The Nobel Price went to Francois Englert and Peter Higgs 2013 for their theory about a way within quantum field physics to allow for a "broken symmetry" that could introduce a new field, with which particles could interact to get mass,s equivalent with inertia.
Annotations after reading (and not understanding much of it) 2 articles (in Physical Review 1964-65) by P. Higgs and two books about Higgs' particle:
- Sean Caroll: The particle at the end of Universe, 2012 [SC],
- Leon Lederman: with Dick Teresi: The God Particle. If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? 1993 [LL].
The physicists seem really trapped in their hunt for "Symmetry" - symmetries, some only approximate, of different kinds ("local"," global", "gauge" and other terms they use), which makes their papers a mess for the not initiated —
like talk of Latin priests during medieval times. It seems that the interpreters themselves have big difficulties to understand the theories and express these in words. Englert and Higgs seem to have found just a loophole in the law of an earlier theory with its demand for symmetry.
Symmetry seems to mean that things are alike and at bottom everything should be alike, i.e. the same. In super symmetry theories also particles with mass and carriers of forces should be the same particles. The physicists state for instance an identity between electrons and neutrinos - under the condition that they didn't had different masses (!) and sometimes also neglect the difference between charged and not charged particles. This makes them seem a bit helpless in their hunt for symmetry- as searching for the Unity "the other way around", i. e., from anticenter, the 00-pole, inwards. A unity corresponding to the Entirety of d-degree 5 in the model here.
(Apart from that, is symmetry of a circle or a square the most beautiful? What about the golden section?)
Departing from the Big Bang theory it seems more natural to regard the first disunion expressed in the relation center - anticenter. This polarity and first step 5 → 4 with poles 0 --- 00 gives the basis for asymmetry in our model .(Welcome out!)
Cf. how the physicists, after a lot of struggle with different symmetries, introduce a "symmetry breaking" through a "relation to the environment" [SC].
Complementarity as a fundamental principle seems to be a more natural consequence of Big Bang and following polarizations and processes of "disunion",
Center displacement becomes one essential concept in the model here - and it seems to lie behind the mathematicians' differentiation of "local" versus "global symmetries".
For simple-minded non-mathematicians it's easy to note that symmetry axes as mirror planes in circles or squares passes through the center, as well as in bilateral symmetry. (Cf. 5-4-3-merous plants (p. 1).
No such symmetry, however, appears to exist between vectors inwards - outwards to <—> from a center like the acceleration forces FA for outward accelerating Space and FG, gravitation.
2. A new field 'up there' — representing a "potential energy":
The Englert - Higgs new field 'up' or 'out there' represents an anticenter in our terms in relation to 0 as center. Hence, it sounds not too curious that it has a resting value of positive energy (246 GeV), not Zero (0) as some other, more well-known fields.
The new field is described also as "a reference frame for potential energy".
A natural first question is what this 'height' stands for. What gave it this rest energy? Regarded as a roof or a top flat, it should be the bearing walls of the flat below. Reasonably we could suspect it to be some expression for the original, divergent FA-force, mostly dismissed in these books, if not indirectly dealt with through the weak interaction force.
Another question concerns the curiously exact value of its energy, 246 GeV. (It corresponds to the mass of about 262 protons, a bit higher than a Uranium atom, if binding energy should be neglected).
What does this value represent? It's a measure in mass units, the same used for mass of fermions as protons etc., but the field isn't attributed mass in itself (if rightly understood).
Could it represent the very distance from a first center in units of Time or Space, not only in energy? Or be connected with the reach of strong interaction? Could it be a value resembling the value of background radiation from Big Bang in Universe, said to be about 2,73o Kelvin? Be translated somehow into units of temperature in a cooling Universe? (The calculations behind the theory include perhaps the answer?)
A third thing to observe is the reference to the concept "potential" energy. On Earth we usually connect it with heights and Gravity, a built-in, bound energy, not yet released by this force into motion, i.e., into kinetic energy, the opposite concept.
