No, the Higgs boson is not the source of all particle rest masses, albeit it comes close.

Under the standard model, the rest masses of charged fermions (that is, charged leptons like the electron, and quarks) come from Yukawa-type interactions with the Higgs field. (I should mention though that the rest masses of the most common composite particles, the proton and the neutron, come mostly from the strong interaction, and not the rest masses of the constituent quarks, which contribute only about 1%.)

The rest masses of the W and Z bosons are also due to the Higgs mechanism, but in this case, the Higgs field along with its "Mexican hat" potential is responsible for the false vacuum that leads to electroweak symmetry breaking, through which these vector bosons become massive.

However, as far as we know at present, the (very tiny) masses of neutrinos are not due to the Higgs mechanism, but due to the way different neutrino species mix, creating mass eigenstates that differ from flavor eigenstates and result in neutrino oscillations that are detectable.

Finally, the mass of the Higgs boson itself is not due to some mechanism involving the Higgs... it is just simply a rest mass.

Dears Mohamed El Naschie and V. T. Toth

Thanks for your useful answers. Is the existence of the Higgs particle independent of the other particles (or fields)? So, how does Higgs aquire its rest mass?

In the Standard Model, the Higgs rest mass is just a standard rest mass. In contrast, other particles (charged fermions, vector bosons) have no rest mass terms; these particles would all be massless in the absence of the Higgs. And it is for that reason that the Higgs is not independent of the other particles. It is through the Higgs that charged fermions and some of the vector bosons become massive even as the theory remains renormalizable.

Dear Mohamed El Naschie

Thank you for interesting notes.

"Gravity is a phenomenon caused by time ‘flowing’ with different ‘speeds’."

Does it mean that time is independent entity?

Question is that: when does time appear? Which physical existence

does not experience time? Photon experiences time, because in Compton's effect and in gravitational blueshift (and redshift) photon's energy changes so it experiences time.

Dear V. T. Toth

Thank you for excellent mentions.

"In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field (which is associated with the Higgs boson) cause particles to have mass. The Standard Model cannot explain the very special forms that the Higgs interactions must take." (1)

The basic question is that according to this fact that space contains energy and energy has mass, what is the role of energy in the mass of particles?

(1) Kane, G., 2003, the dawn of physics beyond the standard model, Scientific American, vol. 288(6), p.68-75.

Simple Answer:

All fundamental particles (particles not made up of other particles) attain their mass via the Higgs.

A little more detail:

The Higgs mechanism was originally proposed to explain why the W and Z bosons, carriers of the weak nuclear force, attain mass.  However, the Standard Model went a step further to propose that all fundamental particles attain their mass in this manner.

Only a few weeks ago, the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at CERN combined results and showed 5-sigma (conclusive) evidence that the Higgs decays to fermions (matter particles), as well as bosons (carriers of force). The measurement was of the Higgs boson decaying to tau lepton pairs(*).

A few more interesting tidbits:

Most of our mass is due to the binding energy needed to hold particles, like protons, together. Protons are not fundamental, but are composite, made up of quarks and gluons. The gluons are are carriers of the strong nuclear force and the energy of their interactions is significantly larger than the mass of the quarks.

You might recall learning of the binding energy in atoms and in molecules in your high school chemistry class.  Same concept: E = mc^2.

More details?

See the Toth's comments (above or below).  They have plenty of detail.

===

(*) Writer's commentary: it is sad that such a monumental advancement to human understanding of nature is overshadowed by headlines of billionaires and governments wanting to build fences, but such are our priorities these days...

Dear Steven and Toth

Thank you for your interesting explanation. According to Standard Model, I agree with you, but SM is not a perfect theory, we need pass of it and thought beyond the ST. Because there is some unanswered problem in modern physics that SM is not able to answer them. For examples;

1- All our theories today seem to imply that the universe should contain a tremendous concentration of energy, even in the emptiest regions of space. The gravitational effects of this so-called vacuum energy would have either quickly curled up the universe long ago or expanded it too much greater size. The Standard Model cannot help us understand this puzzle, called the cosmological constant problem .

