Dear Demetris,

the points you mention above are resulting from a complete misconception of the Higgs mechanism in popular science. The Higgs field does not act like friction: a particle with or without mass moves moves without friction in empty space, The Higgs formalism does not explain the existence of mass - the formalism also could be formulated in a manner where the existence of mass requires some Higgs mechanism in order to make the quantum field theoretical description of particle physics consistent. The Higgs field is a scalar field in the sense of relativistic quantum field theory, it does not behave like a fluid in any way. You should be cautious about the term "scalar" in the sense that "scalar" refers to the transformation properties of the Higgs field with respect to the universal cover of the Poincare group as the semidirect product of the spacetime translation group and the double cover SL(2,C) of the proper orthochronous Lorentz group SO⁺(1,3).

Dear Johan,

as far as I remember, the equation E=m*c^2 was introduced firstly by Heaviside before Einstein was born.

Dear Demetris,

there are many beautiful and very logic at first look physical theories which have no relation to real world. Let we will wait for the experimental confirmation (from 3 at least independent sources) of the existence of Higgs boson to discuss it. Or it looks like to discuss certain case of mysticism.

Dear Ekaterina,

I have been waiting many years to see if CERN could find Higgs boson, but since the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics 'was awarded jointly to François Englert and Peter W. Higgs "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider" ', see:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/

then I can discuss about it today!

About Higgs mechanism:

1)"...According to this theory, particles gain mass by interacting with the so-called Higgs field that permeates all space...", more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism

2).1."...The mass (or inertia or resistance to change in motion) of a particle comes from its being “grabbed at” by Higgs particles when we try and move it.",

.2."..There is, however, one very clever and very elegant solution to this problem, a solution first proposed by Peter Higgs. He proposed that the whole of space is permeated by a field, similar in some ways to the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what appears to be mass. This is similar to the action of viscous forces felt by particles moving through any thick liquid. the larger the interaction of the particles with the field, the more mass they appear to have. Thus the existence of this field is essential in Higg’s hypothesis for the production of the mass of particles."

...

more here:

http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/higgs-boson-one-page-explanation/

So, Higgs field fills all the space!

Then, what is the difference with Aether?

The fact of the opening of something does not mean anything . If you look historically at the physics, it turns out that many discoveries were made of things which do not actually exist. These are amendments that they are imprecise . For example , the theory of relativity, Einstein moved the Newtonian physics . Newtonian physics works, but it is not as accurate as you think. So maybe look at these discoveries will change over time .In applied science is hardly a discovery lead to something . Usually applied discoveries happen by accident. Do you have some theoretical postulates , in any way related to each other is not , and you happen to discover any effect , linking these three postulates , you open an unexpected connection between them and the method of applying it. It is an empirical way , sometimes directed experimental , sometimes by accident experimentally , and then here , these calculations can be applied to each other

More details about Higgs boson, taken from Advanced Information here:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/advanced-physicsprize2013.pdf

6/26:"...The question of how general the conclusion above is, was taken up in a subsequent paper by

Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg (Nobel Prize to the two together with Glashow, 1979),

together with Goldstone [31]. They showed under very general assumptions that in a Lorentz

invariant theory a spontaneous breaking of a symmetry necessitates a massless particle in the

spectrum. This came to be called Goldstone’s theorem."

[We have a great discussion about invariant theories here.]

8/26:"...The solution to the problem of having a relativistic gauge invariant theory with a massive vector

particle and hence a force with short range came in the summer of 1964, first in a paper by

François Englert and Robert Brout and a month later in two papers by Peter Higgs.

"

[Notice the force in short range]

9/26:"...The analysis was performed at the linear level but it was clear that it could be

augmented with non-linear terms. "

[All curerent science is built in the linear level!]

12/26:"...The experimental results also showed remarkable scaling properties in the

asymptotic limit proving earlier theoretical results of James Bjorken [52]. The idea now was to

understand how a physical theory could include scaling, and in 1970 Kurt Symanzik [53] argued

that only theories where the effective coupling constant goes to zero when the energy goes to

infinity could have this property. The theory should be “asymptotically free”. Few believed that

an ordinary quantum field theory could have this property."

[When we hear about asymptotically something we have to be carefull...]