3. Gravity - Heaviness - Inertia:
The property mass is defined in terms of inertia.
One metaphor used by physicists [SC}] and in TV-programs to describe the Higgs field is the passing of famous persons through a public; its strong attention like a Higgs field makes the passing of famous persons slow through much interaction with the public; they get mass equivalent with inertia. While unknown persons may pass through more or less "in the speed of light"
However, how did the famous persons like particles become famous? What makes so-called "heavy names" in organizations "heavy"? The stories don't tell it. With this metaphor it may sound as if the heavy particles themselves created the public's attention, i.e., the Higgs field or at least activated it, lining it up in some order? (Probably an addiction to the metaphor?)
We can note that the famous persons in the metaphor get mass through slowing down their velocity * when passing the public and interacting with it.
With Mass identified as the amount of energy encapsulated in an object at rest (one of the definition in the books), it includes a potential energy which we could identify as velocity being built-in into internal structural elements towards higher d-degrees in our model. Or regarding it in the opposite direction, towards lower d-degrees: the potential energy not yet released into external motions.
* This aspect of passing slow, braking a velocity, reminds of the original idea behind the model here of Charge as such a property, a motional energy being built-in into structure. Charge, however, presumed here as a 2-dimensional property. Still one (quantized) brake could lead to Mass as 3-dimensional?
(Cf. p.4 below.)
If the famous persons passing the room in the metaphor are attributed some heaviness as "heavy names" in some organization, how did they get it? Heaviness includes mass but refers also to acceleration, a property from Gravity, carelessly said to have nothing to do with mass. (Gravity is at least calculated as a product of masses divided by the square of the radius.) But the gravity force effects both massive and massless particles like photons of light (Einstein) *, and massive and holy balls fall equally fast to the ground (Galileo). Hence, Gravity can be interpreted as a more general force. This could be an argument for seeing the Gravity force as preceding the Mass property, a deeper one of higher d-degree as suggested in the model here. (An analysis in the opposite direction, inwards higher d-degrees, may perhaps give Mass before Gravity.)
Gravity is a vector field while Higgs field is a scalar one.
The vector character of the Gravity field gets lost in the Mass property as in a d-degree step 4 → 3. Gravity curves the network of 4-dimensional "Space-time", or "heavy" masses do.
It seems as if the physicists regard forces as secondary to mass, forces equal to "interaction", "connections", "exchange" of particles as "vibrations" in the field, hence, like people exchanging words with each other. (Cf. the names strong and weak interaction on the forces Fst and Fw.) It's said too that it is the strength of this interaction that decides the mass if particles. Obviously these forces are internal factors of mass, built-in components. Thus, even with this description it seems that forces represent a deeper level and precede mass.
*Why isn't Gravity included in quantum mechanics or in the Standard model? It seems that it just appears in a derived form, the one of the attraction factor in the electromagnetic force, in which physicists have found moments of both attraction and repulsion.
However, since mass is defined also as the amount of energy needed to push or pull a body, i. e., one from outside applied force. Then the inertia of the body to move should be possible to interpret as the created anti-force, a single, gathered one from Mass as such. In this sense even Mass at rest is a potential force if provoked or activated.
(Cf. Newton, forces and anti-forces.)
Mass occupies space, forces not according to the physicists' strict rules. But what creates Space - and Time - if not the FA-force at Big Bang - with Gravity FG born as complementary anti-force! The polarity Vacant Space versus Mass in our model becomes a secondary complementarity.
4. Geometries: vertical - horizontal:
In one metaphor for Higgs field [SC] we shall first imagine a pendulum hanging from the ceiling, stable when it points vertically downwards. Then imagine the same pendulum fixed on the floor, raised vertically upwards: a very unstable position, which makes it fall "left or right" to an asymmetric position on the floor, horizontally. The latter case should illustrate the Higgs' field.