2- The expansion of the universe was long believed to be slowing down because of the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter in the universe. We now know that the expansions accelerating and that whatever causes the acceleration (dubbed “dark energy”) cannot be Standard Model physics.

3- There is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.

4- The Standard Model cannot include gravity, because it does not have the same structure as the other three forces. In expressing these mysteries, when I say the Standard Model cannot explain a given phenomenon, I do not mean that the theory has not yet explained it but might do so one day. The Standard Model is a highly constrained theory, and it cannot ever explain the phenomena listed above.

5- In the Standard Model, interactions with the Higgs field (which is associated with the Higgs boson) cause particles to have mass. The Standard Model cannot explain the very special forms that the Higgs interactions must take.

Kane, G., 2003, the dawn of physics beyond the standard model, Scientific American, vol. 288(6), p.68-75.

For long time seemed the Friedmann equation is able to explain universe, but in recent years, the cosmological constant was of interest to cosmologists. However, these two equations are unable to explain before the Big Bang. Thus this paper, from a new approach, turns out to merge the fundamental principles of quantum physics, relativity and classical mechanics through a new definition of rest state of particles like photon, and attempts to present the reasons and the possibilities of the existence of the superluminal speeds. So according to this new view some complex concepts and unanswered questions is explained in this paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279446746_Graviton_and_cosmology_equations_before_the_Big_Bang?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang

higgs mechanism = more hoopla-whoopla on top of gauge-mechanism

a start into what may be (if be) is here: http://dx.doi.org/10.1134/1.1348476

Dear Javadi,

your question focuses attention on a very important and deep aspect concerning acquisition of mass for the quantum particles. Really, after the recent experimental confirmation that Higgs particle exists, what one can surely state is that Standard Model has received an extraordinary experimental verification. But the long road of the science does not end there. In fact, the symmetry breaking mechanism to justify mass-acquisition is only a particular aspect of a more general geometrodynamic proceeding that allows to all particles to become massive, and vice versa to massive particles to lose mass. This is well described in my paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491.

Then it is possible to understand, that for example photons can become massive and neutrinos, considered without mass, according to the Standard Model, acquire mass in interactions with matter.

For complementary information see also http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2894 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear AGOSTINO

They are interesting articles, thank you. I will study them, it takes time. I hope more success for you in your important work.

Dear Agostino

I read your articles. The important thing is that you have good attention to gravitons.

You have written; "... even if it is very hard to detect massless quantum graviton particles, it should be less hard to observe neutral massive particles with spin 0 ≤ s ≤ 4, that we could more easily relate to massless neutral quantum particles with spin s = 2, hence to quantum graviton particles."

In standard model graviton is a massless with spin two. But same as photon, there are several experimental searches for massive gravitons that result an upper limits on the graviton mass.

Capozziello, et. at. (2013). Massive gravitons from Extended Gravity to Effective Field Theories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.6319.

Also there is an upper bound on the photon mass, although the amount is very small, but not zero.

Heeck, J. (2013). How stable is the photon? Physical review letters, 111(2), 021801.

They show we need a new definition of graviton Which is confirmed by tests.

I suggest please see following articles. Then we can continue our discussion better than now.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260982893_A_new_Definition_of_Graviton?ev=prf_pub

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270276224_Interactions_Between_Real_and_Virtual_Spacetimes?ev=prf_pub

Data A new Definition of Graviton

Article Interactions Between Real and Virtual Spacetimes

Dear Hossein,

I read with interest your paper on a new definition of the graviton. However, I cannot share your approach since there are many aspects conflicting with what is just well known from experimental point of view. For example the necessity that your 'CPH fundamental unit-particle' has constant velocity greater than c, the light velocity. Furthermore, you state that CPH has spin, but this is not well defined ... Moreover, you follow a classic point of view in Particle Physics, where quantum particles are seen as point-like objects, to which one substantially apply the dynamics of the Special Relativity ...

