einstein's “cosmological constant”. In Einstein's time, the Universe was considered to not be contracting or expanding, but static. Unmoving, unchanging in structure, (and before quantum mechanics, deterministic). Now, when Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity, it suggested that the Universe was either expanding or contracting (please don't ask me specifically why, I'm not a physicist by career, I'm a twelve year old, albeit deeply into cosmology and philosophy, but that's not the point). That was a problem with scientists. Generally, cosmologists are very conservative when it comes to accepting new ideas and concepts that contradict was generally accepted before. So Einstein “needed” to write in a few new equations so that the Universe would not contract due to the pull of gravity by galaxies, or expanding by some other means. So, in order to contradict gravity, he added a few equations (the cosmological constant) that made space “push” galaxies away just enough to keep the Universal structure in check.

However, in the 1930's, Edward Hubble discovered that the galaxies were moving away from each other (meaning the Universe was expanding) so the “need” for a cosmological constant went out the window. The Big Bang was now the explanation for the expansion of the Universe (which means the original push from the Big Bang throws the galaxies away from eachother). This was an honest shock to scientists.

Later (15 ~ years ago), however, it was discovered that galaxies were flying away from eachother faster than before, meaning the expansion of the Universe was accelerating. This made a scandal in the field of cosmology and in addition, threw everything we understood about the Universe into chaos. Then, with the addition of a slightly stronger “cosmological constant” (dark energy) the physics made sense again. Now you may be wondering, why is it such a problem that the Universe is expanding faster? Well, now that there was no cosmological constant, and the ever dissipating force of the Big Bang was losing ground to gravity, expansion was expected to slow. However, it obviously wasn't, so the idea that space itself pushed things apart in a cosmological constant/dark energy sort of way was needed once more.

Just a side note here, I'm a teenager and haven't slept in 19 hours, I'm sorry if my writing is a bit boggy or redundant. Anyway, the point of dark energy is that it is a power intrinsic to empty (like totally empty) space, and that its basic function is to push matter apart. You may very well ask, if this oh so powerful and mysterious force tears matter apart on a HUGE scale, then why does it have so much trouble tearing apart, say, an atom? The Answer: Because there is more empty space in the space between galaxies then there is inside galaxies, planets, buildings, etc. Ergo, it is easier to push galaxies away then it is to break an atom. You could also ask me, why does dark energy exist (that's more of a metaphysical question, if any of you were thinking of it) or perhaps how come dark energy is necessary in that precise manner, or some specific scientific question I can't answer because I'm 12, tired, hungry, and I've done enough. Wikipedia or Google it, there is tons of free high quality information on the web (I suggest NOVA documentaries, or perhaps miniseries like How the Universe Works).

Dark matter is the (kind of) opposite of dark energy. It doesn't push galaxies apart, it keeps galaxies together. Recently, there was a discovery that the mass of the center of galaxies does not have the required gravity to keep the outer layers bound to the rest of the galaxy. Dark matter is an invisible (though almost certainly real in some form or another) and very light (at least relative to luminous matter) and very abundant (constitutes 84% of all matter but only 23% of all mass-energy) type of matter. It does exist outside of galaxies, and I presume, very frequently, there might even be galaxies or nebula, though not the appropriate term.

Now, the Big Bang is a more complex and descriptive subject that I should be careful on. Bare with me when I say this. The basic idea of the birth of the Universe is that out of nothing, an infinitely(?) hot, dense, and tiny point of energy, with so much gravity, that it literally contracted all of spacetime into nothingness, appeared. Now, there are much more rational theories (personally, I am an advocate for the theory of continual creation, where the Universe expands and crunches back together again, starting a new Universe, although just a popular theory) to explain the Big Bang. But leave aside that creation point which can be assessed in other ways. Because (believe it or not) in areas so relatively light as black holes space and time are already collapsed into a nonexistence, the Big Bang is so much denser by comparison, that it literally is the start of time and space. Scientists believe this because it is visible in our Universe today! If you look at a galaxy one billion light years away, that means that whatever you're seeing conspired a billion years ago. Correct? So if you look at galaxies 13-14 billion miles away, you no longer see galaxies, but dust and clouds of hot gas (very hot gas) that were the normal state of the Universe before the formation of stars or galaxies (because the Big Bang had only recently occurred). The only (reasonably explained) way to explain those clouds of dust and gas, followed by the visible progression of galaxies, is by the Big Bang, as it would expand and throw out gas like this. The normal laws of physics ensue, stars, nebula, galaxies, clusters, superclusters of galaxies form and life forms. That is the story of our Universe, at least, how we believe it goes.

The philosophical implications of the The Big Bang theory are important especially on theism and the concept of the birth of the Universe (though it could be said the Big Bang is the way of God but isn't that the basic Clockwork Universe theory?) but also on concepts of free will and determinism especially if you get down to the aspects of M Theory (String theory) and quantum mechanics. The philosophical implications of the Higgs Field (and the Higgs particle that proves its existence) may be just as far reaching as the Big Bang as it provides information as to the reason of the nonconformity (Thank God) of the Universe through the giving of mass. Without the Field, we could not exist (or except by some similar fashioned theory). Dark matter keeps our galaxy together. I'm sure everyone's grateful for that! Dark energy gives us clues about the ultimate fate of our Universe. THAT may be the most important of all. One last thing before I collapse from exhaustion, PLEASE before discussing philosophy make sure you are well informed about the subject (especially, especially when it comes to astrophysics/cosmology). Now good night my older unemployed brethren! (Reference to the stereotypical unemployed philosopher beliefs of today's society)

-- Updated September 12th, 2012, 12:06 am to add the following --

Oh and by the way, be sure to check out my philosophy blog!! It's not really updated yet, but I have two or three good essays in store waiting to be posted!