The geometrical step from an anti-parallel polarity (of 180o) to a transverse, perpendicular one (of 90o) in this metaphor corresponds roughly to the same geometrical change through d-degree step 4 →
3 in our model. (That's why one could associate to a 3-dimensional loom if such exist, where 2-dimensional layers of weave get bound together by a 3rd, transverse web.)
However, regarding the metaphor as illustrating both poles (FA and FG in d-degree 4 and Vacant Space <←→> Mass in d-degree 3), ceiling and floor should somehow change positions to be more like the model here: the upper pendulum stretched out along the ceiling (anticenter) in rest (~ pole 3a, circular), the lower one from floor as a center still pointing upwards (as pole 3b, radial).
Alternatively, the metaphor of a pendulum, first from the ceiling, then from the floor, may be regarded as only illustrating one "pole" in our model: Gravity as inward = downward direction of d-degree 4a, then changing to a horizontal or transverse geometry when transformed to Mass, one pole of d-degree 3.
Higgs field is treated as a new (mathematically invented or discovered) field, and perhaps it's easier to imagine it as a 3rd field, even if it somehow would be a derivation from Gravity, a heir of Gravity and FA according to the model here.
5. Numbers 4 → 3 + 1:
There is the funny similarity with our model too in these very numbers, 4 → 3 + 1, since Higgs field is said to be derived from 4 scalar fields into 3 + 1 fields. There the similarity stops.
In our model the 1 d-degree as debranched in a step towards lower d-degrees should imply a release of an internal structural element to external kinetic energy, representing a step 1 → 0/00, expressed in external motion (as spin or a factor in rotation), - or in opposite direction 1 degree built-in to structure on the way "inwards" to higher d-degrees.
In the physicists' description the 3 scalar fields "get eaten" by the vector fields of the weak interaction force Fw, with its massive and charged W-bosons and Zo. The one (1) left remains scalar (or becomes scalar again?) and makes up the Higgs field.
Without competence to understand this description it may nevertheless give a couple of associations to the model here:
The physical property defined in first d-degree step 5 → 4 in our model is suggested as only "Density". It could be assumed as scalar fields (or gradients). The scalar type could eventually also be attributed to d-degree 4 when still unpolarized and first appear as vector fields, equivalent with forces, when polarized?
Further, the 00-pole of d-degree 4, representing inward direction from anticenter, may (as in a "haploid" dimension chain) be seen as meeting "the other way around" in the loop version, of the dimension chain, figure below. from the end of the dimension chain inwards towards higher d-degrees.
D-degree 4 may include one step 4 → 3 and "the other way around give 1 degree (or field!) as debranched.
Fig H-1: "Loop" version of a 5-dimensional chain
If we identify the 1 degree debranched in step 4 → 3, we could this way get an idea of its brakes in velocity and of the intense interactions (motions, d-degree 0/00) at last step in the chain that gives mass..(First however charge!?
The relation between Higgs field and the weak interaction force Fw seems curious and are hardly made clear in the books. However, in a dimension chain of forces in our model the d-degree step 1← 0/00 is assumed to represent one branch (neutrinos) of Fw, the other branch of this expressed in step 5 → 4 (anti-neutrinos). Perhaps the figure then could give a hint of that relation. (?)
The physicists' description of the step from 4 to 3 + 1 fields resembles in some way the oogenesis as polarizing steps in female flowers at a certain stage: a relation between what becomes the ovum, the egg, and the 3 other cells, which become the polar bodies, (fertilized triploid), and develops to endosperm and nourishment for the egg. If such an association could tell the physicists something interesting is an open question.
Fig H-2: Oogenesis in flowers
6. Fw, the force of weak interaction:
A main example of the weak force is the decay (or polarization) of a neutron outside an atomic nucleus into a proton plus an electron plus an anti-neutrino:
n → p + e + anti-v.