In this way one cannot unify Einstein's GR with QM ! It is not enough to play with some particular combination of classical point-like objects, in order to built a new quantum geometrodynamics ! Unfortunately this is what continue to believe many scientists that aim to propose new reformulations of the Standard Model ...hoping  to disclose a new physics ...

The unique serious approach unifying GR with QM can be obtained by considering that we must introduce the quantum noncommutative logic in the geometric framework of the Einstein's GR. This can be only made at dynamic level by considering the geometric theory of quantum (super) partial differential equations (say quantum PDEs theory), and apply it to the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs, (say (YM)), as I made in a series of published works. Then it is possible to understand that quantum particles are geometric objects identified with suitable integral p-chains in (YM). By studying the integral bordism groups of (YM) it is possible to understand the dynamic behaviour of such quantum particles and it is possible to understand also how neutral particles can acquire charges and masses and vice versa.

But from your reaction to the reading of my papers, I have seen that your interest has been focused on the graviton only ... This is  in contradiction with the fact that you remain,  in some a sense, in the framework of the Special Relativity.  Please consider that in my formulation the quantum graviton is not a point-like object and its dynamic cannot be encoded by simple equations of the Special Relativity. My quantum gravitons are subjected to the quantum geometrodynamics encoded by (YM) and nonlinear quantum propagators.

You talk about interactions between photons and gravitons ... Well this is described also in my papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491 ,  http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.2894 and http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856. But these interactions in my theory are encoded by some suitable dynamic objects, I mean nonlinear quantum propagators.

In other words, in your paper there are good intuitions, but their justification are founded on non-necessary objects (CPH) and are not inserted in a quantum geometrodynamic framework.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Agostino

I appreciate your trying to study my article. You have written: "I cannot share your approach since there are many aspects conflicting with what is just well known from experimental point of view." Let's continue step by step. In this comment I will focus on speed of ligh and graviton spin.

In special relativity the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source. But in the presence of gravity the speed of light becomes relative. Contrary to special relativity, the measured speed of light in a gravitational field is not constant, but these variations depend upon the reference frame of the observer; what one observer sees as true another observer sees as false.

To see the steps how Einstein theorized that the measured speed of light in a gravitational field is actually not a constant but rather a variable depending upon the reference frame of the observer: Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German:

http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf

You have writtn; "Furthermore, you state that CPH has spin, but this is not well defined..." You are right, but consider that a CPH with speed is a graviton, so let me speak about spin of graviton.

Claudia de Rham and her colleagues: "A small graviton mass could also be of a significant physical interest, notably for the cosmological constant problem."

http://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.231101

But the biggest problem is knowing the spin and mass of graviton. According to the stress-energy tensor, graviton must be massless and must have a spin of 2. The last motivate a translation of loop quantum gravity into a Feynman sum over histories form: the spin foam formulation.

https://cds.cern.ch/record/442809/files/0006061.pdf

So, there is no experiment to suport the spin of graviton.

Right ! There is no experimental evidence on the spin of the graviton, but I suggested some ideal experiments where it should be more easy to infer on the spin of the graviton and its mass. ( I proposed these ideal experiments to answer to a well known Dyson's question about graviton existence. )

Let me instead emphasize that what I consider important in order to understand how quantum gravity works, is to focus attention on the geometric theory of quantum PDEs and in particular of the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs. In the Rovelli's panorama on the quantum gravity this aspect is completely absent | ....

My best regards,

Agostino

ِDear Agostino

You are a honest and gentleman scientist. I am glad familiar you.

"... focus attention on the geometric theory of quantum..." It is very interesting step, I hope more success for you.

There are many evidence that shows graviton exists and has an upper bound of mass.

