Higgs particle questions

[smidav]

First of all, I'd like to apologize for my lack of knowledge and sophistication, but I have some questions relating to the Higgs particle and its significance in particle physics, which I lack the understanding and resources to answer. I know some of these questions may seem a little basic, but human progress begins with challenging common ideas (I don't expect to change the world - just educate myself).

 

The concept of the basic structure of atomic particle (protons, neutrons, electrons) has been commonly accepted for generations, and significant discoveries and advancements have been made as a result of research that has been driven from this perspective. This research has led to theories and discovery of smaller particles that make up those building blocks of matter. From what I understand, the basic principals of physics apply to most of these particles and theories. The mathematics that define and predict particle existence and behaviour seem to be pretty reliable. This may seem like I'm stating the obvious, but it helps to explain my perspective of contemplation.

The discovery of the Higgs particle has been theorized and predicted for far longer than it has been regarded as a reality. I'm sure there are already those in the scientific community that are theorizing and trying to discover even smaller particles that make up the Higgs particle. All of this is leading to a better understanding of "dark matter" and the composition of the universe. There is new credibility to the perspective that "space" is not an empty vacuum, but rather a field or equilibrium of particles that we can predict - but not observe. That these things exist is less of a mystery than how it all works together - this is where my curiosity exceeds my ability.

 

Ever since science class in grade school, the two things that have never seemed to make sense in relation to the rest of the physical universe were magnetism and gravity. The concept of an attractive force - to me - seems to be counterintuitive to the idea that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What is the original "action" that "pulls" two objects together?

Generally speaking, movement of an object normally results from a transfer of energy or momentum from one mass to another - which I have always considered a "repulsive" force. This "repulsive" force makes sense at the molecular level given the commonly accepted molecular model that has fast moving electrons orbiting the nucleus, which collide or interact with other particles of similar scale. If particles such as electrons are constructed of even smaller particles, then the interaction between and within molecules would be derivative of the interaction between the smaller particles that make up the electrons, protons and neutrons. The result of these sub-atomic reactions should be governed by particle density, mass and momentum - as they would be on a much larger, more observable scale.

From my perspective, this sub-atomic interaction leads me to think that magnetism and gravity are manifestations of the same mechanism that creates surface tension and crystallization. The mathematics and physics that define these processes should also be able to be expanded to explain how things like planets and solar systems form within the universe - if a particle "field" or "fluid" such as the Higgs particle field exists.

 

I know it's a bit of an over-simplification of the concept, but has this idea already been disproven? Does anybody have any insight that will get my train of thought back on track?