13/26:" ...The vacuum expectation value v for the

gauge field of the Higgs particle is, on the other hand, fixed within the Standard Model by the

experimentally determined Fermi constant GF :..." (about 246 GeV/c^2)

[So vacuum is not so vacuum, is it another name of Aether?]

And 'all the money' is the attached Fig5 of Page19/26.

To be continued...

And 'all the money' is the attached Fig5 of Page19/26.

Some additional remarks:

1)We cannot deconstruct Quantum Field Theory since it has been proved an accurate one

2)The 'billiard-Physics' (I hit you with a ball - boson W,Z, etc- in order to act a force to you), does not satisfy my aesthetic criteria. I' d probably want something else, but it is another topic

3)Higgs boson must be apparent to every point, since it gives mass by a short term interaction to every potential rising particle, so Higgs field is similar o ancient Aether

4)Quantum vacuum has energy for the state |0> and is present in entire space, so (quantum vacuum Higgs field) could be the modern Aether

5)We can add to the Lagrangian every term that we assume to describe a phenomenon: this convention has reached its limits with the Higgs boson

6)Symmetry broken is another way for inventing new particles: there exist also limits

7)Since our local universe is strictly discrete, ie there exist not a space-distance less than Planck length (Lp), we cannot use differentiation with respect to space-coordinates, so all our building collapse down for d

Dear Johan, your comments are based on mathematical foundations. I' d like from you to point out some experiments in order to find situations where this lack of a 4d manifold definition could be obvious. It would be interesting to suggest to the scientific community:

Do this kind of experiment, you have to find these results and are all contradictory to the existence of the above 4d manifold.

Dear Johan, I read your work entitled 'Causality and Relativity in Quantum Physics' and I found it very promising. Somebody could agree with you that particles are merely holistic wave beings where there exists absence of time for their inertial frame. But in order to resolve the problem of infinite volume energy for the electric field of electron you introduce a fourth dimension (plus in order to make a 4d Euclidean space - R^4). This solution is a hard one. Probably you have to take a look at superstring theories, where also exist 3x3 = 9 1 (time) dimensions. Another aspect is the problem that almost all predicted 'particles' (or excited states of electron according to you or excited chords according to superstring theory) have been detected at CERN. We cannot drop out the successful history of CERN! Thus, if we accept your logic, then we can also accept the logic of initial chords fulfilling all our local universe (we agree on the relativity of our universe, although starting from different initial points of view) and thus indicating us the short way to explore 'our' universe. A natural explanation about electron and positron could also be the twin creation of them or if we accept your interpretation the twin existence of them: one in the 3d manifold and the other hidden in the 4th dimension. But, again, all colors of quarks have been detected! Is this a matter of the multi-way our local universe allows us to explain it? Personally I tend to accept wave-like theories and not 'billiard-like-theories' (In order to interfere with you I hit you with a ball like W,Z and other bosons).

But, why such a multi-explanatory set of theories?

Dear Johan,

1)"What inifinite volume energy?"--> I am writing about next quote,

"When a stationary electron with charge –e and another stationary charge q are a distance r apart, the force F exerted by the electron on the charge q is given by Coulomb’s inverse square law. According to the concept of fields it is reasoned that there exists at all times an electric field E around the electron so that when placing a charge q at any position from the electron, a force qE F= acts on it. According to Maxwell’s equations an electric field has energy and this energy can be calculated at every point in the field from the square of the field strength E^2 at that point. When doing this calculation for a solitary electron, and integrating over all the points surrounding it in order to calculate the total field-energy around an electron, the energy obtained is an infinite amount. The only way to make it finite is to give the electron a substantial radius; but, as discussed by Feynman [8] even more serious problems then arise. " [Page 30/51].

2) As for Standard Model I shall be waiting for strong arguments, although my scientific aesthetics guides me to a more wave-chord-like local universe.

I think you have pointed out many foundamental misunderstoods of modern Physics and I want to keep improving your arguments.

With best regards,

Demetris

Dear All

I am agreed with comments and answers. Really, It is very much interesting. The Higgs boson has a great pleasure in itself.

Dear Johan, one of your basic arguments, I think, it is the nonlinearity of {x,y,z,t} 'coordinates' since Vx=dx/dt,Vy=dy/dt,Vz=dz/dt are the components of the velocityV(x,y,z,t) at the relevant inertial frame. At any formal 3d coordinate system we can also define dy/dx, dz/dx, dz/dy etc. So, what is the difference according to your view?