About Rest Mass

As we know, some particles such as photons are never seen at rest in any reference frame. So, there are two kinds of particles in physics;

A. Some particles like the photon move only with the speed of light c, in all inertial reference frames. Let’s call these kinds of particles the NR particles or Never at Rest condition particles.

B. Other particles like the electron always move with the speed v

Dear Agostino

You have written: "... you follow a classic point of view in Particle Physics, where quantum particles are seen as point-like objects .."

About pointlike particle

In the standard model, particles are pointlike. All experimentally available facts about microphysics seem to be consistent with the standard model. This is the (fully sufficient) reason for believing that particles in Nature are pointlike.

Pointlike is a technical term that refers to the fact that in the standard model, the Lagrangian is a function of fields at the same point (rather than of integrals over fields in some small neighborhood of this point, described by form factors specifying the ''form'' of the particle).

The main reason why, nevertheless, many physicists speculate that (at much higher resolution) particles might not be pointlike is that there is no known way how to harmonize quantum field theory with gravitational forces, whereas string theory (where particles are stringlike) seems to offer a potential way of doing so. Nobody knows to which extent these speculations will turn out to be correct.

String theory gives physicists reason to believe that particles are 1-dimensional strings because the theory has a purpose - unifying gravity with the gauge theories.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41676/why-do-physicists-believe-that-particles-are-pointlike

About concept of particle

Generally, we have almost the same understanding and imagination of large objects (at the level of molecules and larger). But in the case of subatomic particles, there is no clearly defined and visualized concept, and there are many uncertainties, especially in the case of photon and graviton. Therefore, any theory offers certain understanding (such as loop and string) of these particles. In discussion with my dear friend Daniel, I enjoyed his imagination. He wrote; "...since I consider gravity to be a localized phenomenon with rapid attenuation and to be a space deformation like the rubber sheet of Einstein, I maintain that gravitons are not particles -- indeed, I believe all bosons are a wavelike field phenomena. Even Higgs never proposed a Higgs particle -- he proposed the Higgs Field that "clusters" many wavelets to a denser state. He was a Field Theorist as I am. To me all is field and condensed energy moving wavelets at different frequencies."

Daniel Remy Elec. Eng., Physicist, MBA, Principal Physicist at ALPHA-OMEGA PHYSICS RESEARCH

However, I am using the particles for graviton and photon without any imagination of them.

Mysteries of Modern physics

Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result. The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail. Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)?

Alan Sokal "Don't Pull the String Yet on Superstring Theory", July 22, 1996 New York Times

Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of space-time itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

List of unsolved problems in physics, From Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

In general, there are some unanswered questions or complex concepts in modern physics. These issues are divided into two categories:

A: The questions that modern physics does not have answers for, and the physicists believe that it is due to the inability of theories.

B - Complex concepts that seem unrealistic, but physicists have admitted they do not know the problems of modern physics.

There are concepts and equations in physics (classical mechanics, relativity and quantum mechanics) that we can use to reach an understanding that is able to be experienced and by which we can review relativistic Newton's second law.

Using the revised relativistic Newton's second law, we can make it easier to express complex concepts in modern physics and respond to many unanswered questions in modern physics.

Reconsidering the relativistic Newton's second law is a powerful tool that deepens our understanding of space-time and can be an important step in understanding the nature of interactions and unifying them easier.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280150715_Modern_physics_problems_and_solutions?ev=prf_pub

Article Modern physics; problems and solutions

Dear Hossein,

thanks for your wishes and kind words, but let me answer to your remarks.

1) Rest-mass. You classify particles according to the so-called rest-mass. But this classification depends on the particular frame considered. In fact it is well-known that also photons can be stopped in some materials. Then it should be more useful a more dynamical classification by considering the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs (YM). There it is possible to distinguish between solutions with quantum mass-gap and other without quantum mass-gap.