The bosons of Fw that makes the standard model look so ugly, were first invented by physicists of pure fear of an infinity. Their calculations gave the electron "infinite mass" at high energies. * To avoid this mathematical monster they invented the W- and Z-particles as a kind of intermediaries (and later found them as they always a bit suspiciously seem to find the particles they look for).
*(Since mass now is described as a measure of the strength in which particles 'interact with' the Higgs field, what should an infinite interaction = mass imply? Just identity - ! - with the Higgs field or with one field line in it? Cf. our redefinition of "infinity" as anticenter, a postulate.
Decades ago it was told that a body got infinite mass in the velocity of light and further lost its depth dimension, became a surface, one kind of infinity..
These W- and Z-particles are 1) bosons, i.e., carriers of a force, 2) further massive, while other bosons are regarded as massless, and 3) furthermore charged, the W+/W- ones. Z not.
In our model here it would imply properties from both d-degree 4, 3 and 2. Perhaps it would be possible to interpret these particles as representations of the main axis along the dimension chain from step 5 → 4 to step 1 ←
; 0/00? However, since the FA-force is dismissed, it would be only part of a truth, the bosons W and Z only to regard as daughters to the FA-force at Big Bang (?) when Space was created, combined with an inheritance from Gravity?
In the chain of forces here the electromagnetic force is proposed defined in d-degree step 3 2, and physicists have found a connection in terms of the "electroweak" force.
Fw as well as Higgs field implies a "broken symmetry", since parity is lost at weak interaction. When e.g. pions decay into myons, these are mostly emitted in one direction along an axis of type "left - right". For anti-particles, however, the direction is said to be the opposite. It sounds at least that if we included the polarity matter - real antimatter, it could maintain a parity, one of a deeper kind. (E = -/+ mc2.).
Such a deeper parity may need two mirroring steps to appear, "vertically and horizontally" with reference to figure M-1 in x1-file
Fig H-3: Two mirroring steps to real anti-matter
If this view have sense it could be an argument for identifying Fw as a deep force from d-degree 5 to 4 or derived from this step that breaks a symmetry.
There is no symmetry between a force of divergence and one of convergence.
(There is talk about protons and neutrons as "approximately" symmetric, but at the same time assumed that a change n → p implies a turn from an up-quark of +2/3 to a down-quark of -1/3: Where the similarity, not in charge, nor even in mass, so all this talk about symmetries seems open for a certain mistrust.)
7. Higgs bosons and field filling Space"?
Higgs boson is a scalar one with spin 0, as if the spin 2 of Gravity had been polarized into -/+1:
(-1) → origin ← (+1); difference 2, sum 0. Cf. the pion →←
Mass of Higgs boson is said to be circa 125 GeV, (125.09 ?/- 0.24 GeV), hence about half of the potential energy of Higgs field itself (246 GeV).
It's said that Higgs field should fill the whole "vacant space". The same is often thought about neutrinos of the weak interaction force Fw. It may give an idea of Space filled with bubbles created through divergence and convergence as in two sine waves, figure H-4 below or sooner one plus its reflection and somehow expressions for Fw and Higgs field, ultimately from the fundamental forces FA and FG?
Fig H-4: Bubbles of Higgs bosons and neutrinos in Space?
Higgs bosons can "decay" (what a word for these processes!) into some set of massless photons according to the descriptions, photons connected with sine waves.
8. Why fixed masses?
It's underlined in the books that the Englert-Higgs theory, now regarded as proved, doesn't give any answer of why particles with mass have their fixed rest masses.
We have the transverse relation of their field in relation to other phenomena and somehow the fermions could resemble notes with their stems on a music paper: Massless bosons imagined darting away along and between the lines, massive particles more or less from the transverse direction being caught by the field lines or strings of different thickness?! (Cf. longer or shorter jumps of electrons between orbitals in atoms?)
(Could eventually a quantized angle of steradians of the "transverse" relation be included in this quantum field theory?)
Mass is described as a measure of the strength of interaction with the Higgs field.
