Higgs boson

[ajb]

Apparently a growing number of scientists have been reported recently admitting that the standard model seems more likely now not to have the Higgs Mechanism. Has anyone read this? I have a link if wanted.

 

People have thought about Higgsless models for while now.

 

The trouble with the Higgs is that it does not come from any deep principle. The forces of gravity, electroweak and strong are associated with gauge symmetries. However the Higgs is just "bolted on" via a Yukawa coupling. Which is why I am not really sure it should be considered a force, but then it is a boson... and so the debate began.

 

 

I was wondering if you agreed that initially the aether field could have been attributed to the former example here.

 

In a sense you replace the aether with the electromagnetic field. I would be careful making too much of any comparison.

Edited August 30, 2011 by ajb

[khaled]

I'm not really good at physics, but I have a thought that might be wrong,

 

Now, since that Higgs Boson is Scalar Boson, not a Vector Boson which is considered as Force

 

I think it's like if a force is in progress, then it has a direction,

 

I guess that if a Vector Boson is considered as a Force, then a Scalar Boson can be considered as a Potential Force

 

like the gravitational potential force of an object that is held in the mid-air ...

Edited August 31, 2011 by khaled

[timo]

Now, since that Higgs Boson is Scalar Boson, not a Vector Boson which is considered as Force. I think it's like if a force is in progress, then it has a direction, I guess that if a Vector Boson is considered as a Force, then a Scalar Boson can be considered as a Potential Force

The "vector" used to describe e.g. the electromagnetic field actually is the potential, not the force. "Force" is a somewhat sub-optimal term since in this context it does not mean the "F" in "F=ma" but rather means something like "interaction" (which in the context of this particular thread also is not a suitable term).

[khaled]

The "vector" used to describe e.g. the electromagnetic field actually is the potential, not the force. "Force" is a somewhat sub-optimal term since in this context it does not mean the "F" in "F=ma" but rather means something like "interaction" (which in the context of this particular thread also is not a suitable term).

 

I think that I lack the knowledge of physics notion .. I didn't want to speak about potential from electricity,

I used the word "potential" based on its meaning in formal English vocabulary,

I wanted to talk about the force that is not in progress until it's triggered, such as the gravitational force of a hanged object ...

 

I learned physics in my language, we call it "the dormant force"

Edited August 31, 2011 by khaled

[Mystery111]

In a sense you replace the aether with the electromagnetic field. I would be careful making too much of any comparison.

 

I am not meaning to replace the aether specifically with an electromagnetic field. I will refine what I meant.

 

Relative only to that fields distortion (the photon) the photon experiences an aether-like medium which we call it's respective field. But of course, there are more than just one quantum field. Only those fields which have their quanta propogate as wave like forms can that field be relative to them propogating in the medium of that field. Is it not analogous to saying that a photon in the original aether assumption was a particle which rippled in some asbolute frame of reference? I suppose it couldn't be right, because an electromagnetic field, indeed any field don't act as absolute references in respect to their quanta, but why wouldn't it?

[Dave World]

I'm self-conscious about this, but . . . I've written something about my amateur fascination with the Higgs boson. It's posted in Speculations at My link. Please do me the honor of reading it and telling me how you feel about it. Thank you. - dw

[Mystery111]

I'll take a look. I'm not a professional but I have done some Higgs math.