Dear Johan, I wrote about next quote of page 41/51 from section 17.1:

"...The latter deduction makes perfect mathematical sense. In a Euclidean space the coordinates along the axes are linearly independent; i.e. differentiating any one of them with another gives a zero result. Thus, if time exists along an axis which is perpendicular to three-dimensional space, one will not be able to differentiate any space coordinate with time in order to calculate a velocity; i.e. kinetics will not be possible! If kinetics is not possible within four-dimensional Euclidean space, it implies that such a space can also not manifest either temperature or entropy; i.e. it manifests “perfect order” and immediate connectivity. .."

Dear Johan, the quote is from your work entitled: "Causality and Relativity in Quantum Physics" which I found under your publications in your RG profile page. I don' t know if that view was an earlier one which now have been revised, that was the reason why I asked you about. Another aspect is this: Since always (ie for every t and t') holds that x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2=0 and x'^2+y'^2+z'^2-(ct')^2=0, what is the problem of equating the left hand sight of the above equations?

Dear Johan,

you wrote:"This is impossible to prove. How are you going to prove that the Higgs field gives "particles" mass. To do this you have to switch off this field and then weigh the "particles". Can you devise an experiment which can achieve the latter?...".

When I was a student, one explained us the "first axioma":

"If a phenomenon can not be observed directly or indirectly by any physical device, this phenomenon does not exist physically (in the nature)".

If the Higgs boson isn't observable, this is like hidden parameter --- or only theoretically useful trick, or just useless, but in any case not a real object but the subject of somebody else's mind what is not so interesting. Only real nature is interesting. As for fantasies --- I prefer the Fantasies on a Theme of Paganini.

only the elementary particles (light-particles, electrons and quarks), particles without any known substructure, get their mass solely from the interaction with the Higgs field.

Composite particles (like the proton made out of quarks) also get mass from other sources of internal energy: the velocities and interactions of the particles they contain.

It is also important to remark that once light-particles obtain mass through the Higgs field (the original motivation for the Higgs field), it is no longer permitted to add direct mass-terms to the equations for the other elementary particles, like in the electromagnetic theory. Once mass is given to the light-particles via the Higgs field, all elementary (point) particles have to obtain mass through the Higgs field. This shows how subtle the union of the electromagnetic and weak force, now called the electroweak force, has been constructed.

Everything in nature strives for a lowest possible energy (that is why things fall on the ground). Also the Higgs field went through this phase. The original energy of the Higgs field was like a pen that on a table has been put on its tip. Just like a random fluctuation will make the pen fall down, the Higgs field has evolved by chance towards a lowest but non-zero energy level when the universe cooled down. This is called spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Relating the formulas to the lowest value of the Higgs field, leads to all kinds of relations between the parameters in the electroweak theory and a large number of these have by now been confirmed experimentally (for a pen this leads to the relation that after falling down the pen is always at a right angle relative to its original upright position before falling down). This is called the Higgs mechanism.

PLEASE READ MUCH MORE BY GIVEN WEB LINK:-

http://www.higgsboson.nl/

Respected John

Yes, In real one can not achived it directly, only trying to hints some fingure prints only.

Probably we have to open a new discussion about Billiard-Physics, ie Physics where all interactions are implemented via intermediate particles like the bosons W, Z, now Higgs H etc. Actually the thread is here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_about_Billiard-Physics

If we see the genesis of Higgs boson we see that actually it has borned as an extra term in the lagrangian density L. So, if we have a problem, then we can add with a tricky way a proper term to the relevant L and define a new particle. Probably this creation scheme has reached its limitations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pi1EE8nutc&feature=player_embedded

Http://www.squidoo.com/aether-vs-higgs-field

So, I have a suggestion to all who are interested in:

Let us add one more proper term at the typical Lagrangian density of quantum field theory. The term has to be Lorentz invariant, as simpler as it can be and of course you may leave your artificial sense to create what you would like. Due to the fact that every such term in L is represented by a particle, then we will demand to build the CERN version 2.0 in order to find a resonance indicating its existence, after has spending more than $bn 20 and more than 10 years...