Which activities does this "interaction" imply? If we try to compare Higgs field with the global banking system of today that penetrates the whole world, with an immense lot of money representing only potential values, with a lot of shadow departments and only abstract figures in its computers, how can saving and borrowing particles keep their fixed masses? A robotized stock trading? It isn't easy to understand this business.
Anyhow, quite another theory is obviously needed to explain the fixed rest masses of particles.
An imaginative view on masses of the Higgs, W- and -Z-bosons in GeV, approximate numbers:
Higgs boson from a scalar field, Fw-bosons from vector fields:
Fig H-5: Bosons in GeV
9. Reach and strength of forces:
Counting on 4 forces the established way, two of these have a long or infinite reach, gravity FG and the electromagnetic one FEM, two are usually attributed a short reach, the strong and weak interaction forces (Fst and Fw). It would express the kind of polarity 00 <←→> 0 in reach according to the model here and correspond to macrocosm versus microcosm. Approximately also corresponding to forces from higher d-degrees versus lower ones in the files here about forces. One pair inwards as FG → Fst, one more or less outwards, Fw → FEM.
A question mark for Fw: there is the presumption among physicists that neutrinos of Fw should be responsible for Big Bang itself (would rather be FA). If so, at least one branch of this Fw-force seems possible to attribute a very long range if not passed on to its companion FEM in the electroweak force. (?)
About the strength of forces, it's mentioned that the strong force is weaker near center, the target of the vector arrow, with growing strength further out. Thus, with Gravity very weak in atomic microcosm, both these inward directed forces should have their source of strength at the starting point of the arrows, at anticenter, the 00-pole (primary and secondary?) in our model. Similarly, the source of strength of the outward directed forces should be the opposite pole, the center or 0-pole - at least for one branch of Fw and the electric component in the electromagnetic force.
The Standard Model - some notes
All the particles in the standard model with some "braking symmetry" are just too many in number and character to satisfy anyone, if not some of the particle physicists themselves. Others not.
One may think, however, that this building in some way resembles a simple 3-dimensional coordinate system in numbers, with 3 axes, yet with different thickness, thin, medium and thick for the three 3 "families" * of quanta.
* Families eventually to regard as representing d-degrees 4, 3 and 2 (y-x-z-axes?) in a secondary dimension chain developed within step 4 →3, using the model on this site...
There are 6 outer poles as the 3 pairs of quarks (for fermions); there are 6 half axes, to identify with the 3 pairs of leptons, neutrinos-electrons. (Cf. factor 3 and first 3 cleavages of an egg in embryonic development.)
And there are 8 space quadrants - or 8 lines connecting the 6 poles - for the 8 assumed gluons of the strong force.
Fig H-6: Standard Model numbers in an x-y-z-system
With signs minus - plus on half axes and directions outwards - inwards in relation to the origin we get many different combinations, for instance one of the 3 planes combined with one pole of the third axis.
Perhaps we could imagine 3 half axes combined to the massive bosons of weak interaction with their anti-particles in the diagonally opposite space quadrant - or something like that? And there will be an ambiguous relation between massless gluons and mass as representing one quadrant. (The binding energy of massless gluons said to make up most of the mass of protons!)
Perhaps we also could imagine a polarization between half axes in relation to the origin to illustrate the birth of motions, like the phase displacement between electric and magnetic components in a light beam.
(Cf. spiral cleavage in certain type of embryos.)
Fig H-7: Displacement along different axes
Now those physicists who love all particles are hoping for many new ones, even what is called "vacuons" and "zeroes" - particles (!) of Vacant Space - which somehow should become a bit less zero further out. It sounds as if they are on the track to find FA, the complementary pole to Gravity in the simple model here.
Physics began with 3-dimensional bodies, then, with a short digression into the 4-dimensional space-time, went on to 2-dimensional waves and 1-dimensional strings, and now arrive to 0-dimensional things - where they probably will meet Gravity and the monster of infinity once again?