More on the Higgs Bosun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (I think).

A computer-generated image of a Higgs interaction

“The Higgs boson (or Higgs particle) is a particle that gives mass to other particles. “

What do they actually mean by this statement? To detect any particle, that particle must have mass already. All particles have mass, they don’t need another particle. This whole argument stems from the fact that physicists don’t understand what mass is, they don’t understand what gravity is, they don’t understand what electricity is, they don’t understand what light is and , in general, they don’t seem to understand anything about physics. See “What Gravity is and What Causes It”, which gives a preliminary insight into both mass and gravity.

Brian

“Peter Higgs was the first person to think of it, and the particle was found in March 2013. It is part of the Standard Model in physics, which means it is found everywhere. It is one of the 17 particles in the Standard Model. P”

“The Higgs particle is a boson. Bosons are particles responsible for all physical forces except gravity. “

There are only two types of atomic force: A force of attraction and a force of repulsion.

The force of attraction is the nuclear force that includes both gravity and magnetism.

The force of repulsion is that between electrons.

Note; The repulsion force between electrons only operates between electrons, it does not operate between nuclei and electrons, there is a mutual attraction.

Brian.

Other bosons are the photon, the W and Z bosons, and the gluon. Scientists do not yet know how to combine gravity with the Standard Model.

There are no such things as photons. Photons are relatively slow speed electrons.

“It is very difficult to detect the Higgs boson with the equipment and technology we have now. These particles are believed to exist for less than a septillionth of a second. Because the Higgs boson has so much mass (compared to other particles), it takes a lot of energy to create one. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is the equipment scientists used to find it. The collider has enough energy that it is able to make Higgs bosons. When you smash particles together, there is a small chance a Higgs Boson will appear, so the Large Hadron Collider smashed lots of particles together to find it.”

See “How physicist ‘find’ their particles.”

“Higgs bosons obey the conservation of energy law, which states that no energy is created or destroyed, but instead it is transferred. First, the energy starts out in the gauge boson that interacts with the Higgs field. This energy is in the form of kinetic energy as movement. After the gauge boson interacts with the Higgs field, it is slowed down. This slowing reduces the amount of kinetic energy in the gauge boson. However, this energy is not destroyed. Instead, the energy is converted into mass-energy, which is normal mass that comes from energy.

This is based (as stated below) on Einstein’s incompetent mathematics relating to the Mickelson-Morley experiment. Because of the complete lack of understanding of mechanics by the physics establishment, (this was a mechanical experiment, subject to the universal laws of mechanics and the rules of mathematics), they did not understand the results of the experiment, which was not what they expected. The results obtained were exactly in accordance with the laws of mechanics and the rules of mathematics. The physics estrablishment refused to accept this fact. Einstein fiddled the mathematics to suit the result the physicists expected and wanted.

Brian.

“The mass created is what we call a Higgs boson. The amount of mass created comes from Einstein‘s famous equation E=mc², which states that mass is equal to a large amount of energy (i.e. 1 kg of mass is equivalent to almost 90 quadrillion joules of energy—the same amount of energy used by the entire world in roughly an hour and a quarter in 2008). Since the amount of mass-energy created by the Higgs field is equal to the amount of kinetic-energy that the gauge boson lost by being slowed, energy is conserved.”

Note; The Michelson-Morley experiment was expected (By the physicists) to show a time difference between two light beams travelling different paths. No time differences were found. The physicists therefore decided that light must travel at a constant speed and therefore the speed of light must be a constant. E=mc² is derived from the standard mechanics formula for moving bodies E = mv ²,

Unfortunately, by making c² into a constant and using in all sorts of silly unproven formula they come up with daft statements like “1 kilo of mass is the equivalent of 90 quadrillion joules of energy”. IF the 1kilo was travelling at 300,000 x the speed of light its energy due to its MOMENTUM would probably light more than a few houses. The energy would be entirely due to its velocity. The energy of the 1 kilo, whilst sat on your desk, would depend on what the material was.

Note;  Mass (m) is a real item (Primary Quantity). Velocity (v) is a real item (Secondary Quantity, composed of two Primary Quantities, distance and time.).    However, v² is an irrational quantity i.e. it has no reality, it is only a mathematical concept. You cannot (in reality) multiply time x time.  A real quantity times an irrational quantity =  (E) an irrational quantity.

Like most mathematics you must consider the logic of what you are doing. Energy is a mathematical concept, momentum is an actuality. (See “Understanding Momentum”).

I have never found a full study on the the mechanics and mathematics of the Michelson- Morley experiment from the physics establishment. For this  reason my first book concentrated on these matters.

Author – Brian Williams

How Gravity Works and What causes it.

To understand gravity you have to throw out all the present silly hypotheses relating to the atomic structures that have never been able to explain a single aspect of matter. If ALL matter can be explained using atoms composed of only two types of particles, why do we need all these other mythical particles?

All matter is composed of ‘crystal-like’ structures that are atoms. People think of crystals as rigid and hard but this is not necessarily true. The crystal-like structure of the atoms was briefly considered in the late 1800s, but was rejected because the physicists  argued that it did not allow for all the known elements.  (The possible configurations of crystal ‘Atoms’ using a maximum of 150 electrons is 570, and the crystal-like structure gives explanations of all aspects of matter.)

Another problem lies with the ‘atomic number’. The ‘atomic numbers’ are derived from a ‘decision’ made by the physics establishment that hydrogen, being the lightest ‘known’ element would be given the number 1 to indicate that it had only one electron. This decision was not based on any logic or scientific evidence, it was just decided. It was also decided,  using the same lack of knowledge and evidence, that heavier atoms must have more electrons.

