Large Hadron Collider

It does seem that data on the higgs has been got from colliders already in existence but it could just be noise. This new machine should confirm the data. Let's say that it will, that it already has but we have to wait untill the official switch on in November.

It has zero spin and a mass somwwhere between 45Gev / c^2 and 145Gev / c^2 So, let's say that the higgs particle is about 100 times the mass of the proton.

The good news is that this is very definitely an aether. The bad news is that it will be "explained" in terms of the big bang theory. They have to justify the cost of the machine to their paymasters after all.

One argument I'm sure we'll hear, is the idea that the big bang expands at the speed of gravity but that the speed of light falls exponentially.

Whatever; we do need to think about this one. Does the higgs explain mass and inertia? I don't think so, it just makes it one step removed from ordinary mass particles. If mass is going faster than light when the speed of light suddenly falls to its present level, what happens to it?

(Edited) One thing to bear in mind. The higgs is a boson, so it can be two fermions of whatever mass but with a huge binding energy. We could have two neutrinos say, held together and rotating at the speed of light round each other.

I'm not at all well versed in this topic of particles so if this is a stupid question I'm just demostrating that lacking. If the particle is 100 proton in mass how is it different than an atom of that mass?

That's a great question Jim [8D] The answer, if there is one, depends on where one is coming from. The official answer will be in terms of the big bang.

Okay, the bang happens and it expands faster than light. Then light speed falls abruptly to its present level. Mass/energy condenses into matter and the aether.

Now let's look at an atom of tin. It has a gravitational field, so we'll pop it onto a sheet of rubber to help visualise this. A dimple in the sheet that falls off, to infinity, in an inverse square manner.

Now let's do some magic on it, and shrink it, so that it's a tiny black hole. (We'll ignore the obvious problems like how it deals with its angular momentum) Light can't escape it but gravity can, as we have the same dimple radius but it's now much deeper and steeper at the centre.

Shrink it even more and this time we won't give it an inverse square fall off but something smaller than the fall off for the strong nuclear force. Let's go totally wild and say that the radius of the dimple is ten to the minus 34 metres, or smaller (h).

As a field, this would look absolutely flat, the centre of the dimple has to be smaller than h. But, bear in mind that this is a boson, and doesn't have to obey the ordinary quantum rules for fermions.

The probability of such a particle interacting with another is extremely unlikely but it will happen all the time, as there are rather a lot of them.

I did say in my last post that we could have two particles rotating round each other at the speed of light to make a higgs. Why not the speed of gravity? When I've looked at the size of a Le Sage shadow for a particle, it always comes out as being much smaller than h.

(Edited) [] A sudden thought, drop a burnt out star into this gloop. The gloop will suck it away like a gobstopper (humbug) It will take it a long time to do it but the aether will get that energy back.

(Edited again) [] Another thought, I've got a rotating bin of water. A vortex forms and I throw two tennis balls into this. These are neutrinos. I then say that this vortex is so powerful that nothing gets out, not even gravity. My two tennis balls have fallen so that they touch. No way can I force them apart. They spin round but compared to the speed of gravity we might as well say that they are standing still. Not an inverse law this, remember that the strong and weak nuclear forces are such that the force grows stronger with radius.

The radius of the top of the vortex is tiny, the depth of the vortex is also tiny. The thickness of the top and bottom of the water surface is not infinitely thin but is the energy due to entropy never actually falling to zero. Now take out the two tennis balls and write on them a reminder that they are made from two quarks. Throw them back in as quarks.

Maybe I asked the wrong question so I'll try another one. What does the Higgs decay into. And how is it related to the old "Z" particle from the eighties?

The W and Z particles are the exchange paticles of the weak nuclear force. They are supposed to have masses in the 80 proton range, and life of about 10 to the minus 25 seconds. The higgs boson was proposed to give mass to the W and Z; in fact to all particles. So, somehow, the higgs lends its mass to the W or Z for that period of time. As the higgs makes up the aether, it must be a very long lived particle. I can't see how it can decay into anything.

The thing is, the higgs field is a tachyon condensation, and so everyone jumps through hoops to explain things without anything ever going faster than light.

It's back to that shell bouncing of a tissue again. The weight of a sun hits the shell and it survives! Electrons contain things which have masses thousands of times their mass! I think it's much easier to just come out and say that the speed of light is not the speed limit.

(Edited) Somewhere in this thread I talked about the crystal sphere solar system. Earth inthe centre, spheres and epicycles. It worked. The educated would have read the Venerable Bede. they would have been aware of the idea of a heliocentric system but they held onto the earth centred model because of the autority of Aristotle. I think we have the same thing happening here. The big bang and the speed of light being constant are articles of faith.

We can't simply ignore the "eightfold way" model though. We have to explain why we might want to throw gauge theory in the bin. It's hugely frustrating to have to learn mind boggling maths just to throw it in the bin but doing it enables us to understand why people of obvious intelligence want to cling to their "worry blankets."

Captain Kirk is on his way to Vulcan at one tenth light speed. Suddenly the view of Vulcan changes to a view of Sol. "Mr. Spock, explain?" "We appear to have hit something of about 40 times the mass of the ship. We de-accelerated in a fraction of a second then accelerated back to our original speed in the oposite direction. Simple really." Kirk things about this for a moment, physics was never his strong point and he lied to get into the academy. "Ah, relativity I suppose!" "Well..." muses Spock, "on the way out we accelerated nought to one tenth light speed at about a billion times light speed. No idea what we did on the way in." Scotty looks up from his new set of chrome shifting spanners. "Aye, the inertial dampers are above spec." "Put us about," cries Kirk, "the thing must have been destroyed ." Spock shakes his head, "it's still exactly where it was, best drive round it."

I did a google search for stuff on guage theory and found this. www.bookrags.com/Gauge_theory

I think this is worth a read as seems to be defended by a couple of "straw men" placed there by the writer. The first is to do with absolutes. It's gibberish. The second one is where the guy says of the theory, that it can create toy 3d universes but not the 4d spacetime of our universe []Nice one!

Cutting to the chase, three quarks, red, green and blue form a particle, let's say a proton. Is space "curved" at this locality?

The exchange particles for these three, one of them would have to be a boomerang. Two people stand, looking in opposite directions, they throw a boomerang between them. Catching and throwing between them will force them together.

With Le Sage that doesn't happen. But then, guage theory has no place for gravity, much as it might want to. With these three quarks we have a tremendous force keeping them together, far stronger than the strong atomic force. It is a force, in that there's not enough mass to curve space/time here. Not that I think time is a spatial dimension.

\What's happening? I for one haven't got a clue [] Off to the pub to get drunk, and leave it to clever young things to solve. [8D]