2) Point-like particles (the concept of particles and mysteries of modern physic). In the Standard Model quantum particles are considered point-like. But as you have rightly observed the Standard Model does not solve all ... In particular it does not consider gravitation ... In my quantum geometrodynamics unifying Einstein's GR with QM, one can see that particles are in general natural extended objects in (YM). This is not a beautiful mathematical game, but a serious approach that allows us to solve the fundamental problems in Quantum Physics and Cosmology remained open until now !

You state: 'Reconsidering the relativistic Newton's second law is a powerful tool that deepens our understanding of space-time and can be an important step in understanding the nature of interactions and unifying them easier'.

This means that it is not yet passed my message that in order to unify Einstein'sGR with QM it is necessary to introduce the noncommutative logic of the quantum mechanics in the geometric theory of GR. Where is the quantum logic in relativistic Newton's second laws ? Unfortunately there is yet the old idea that quantum models can be obtained by quantizing classical ones. This coincides with the idea that the quantum world is a 'quantum fluctuation' around classical one. This belief is completely wrong when one considers high energy levels ...

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Agostino

" You classify particles according to the so-called rest-mass. But this classification depends on the particular frame considered." Yes , I know.

You have written: "Standard Model does not solve all ... In particular it does not consider gravitation ..." Exactly, and it is the basic root of all the problems of modern physics.

This means that as long as the problem of quantum gravity is not resolved, the problems of modern physics will not be solved. The problems that modern physics does not have answers for, and the physicists believe that it is due to the inability of theories.

Despite such problems, physicists are trying to find an appropriate and convincing response only on the scope of quantum physics and relativity and in this respect need to pay attention to the classical mechanics.

Series of failures exist in some categories of these theories, that prior to their use, they should be clarified and resolved. Regarding on review of Newton's second law in, we have been attempted to enter to the sub-quantum space by crossing the border of quantum mechanics then to survey of counteracting Newton's second law and the universal gravitation law and finally we can be analyzed and investigated the results. In sub-quantum space, we passed across the black hole and reach the formation of the absolute black hole (a new term that has been presented for the first time in astrophysics by the authors) by specifying the limits of Newton's second law and gravitation law, then the singularity will be explained in the explosion of an absolute black hole. In this review we will be forced to change their attitude towards the singularity and the general conclusion in the singularity state is: volume will not be zero, density will be limited.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280491440_Reconsidering_relativistic_Newton%27s_second_law_and_its_results

Article Reconsidering relativistic Newton's second law and its results

Dear Hossein,

thanks for the complementary information. Let me simply add from my side that the problem of the infinity, related to the gravitational singularity that you consider, can be solved since classical theories cannot be applied at very short distances. In fact it is well-known that in the micro-world one must pass to quantum formulations ... Paradoxes often arise when one uses theories without respecting their natural limits. Newton and Einstein gravitational theories are formulated for the macroscopic world only ...

With this respect, please look to  the cosmological problem considered in my paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856. (Example 4.7 and Section 5.)

All the best,

Agostino

Dear Agostino

You have written in you article:

"This could be a very strange situation, taking into account that also the original big-bang should create from nothing the actual Universe. In fact, by using Einstein’s General Relativity, and extrapolating the expansion of the Universe backwards in time, one arrives to an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity can be removed by considering that at microscopic level one should go beyond General Relativity and use quantum-(super)gravity. Really the time of the big-bang can be called the Planck-epoch. But the classic quantum mechanics should foresee a couple universe-antiuniverse, hence the presence of particles and antiparticles, in order to conserve zero vacuum quantum numbers."

The fundamental problem is infinite density.

In addition, there is very good evidence that in the first fraction of a second of the big bang the universe went through a stage of extremely rapid expansion called inflation. The fields responsible for inflation cannot be Standard Model ones.

Kane, G., 2003, the dawn of physics beyond the standard model, Scientific American, vol. 288(6), p.68-75.

I have not seem the solution about inflation problem in your article..

Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang

For long time seemed the Friedmann equation is able to explain universe, but in recent years, the cosmological constant was of interest to cosmologists. However, these two equations are unable to explain before the Big Bang. Thus this paper, from a new approach, turns out to merge the fundamental principles of quantum physics, relativity and classical mechanics through a new definition of rest state of particles like photon, and attempts to present the reasons and the possibilities of the existence of the superluminal speeds. So according to this new view some complex concepts and unanswered questions is explained in this paper.

With Best Regards

Hossein

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279446746_Graviton_and_cosmology_equations_before_the_Big_Bang?ev=prf_pub

Article Graviton and cosmology equations, before the Big Bang

Dear Hossein,

you quote some my words, but do not continue to read my solution of the problem ... This is not correct !

Furthermore, you claim that instead the solution of the problem is in your paper ... I read this and I find some surprising contradictions. You state that you are able to solve the problem by using QM and classical mechanics (GR) in interaction between them. This should be right ! In fact I followed just this road. But where is the noncommutative quantum logic in your solution ?

Sorry but I must insist. Read more carefully my paper.

Agostino

Dear Agostino

What contradictions is in my paper?

There is a series of logical reasoning based on mathematical equations in your paper (according to logical and mathematical point of view), they are quite true.

You said: "... by using Einstein’s General Relativity, and extrapolating the expansion of the Universe backwards in time, one arrives to an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past."

Hawking said: "At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

I agree with Uzair Rizvi, he wrote in a comment: "If expanding universe is the result of all current laws, I believe instead of broken down in singularity they have been summed into one simple equation. The laws are neither broken nor created , as they have simply expanded from one mother equation to another"

I am saying, if the universe collapses, it never reaches to infinite density.

Dear Agostino,

you said in one of your answers: "But the long road of the science does not end there." I agree without reservation.

Dear Hossein, I see serious problems in physics like you. But the main problem is to confide in the old theories.

One of the problems is the following: We have no definiton of particles. Nobody knows, what a particle really is. Founded on this is the practice to invent particles to explain  experiments and observations instead of finding real solutions.

If you see the rest-mass of a real particle as an amount of energy (equivalence of mass and energy), you can declare the inertial mass without Higgs-particle. Otherwise you can define or better invent every particle you want, you will find sometime a particle close by. The higher the energy (for example in an accelerator), the higher the number and the mass of the released different particles. The experiment at the LHC find strangely instead of "quarks" the "Higgs"-particle.

Best Regards

Hans

Dear Hans

You have written: 'But the main problem is to confide in the old theories."

I agree with you, in my opinion, we need to develop old theories.

They have stopped at speed of light (real spacetime) and uncertainty principle.

Physicists are trying to resolve the problems of quantum mechanics by using the principle of uncertainty principle.

Dear Hossein,

your last specification 'I am saying, if the universe collapses, it never reaches to infinite density.' agrees with my point of view, but there is a big difference between my quantum geometrodynamic cosmology and your approach ! ...

Dear Hans,

thanks for your contribution in this discussion.

My best regards.

Agostino

Dear Agostino

"...there is a big difference between my quantum geometrodynamic cosmology and your approach !" Sure, and I will describe aspects of physical phenomena.

Phenomenon of a physical event can be different for different observers. Even the fact of a physical event can be something different from the phenomenon of all observers.

We are not seeing the world out of it. We are a small part of the world that we live in. Also, no picture covers all the landscape, the physical events are not in our minds, and we will process our personal phenomena in mind that usually are far from the reality.

We describe a personal phenomenon, it will bring judgment and the others are compared with the phenomenon itself. In discussion, a common phenomenon will be created that is closer to reality. The history of science shows that even a common human phenomenon isn’t all reality.

Physicists in order to make the joint phenomenon close together and prevent dispersion of votes and results used mathematical models. Therefore physicists used mathematics to describe reality.