Heat is moving electrons. The element that gives up electrons the easiest is hydrogen. It is therefore reasonable to argue that this shows that the hydrogen nucleus has the least ‘grip/attraction’ on its electrons.

Now consider a magnet. If you pick up ball bearings with the magnet, you will reach a stage when no more bearings will be attracted to it. Its magnetic attraction has become reduced by the number of bearings.

An atom has the same problem with electrons, it can only support a certain number.

Atoms compress under pressure. Under pressure they give out heat (Electrons). The mass increases under pressure. Reduce the pressure and electrons are absorbed and the mass decreases.

Very simplistic? Of course it is, but is still essentially correct. The less electrons that an atom has, the greater the mass.The more electrons, the lighter the mass.

This is obviously the opposite of current physics hypotheses and is therefore more likely to be correct.

Under very high pressures electrons are forced out the the atom structures and cannot return. The attraction/pull of the nucleus remains but the pressure prevents the electrons from reducing the mass of the atoms.

In a planet as the pressure increases, more and more electrons are forced out from the centre to the outside.

As more electrons are lost to atoms, the atoms become denser, (become different, heavier  atoms). There will be a relatively continuous flow of electrons from the core to the outside of the planet.

The nuclei of the core atoms do not have the number of electrons to blanket the nuclei attraction/pull which now combine to create a nuclear force that we call gravity. Gravity is a nuclear force, the combined forces of trillions of atomic nuclei. Unlike a magnetic force, gravity acts on all matter. Note; A magnetic force  is a very weak force caused by displacement of the nuclei of certain atoms.

We have here a concept that most people will find difficult to understand, that is that any individual atom can become hydrogen or lead.

We also have the concept that electrons are essentially anti-mass particles. However, you should really visualise that mass is actually a nuclear force not a lump of lead. Not easy, I grant you.

——————————

The Tractor Beam.

I have always been a science fiction fan. I feel that science fiction (SciFi) can expand your mental horizons far more than any other type of literature. Completely new concepts are brought before you for your consideration. Some SciFi can be really bad, some better and some excellent. Some handle the psychology of situations very well, others ignore it totally.

Many aspects of SciFi I consider to be fantasy but I can allow because it helps the story along. Among my ‘Fantasy’ categories are time travel, alternative universes, black holes, time dilation, constant speed of light, pressor beams/repulsers, tractor beams and gravity waves. (Also, virtually every hypothesis of the physics establishment.)

Unfortunately, whilst I was writing ‘How gravity Works and What Causes it’. I realised that I would have to remove tractor beams from my science fantasy list.

Tractor beams are scientific possibilities.

I have known how gravity works for over 35 years, and I have read virtually every story ever written which includes attractor beams, yet I have only just realised that it is possible to make one.

Difficult, impractical, outside our current technical and scientific capabilities, but certainly possible.

Even with our rapid technical advances it is likely to be at least 500 years before we could produce one.

It would be dangerous and difficult to handle, and it could not be done on Earth.

So, how do we build a tractor beam?

A Find a piece of planetary core material.

B. Insulate it from electrons.

C. Design a shutter mechanism to act as a trigger.

D. Mount it on a space craft.

So, how do we find a piece of planetary core material? There ought to be some hanging about in the asteroid belt, shouldn’t there?

I don’t really think so. The very high gravitational force field would have collected all the asteroids in a very short time. No, I’m afraid that any wandering core material would have collected a lot of planetary debris and either disappeared into space, headed into the Sun or is now a planet or moon. Let us ignore that for now and go on to Item B.

How do we insulate it from electrons? The problem here is that the insulation would have to be light and dense at the same time. 4,000 miles thickness of roof insulation would make our tractor beam a little bulky for welding onto our spaceship.

Let us consider that our core material is a 10 cubic metre sphere, and it had not attracted any debris or electrons. Let us also say that it came from a planet the same size as Earth. Could we assume that it would have a gravitational force of 1g? Certainly not. Earth’s gravitational force is well shielded by the material between the core and the Earth’s surface. The G-force at the core could be 10g, 50g 100g or more, we just don’t know. We are having difficulties insulating the core material to prevent the gravitational force decaying. We would not be able to withstand the possible g-force itself. Neither the crew nor the spaceship  could work within a 100g gravitational force field.

What would the mass be of 10 cubic metres of core material? 100tonnes? 1000 tonnes? 1,000,000 tonnes?

More to come on this later. (My wife said that I could have my dinner or play on my computer. Our dog thinks that I should play on my computer.)

It is now later, and I have decided that attractor/tractor beams are definitely going back on my fantasy list.

——————————————

A Point to Ponder

The present method of deciding if a substance is an element or not is based on a ‘breakdown’ process, i.e. if a substance will breakdown into other substances then it is a molecule.

This is an illogical idea as I will demonstrate.

If we have a 10 link chain, and we stretch it until it breaks, we could end up with a 5 link piece and a 4 link piece. A strange type of logic might prompt you to conclude that the original chain was constructed from a 5 link chain and a 4 link chain.

If we consider a molecule consisting of 2 identical atoms joined by a shared electron, and we pull these apart, it is reasonable to assume the possibility that we will end up with one atom having 1 electron more than the other. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that if we have a substance consisting of identical atoms, and break this down, we will end up with two type of atoms. Conversely, if we produce a substance from quantities of dissimilar atoms, we should not be surprised to get a substance consisting of identical atoms.

———————————————

 Author – Brian Williams.