-- Updated September 12th, 2012, 12:10 am to add the following --

Silly me, so tired, forget the link: AHH Damn regulations! Can't post the link.

[Xris]

So is there an aether or is there not. So this particle is a field, It has been proven? Is this field different to the aether that Einstein denied? Can you give me a link where this amazing fact has been proven? I think you might just find it is another concept that is far from proven.

Just like the BB or the dark stuff. Concepts that have become ingrained into science and the educational system till we arrive at posts like yours. Let me spell it out, the red shift that has led to all these amazing inventions are not fully understood nor is it an exact science. There are those who oppose the idea that the universe is expanding and considering it has given birth and been attached to so many other concepts, I would appreciate you debate and not try and give us all the benefit of your biased opinion.

[TeenPhilosopher]

Uhhh.... Wow. Why do I have the feeling you understood NOTHING of what I just said? Look, there is no aether. Whatever you mean by that. It's nothing to do with science. And no, the particle is not a field, the particle is the PROOF that the field exists... The link is the first post. What do you mean when you say BB? I don't understand. Dark matter and dark energy are very probable concepts, but indeed, have not yet been proven experimentally.... Red shift?? Well, Cosmology is a very accurate science... You can't oppose the Universe is expanding without going into denial of proof. It has been observed with several telescopes. And... debate? People can't debate on the existence of the Holocaust or not can they? (Some crazy Neo nazis do) It's as real as the Higgs Field and the expansion of the universe and there is theoretical proof (The thing is you don't necessarily need experimental proof for something to be real -- Otherwise God would not exist for you, would he?) for the existence of dark matter and less so on dark energy (meaning we don't know its properties very well). Biased opinion? I wrote highly objectively. Science isn't Religion or Philosophy where you can debate on the existence of Christ or whether or not his mother was a virgin or not, It's FACT. Saying the Universe isn't expanding is like saying a car travels faster than light. This isn't up to debate. It's fact, cold hard science, not philosophy or religion.

[Xris]

Uhhh.... Wow. Why do I have the feeling you understood NOTHING of what I just said? Look, there is no aether. Whatever you mean by that. It's nothing to do with science. And no, the particle is not a field, the particle is the PROOF that the field exists... The link is the first post. What do you mean when you say BB? I don't understand. Dark matter and dark energy are very probable concepts, but indeed, have not yet been proven experimentally.... Red shift?? Well, Cosmology is a very accurate science... You can't oppose the Universe is expanding without going into denial of proof. It has been observed with several telescopes. And... debate? People can't debate on the existence of the Holocaust or not can they? (Some crazy Neo nazis do) It's as real as the Higgs Field and the expansion of the universe and there is theoretical proof (The thing is you don't necessarily need experimental proof for something to be real -- Otherwise God would not exist for you, would he?) for the existence of dark matter and less so on dark energy (meaning we don't know its properties very well). Biased opinion? I wrote highly objectively. Science isn't Religion or Philosophy where you can debate on the existence of Christ or whether or not his mother was a virgin or not, It's FACT. Saying the Universe isn't expanding is like saying a car travels faster than light. This isn't up to debate. It's fact, cold hard science, not philosophy or religion.

So how do you distinguish between the denied ether and this field the god particle has invented. You still have not provided the link that might qualify your support for this field of influence.

You suggest that god is a concept we can argue against but the Big Bang, an expanding universe, is a concept beyond debate. Well I can tell you young grass hopper you are displaying all the fundamental dogmatism that religion is accused of. There is serious opposition to the expanding universe but I would assume your education has not given you the full picture. I suggest even with your very profound understanding of accepted science you are not, as you might like to believe, the fountain of all knowledge. I will, if you like, give you at least one reference that opposes your dogmatic view.

[TeenPhilosopher]

I would certainly enjoy you disproving me, but the Higgs Field is a field in space that gives things mass. Let me get the link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... vered.html

Now, I know I was probably imprecise with the whole God thing, let me explain. What I mean is that in order for something to be proven, you do not experimentally need to prove it (this is not at all related to any God concept or anything, it was a bad inclusion) you can prove it theoretically.

[Xris]

I would certainly enjoy you disproving me, but the Higgs Field is a field in space that gives things mass. Let me get the link: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... vered.html

Now, I know I was probably imprecise with the whole God thing, let me explain. What I mean is that in order for something to be proven, you do not experimentally need to prove it (this is not at all related to any God concept or anything, it was a bad inclusion) you can prove it theoretically.

You have given me a link that simply states they may have found a particle, that might be a field. A field that might give mass to mass less particles. We are still at the stage of looking at sparklers and imagining we have found god. So what does it look like, this field, in comparison to the ether that so many wanted to explain the contradictions quantum indicates but no one found? A field of what exactly? Theoretical science constantly invents fields that have no substance,when their is no alternative to their quandaries. Just like the faithful cling to their concepts, so to do these theorists.

You might believe that you can prove the expanding universe but if your observations are false or wrongly interpreted everything may fall about you and every invention they spawned may die a embarrassing death.