Scientific theories do not show the laws of nature, but are our understanding of physical phenomena to explain the nature and closeness of the common phenomena to the dominating rules of nature. So no theory is perfect, even if expressed with mathematical formulas. For example, In quantum electrodynamics (QED) a charged particle emits exchange force particles continuously. This process has no effect on the properties of a charged particle such as its mass and charge. How is it explainable? If a charged particle as a generator has an output known as a virtual photon, what will be its input?

Dear Hossein,

from your last question I understand that you never read my work ! Otherwise you should well understood that your question has a natural answer in the quantum geometrodynamic encoded by the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs (say (YM)). Really your problem is just solved by a balance of quantum energy described by the quantum conservation law of (YM). Please consider that such a balance of energy must be applied taking into account that in quantum interactions we must consider extended particles and nonlinear quantum propagators. Of course you can describe quantum reactions with respect to an observer ... then you must consider the observed (YM)[i], instead of (YM).

I must insist again ... read more carefully my work please.

All the best,

Agostino 

Dear Agostino

Yang-Mills theories, and especially quantum Yang-Mills theories, have many subtle and surprising properties and are still not fully understood, either in terms of their mathematically foundation or in terms of their physical predictions.

http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~houghton/PAPERS/YM.pdf

So, your effort is a great step to develop the Yang-Mills theories, especially your quantum supergravity is an excellent point of view on the graviton.

You have written in you article: "... we can assume also the existence of a massive quantum graviton particle, G′, with respect to a quantum relativistic frame, ..."

You also wrote in introduction of you paper: "Without quantum supergravity, exotic quantum propagators cannot be realized !"

I agree with some of your opinion and disagree with others.

My theory is based on speed and change of speed. While you have not attentioned to speed and the role of speed in physical phenomenon.

Also, I have defined graviton with constant mass, it means graviton has mass (and is not massless particle), so we do not need to define " a massive quantum graviton particle, G′.."

In addition, speed has an especiall role in Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in my theory.

About my last question: "If a charged particle as a generator has an output known as a virtual photon, what will be its input?"

In my theory, energy is "dense field" and mass is "Intensive energy".

So, a charged particle as a generator, compresses gravitons and produces the virtual photons.

Dear Hossein,

unfortunately you talk about 'energy' and 'mass' of quantum particles, but you never defined these concepts ... In fact their precise mathematical definitions can be done only inside a quantum geometrodynamics, as I formulated ...

I am afraid that there is not some possibility to justify your point of view !

However, I think that we have discussed enough in this thread and it is better to stop us here.

My best regards,

Agostino

Dear Agostino

".. In fact their precise mathematical definitions can be done only inside a quantum geometrodynamics, as I formulated ..." I will not disagree with you. Because according to definition of geometrodynamics (geometrodynamics is an attempt to describe spacetime and associated phenomena completely in terms of geometry), I am trying to understand and describe what happens in real and virtual spacetime.

Mass is definable by interactions that is shown in Newton's second law, F=ma. So, I have not needed to define it. About energy, every kind of energy is convertible to electromagnetic energy that I have used the concept of photon for it. A photon is made up of two negative and positive virtual photons.

"I think that we have discussed enough in this thread and it is better to stop us here." Ok, I accept whatever you feel comfortable.

Let me add that I understood of discussion with you and your articles, thank you so much.

Take good care

With Best Regards

Hossein

Dear Amrit

In my opinion, mass and energy are not separable with each other. 

Dear Amrit

Interesting view, thank you for link.

higs boson and the field thereof are just only another trickery of Standard model for camouflaging its inability to describe mother Nature properly. . . . as supersymmetry ,too ,failed . . . Objects have mass simply because there are atoms all in them . . . .. . One wonders why Standard Modellists insist on making every thing much more complicated than it really is . . . .

Standard modeling of atom just is a theory, it never been confirmed to this date.

Also anything in atom is a theory as well, like electron/positron, proton/neutron, Higgs boson....

Atoms are smallest complete unit of our universe...

Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted