A different take on gravity

From what I've been looking at, I get the wavelength of the higgs to be 2h. This gives us a mass of about 1E-8 Now I believe this to be a gravitational mass and not an e.m. mass. From my proposed speed of gravity I get the gravitational mass of the electron coming in at a whopping great 1.3 tonnes. The electron grav mass displaces about 1E 12 higgs grav masses. The e.m. mass of the higgs is going to be small 1E-8 * h Still hugely bigger than the rest mass of a photon, which I get as about 6E-64 but in the mass range of the neutrino.

I think that we should at least consider that the elyson is the higgs.

<b>[Stoat] "I think that we should at least consider that the elyson is the higgs."</b>

(The Higgs boson, like the elyson, has yet to be observed in nature or in experiment.)

The Higgs boson is sometimes associated with the anomalous observations of some sort of vacuum energy, so this suggestion may have some merit. But the Higgs boson is mainly thought of as somehow creating or providing the property we call mass. I presume that the mainstream means inertial mass here, but most accounts are less than explicit, probably because the mainstream views inertial mass as 100% equivalent to (identical; the same as) gravitational mass. So the Higgs boson also somehow creates or provides the property we call gravity.

Somehow.

To the extent that this (the connection between Higgs and gravity) is true the Higgs would be more likely to translate into DRPs graviton that into the elyson. But when you are dealing with theoretical particles it can be hard to separate the few available facts from the speculation. Either way the translation is unlikely to be exact because the mainstream uses one model (space-time) to account for both the primary and the secondary effects of gravtity while DRP uses two models (gravitons and elysons, with elysium also serving as the physical medium for EM wave propagation, and as the physical mechanism behind the property of charge).

Vacuum energy, dark matter and dark energy. Zero point energy. Spontaneous creation / destruction of particles. Over the last few decades we have heard tantalizing reports of something just below the threshold of our ability to detect. A vacuum is not empty. Something is obviously there, and seems to fill it completely. The Higgs is sometimes mentioned in this light, but not always. Whatever it is that we can almost detect, it is a candidate for comparison to the elyson.

Regards,
LB

BTW Stoat, when you are talking about the physical properties of things and assigning explicit numbers to them, it is bad form to not also explicitly state the units that go along with those numbers. And remember that many reading your post will be unfamiliar with the less common derived units than with the basic units. Few will understand what a higgs grav mass is, but almost all will understand what tonne means.

The need for explicit use of units with numberless equations is less important. But in many cases it can make your meaning more evident. Generic basic units like mass rather than system-specific basic units like gram make sense in this (numberless) context.

If your goal is to understandably communicate your thoughts to others, adjust your style accordingly, If your goal is other, never mind.

(Getting the units right is work. None of us is without fault in this sort of thing. All can do better.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Stoat:
From what I've been looking at, I get the wavelength of the higgs to be 2h. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Planck constant, h, has units of energy * time; this is not a wavelength. Perhaps you meant 2Lp; the Planck length is approximately 1.6 * 10^-35 meter.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Stoat:
This gives us a mass of about 1E-8 <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Is that 10^-8 Joule? erg? Proton mass? Electron volt?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Stoat:
Now I believe this to be a gravitational mass and not an e.m. mass. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Please explain the difference.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Stoat:
The e.m. mass of the higgs is going to be small 1E-8 * h <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Planck constant is no more a mass than it is a wavelenght. Please be more careful with your units.



Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Well, let's try this on for size, then. There is one aspect of my model of gravity as tiny bits of known "matter" acting in cosmic geometry that says at some point it would be very convenient to consider the "natural-statistical" average particle as a way of dealing with so many various particles. There has to be an average in any statistical sample, it's a simple function of adding up the total contributing effects (particles) and dividing it by the count of all contributors. We do not have to do this, though, because nature does it automatically for us. So, what if the Higgs is the mathematical ideal for such an average particle? Not an actual species of one unique particle, but the measurement you would get if you took an average of all the participating particles? In that case, I very much like the Higgs, but . . . you will never find just one or even a bunch of them just hanging around with each other trying to preform gravitational magic by themselves (without the help or contribution of all the others).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Panteltje
There has to be an average in any statistical sample, it's a simple function of adding up the total contributing effects (particles) and dividing it by the count of all contributors.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are referring to the mean particle. The mean works well in a normal distribution, but in some statistical distributions, the number of infinitessimally small contributors is so great as to make the mean infinitessimally small. (This is why, in my own model, I refer to the median-size bubble in the foam.) A median particle has a value such that half of the total effect comes from particles at least that large. If you don't like mean or median, you can define your own more suitable kind of average.

Fractal Foam Model of Universes: Creator

Hi PhilJ, I use S.I. units, unless I explicitly state something like a mass in tonnes, I don't use electron volts, it's ot a S.I. unit and should not be used at all on this board. However,if I wanted to talk about Harold Aspden for example, I would have to talk in terms of the units he used, which were cgs units. Often rather tricky that.

2h is just a number, If I say that a particle has a wavelength equal to 2h , then I'm saying that's its radius in metres. 2h = h / mc Which gives us a mass of about 1E-8 kgs (well about 1.72E-9 kgs is nearer) Something tiny and massive, or perhaps we should say dense.

Now it's my argument, that the people at CERN, the proponents of the higgs, are quietly dropping Einstein in favour of Lorentzian relativity, though i think we on this board should call it Lorentz, Poincare relativity. They are not going to explicitly state this until they have the higgs in the bag. incidentally i would argue that after the first world war, the choice between the two, was made for small p political reasons. Poincare, as the inventor of chaos theory, was a bit of a devil.

There's no upper speed limit to the Lorentzian, and from the gravitational, electromagnetic couple I get h = c^2 / b^2 where b is the speed of gravity. However there is a speed limit for the electromagnetic component of any particle, and that's c. Pop that value of h into the Lorentzian at the speed of light. There's a phase change, a particle traveling at the speed of light has a plus or minus h value, in short it waves and has an average mass of zero.

Righto, we get a speed of gravity of about 1.12E 25 metres per second. Does this mean we can say that gravitational space is a lot bigger than e.m space? The answer is no, they are in one to one correspondence. Further, we can write the Lorentzian in terms of refractive index and have sqrt(1 - 1 /infinity) which would be the speed of gravity in the absence of matter. Where matter is present we get sqrt(1 - 1 / the reciprocal of h) A huge number

does anything else follow from taking the speed of gravity at this value? Yeah, we get a bunch of reciprocals and the number one keep popping up. Just what you want from any gauge theory.
E = mb^2 where b is the speed of gravity, this gives us the gravitational energy in Joules. It just happens to be exactly the same number as the electromagnetic frequency of the particle. But hf = energy. Here we have to remember that we are talking about a phase change. At the speed of light the sign in the Lorentzian changes to give us a negative refractive index. A particle traveling faster than light, i.e. in a medium with a neg refractive index, keeps its frequency ut its wavelength changes. So, hf = energy but that grav energy has the same value as the frequency, so h has to change to the value one.

This brings us onto the vexing question of whether h is a dimensionless constant. I say it's a measure of angular momentum. h = mvr for the electron let's say, 9E-31 * 2.9E 8 * r Where r is the Compton wavelength, the radius of the classical electron. The upshot of all this is that the higgs is spinning with an angular velocity of twice the speed of light. It has a hefty gravitational mass but a miniscule electromagnetic mass. However, that e.m mass would be of huge interest to any neutrinos in the region of a mass body, surrounded by an ocean of particles of such a gravitational mass.

(Edited) Oops, that's wrong, it comes out as having an angular momentum of h as well. Yet this thing has to e different as it's a boson and not a fermion.