By the way, the dotted line in Figure 5 (left part) that is given in Advanced Information of the Nobel Prize:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2013/advanced-physicsprize2013.pdf

at Page 19/26 is produced by a 4th order polynomial interpolation.

The ironic complication of accepting the Higgs boson discovery is this: After a century and more of getting rid of a 'medium', we are again introducing a more peculiar medium, ie a field everywhere present which gives mass to a particle by hitting it...

As shown in a very nice paper by one of the best theoretical physicists after Einstein [A. K. T. Assis, "On Mach’s principle", Foundations of Physics Letters 2, 301 (1989)], see also his book "Relational Mechanics", the origin of inertial mass of particles and systems can be explained, without inconsistencies and any boson, with a Weber-like gravitational force (which depends on velocity and acceleration) and taking into account the gravitational action of the distant stars (i.e., the rest of universe) on the body. Unfortunately, this line of research is not well-known to most people in Europe (except Germans).

Sincerely,

Dr. Fabio M. S. Lima

[email protected]

Dear Fabio,

I invited prof. Assis to the RG and our discussion. Thank you that you mentioned his work.

Special relativity and quantum field theory are based on inertial reference frames without considering the effect of gravitational field, but in reality the only valid inertial reference frame is a perfect vacuum infinitely far away from any gravitational field. The g-factor experiment result can not be perfectly predicted by the quantum field theory, because the earth ground reference frame with a close to constant gravitational potential is not a perfect vacuum reference frame with zero gravitational potential. Special relativity or quantum field theory is really specially restricted to this preferred reference frame, no matter it is called Aether, Higgs fields or a perfect vacuum in my cosmological model.

And of course dear Guoliang, Earth is moving around Sun, which is moving around the centre of Milky Way, which is moving towards Andromeda, while both of them are moving as Local Cluster towards or away another Local Cluster in a seemingly expanding universe and so on. Thus there is not such a "perfect vacuum infinitely far away from any gravitational field" and our theories are just approximations, based on heroic assumptions!

Dear Demetris,

I have proposed a cosmological model to prove that the universe is stable. Big Bang or expanding universe is ruled out, so a perfect vacuum is coming back.

Dear Guoliang,

1)Your assumption:

"Since the frequency of light will not change during its propagation through different mediums, so I assume that the frequency of a photon will not change when it travels in a gravitational field, and of course I have to assume that all of our measurements are referring to a clock sitting in the universal flat space-time reference frame which is sitting infinitely far away from any gravitational fields. "

is, by my opinion, very weak and you have to re-examine it.

2)Also, how did you intuitively end up with the proposal of photon=couple of neutrinos?

3)Can you give an exact definition of what is the vacuum?

Dear Demetris,

1)Thank you for your advice, but I have thought this over for more than twenty years.

2)Because I propose that magnetic flux essentially is neutrino flux, and a photon contains magnetic flux, so a photon with one spin should contain a pair of neutrinos with half spin.

3)I will follow the definition of vacuum in quantum field theory, but will modify it by using functions of the gravitational potential derived from my assumptions. Overall the vacuum is the universe or the flat space-time itself.

Article Functions of the Gravitational Potential

Dear @Demetris, have you seen this! World record! 

"A scientific paper published in Physical Review Letters, one of the most prestigious journals in the field of physics, has set a new record for the number of co-authors it sports.

Out of 33 pages in the article, 24 list names of 5,154 authors and affiliations, leaving only 9 pages to the research and references, Nature reported.

The paper presents a measurement of the Higgs boson mass with 0.2% precision based on the combined data samples from ATLAS and CMS – two of the seven particle detector experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at Switzerland-based CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) with the largest particle physics laboratory in the world.

In fact, looking at the experiments and collaboration involved, it is not surprising why the list of authors is so long.

The website of ATLAS describes the experiment as a virtual United Nations of 38 countries as it involves 3,000 physicists, from 177 universities and laboratories, “working together in harmony” “in this troubled world”."

http://www.miragenews.com/scientific-paper-sets-new-record-with-5154-authors/

Dear Ljubomir, the free version of the article is here:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07589

Statistics is "maximization of profile likelihood ratios..."

I have not read it thoroughly, have you?

I will do it dear @Demetris, I have not done yet! Thanks for the link!