Re: What if the higgs don't exist....

From: EL (hemetis_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/21/04 

Date: 21 Nov 2004 14:05:22 -0800

"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<30a5oaF2qaeoqU1@uni-berlin.de>...

> "EL" <hemetis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7563cb80.0411172159.786c8447@posting.google.com...

> | "FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<300gu7F2rg84bU1@uni-berlin.de>...

> |
> | > | [EL]
> | > | But indeed Fredi!
> | > | Most probably, what you imagine to be the vacuum charge is nothing but
> | > | [F^(1/2)].
> | > | However, it is not a property of chaotic vacuum but rather the order
> | > | imposed on chaos by a charged particle.
> | >
> | > No. In my scheme, a charged particle's (fermion) properties are
> | > determined
> | > by the quantum vacuum. So the vacuum has to be ordered chaos. However, I
> | > have thought about what you are suggesting. But then we really do have
> | > to
> | > have all the elementary fermions as unique particles. Way too many for
> | > my
> | > tastes. I am going for something more string theoryish where one basic
> | > type
> | > of entity makes it all. In my scheme though, even spacetime is made from
> | > the same basic entity.

> | [EL]
> | I agree.
> | I agree with an exception related to semantics.
> | Vacuum is chaotic by default not ordered chaos.
> | Now Lord Kelvin long before me and many others had the impression that
> | vacuum must be a continuum.
> | Any absolute continuum is immeasurable.
> | The quantum theory is founded on the measurable hence its success.
> | Vacuum becomes unnecessary for QM.
> | So what is it that we are investigating!
> | We are investigating the birth of order out of chaos.
> | Your work is a quantological research into primordial ordered sets
> | that have the property of charge or electric potential.
> | So it is not the absolute vacuum which is a dynamic and chaotic medium
> | founded on chaotic tensors in a continuum.
>
> Sort of. It is my contention that "pure" chaos no longer exists.

[EL]
No longer!
Chaos, by definition, is "Anti-existence".
Chaos simply "Is" but may not "Exist".
Only "Complex Order" may exist by emerging from chaos as a pattern
that endures time.
If you meditate on the concept of existence you shall understand, and
let me help you by hint-questions.
For how long does something exist?
Where does something exist?
How can we describe that "thing", which is existing?
As you can see from those questions, there are three attributes that
must adhere to existence.
1 - Form:
     Any form of existence must have a form that may be described by
stating the observed order of the form's topology.
2- Location:
    It makes no sense to claim that something exists nowhere, and it
must be somewhere.
3- Endurance:
    If the life time of anything (temporarily ordered) that might "be"
is less than the minimal interval that allows its interaction with
other existing entities then it never existed. For any form to exist
it must endure for an interval of time to allow its detection by other
entities that endures for longer time intervals to carry on the proof
of its "once-existence", and that property is propagation-enabled in
the sense of evolution.

>
> What possibly started out as "pure" chaos has settled into an ordered chaos.

[EL]
Yes, and NO, because you may not declare confidently that any emerging
order never decays into nothingness.
Chaos is a logically demanded background, from which order may emerge
and be differentiated.
It is impossible to write meaningful words on a white piece of paper
with black ink by simply immersing the paper in the ink to turn all
the "white chaos" into "black order". If we did, we would be rather
replacing the one chaos with another chaos (colour analogy is
irrelevant).
As you say later here, yin-yang are complementing concepts and you may
not have one without the other.
Yin defines Yang as much as Yang defines Yin.

> I am not sure an "absolute vacuum" has any value whatsoever.

[EL]
It does no have any "value" whatsoever as in quantity, because the
philosophical arena of "Quanta" is opposing the philosophical arena
of "Continua".
The later is imperative for the former to emerge.
 
> Or even that it is a continuum.

[EL]
Absolute vacuum MUST be a continuum because it is not a quantum and it
could not be neither this nor that.
Remember that the concept of "fields" is essentially a concept of
continuum.
Chaos is a chaotic field that has no specific form in the
tensor-space.

> What is important is that spacetime is made of the same
> stuff matter is made of. Look at neutrinos. Billions of them flow thru
> everything with only a very few ever interacting. The "particles" of
> spacetime are even more mundane than neutrinos perhaps.

[EL]
Hardly true.
If it is a particles then it "occupies" spacetime and is not
spacetime.
Spacetime is fundamentally a chaotic field and is a continuum not a
quantum, while particles are quanta that can by counted.
Dear Fredi, you might wish to study those semantics for grasping such
illusive terms more firmly. :-)

>
> | > | If you recall my TKTODO models, in any of them the sacred rule is that
> | > | the magnetic component is tangential to the orbit's path, the
> | > | gravitational (mechanical) component is axial and is along the axis of
> | > | symmetry, and the electric component is radial to any temporal loop.
> | > | If the electric force was proportional to the area enclosed by an
> | > | elliptical loop, then the roots of that force might be +|-
> | > | electric-potential, with the square root of pi thrown in somewhere.
> | > | :-)
> | >
> | > I really wish you would get a website back up. Problem is that I don't
> | > recall your TKTODO models very well other than remembering that some of
> | > your
> | > geometric figures were very close to what I am seeing in my model.
> | > Sorry.
> | > But OK, I am thinking about and studying what you have said above. And
> | > below.
> | [EL]
> | I shall post it to <http://www.miwa1.com>
> | But do not expect it to be too soon though.
> | I still have a lot of work to do. :-)
>
> Fair enough.
>
> | > | That is, in cgs, while (Potential) U = E_p / Q, which is dimensionally
> | > | [L^(1/2) . M^(1/2) . T^(-1)]
> | > | So why square it!
> | > | [U] = [F^(1/2)]
> | > |
> | > | While it is empirically evident that the electric potential is the
> | > | third orthogonal component of a triad, where the magnetic field
> | > | circulates a current carrying conductor and the current moves along
> | > | the wire, the remaining orthogonal direction must be radial. Since the
> | > | area of a circle is [pi . r^2], the radial potential seems to be
> | > | proportional to the radius while the force is proportional to the
> | > | area, with inverted proportionality for both cases.
> | > |
> | > | There is no physical quantification for chaos, what you are
> | > | calculating, Fredi, is the emergent charge singleton or the emergent
> | > | charge-pair of a photon. Do not worry about neutrinos as they are
> | > | fragments related to binding energy.
> | >
> | > Sort of in the case of gauge bosons. To me, neutrinos, electrons, quarks
> | > are all basically the same in regards to the fact that the same basic
> | > entity
> | > makes them. A neutrino is just as close as we can get to the "bare"
> | > entity.
> | > An isolated quark become a lepton.
> | >
> | > | Keep focussed on force tensors, there is nothing more primordial than
> | > | them to cause them.
> | >
> | > You lost me here. Please explain more if you wish.
> | >
> | > FrediFizzx
> |
> | [EL]
> | Our conception of "speed" ([L/T]) is our immediate experience of
> | spacetime.
> | Taking it apart, we get speed out of the product of length and
> | frequency ([L . T^-1])rather than length per time ([L/T]).
> | I know that they are one and the same dimensional representation but
> | there is more.
> | When you have nothing to begin with, time has absolutely no meaning.
> | The length of a circumference need not be measured in any arbitrated
> | units other than itself as a fundamental unit.
> | In that context, a time unit is the completion of one cycle equivalent
> | to that unit of length.
> | Thus rather than imagining speed to be the length interval moved per
> | unit interval of time we can think about it as the number of
> | circumferences being frequently cycled.
> | This brings us to the philosophical end of the road.
> | What is it that causes that primordial spin if there was not a dynamic
> | force causing it by default!
>
> Yes. This primordial spin was a big problem that I thought about a lot.
> Unless particles have a string attached to an invisible particle, then this
> spin or circular-like motion has to be inherent in the quantum vacuum and
> passed from it to real particles.

[EL]
I beg you Fredi not to repeat those Oxymoronic expressions such as
"quantum vacuum".
Can you make sense of a "continuous quantum" or the quantum-continuum?

>
> | Stillness has no ingredients to create motion but motion does have a
> | concept of symmetrical vibration to give the illusion of stillness.
> | ;-)
>
> Sure. That is why I believe the motion of the quantum vacuum is what
> "powers" everything. It either was always in motion

[EL]
Yes, because it is most logical.

> or started at the big bang.

[EL]
No, because that "big" bang was only through the head of a man.
Would you believe someone that had a bang passing through his head?
:-)
The whole idea was, is and shall always be a joke.
It is the cause-less, unreasonable and the most bullshitting
hype-O'-thesis that had ever been.
It was founded on an unfounded hypothesis that a finite "universe" was
forever expanding from a single point.
That later hype-O'-thesis was simply the most simplistic and
uneducated guess to reason or give a reason for the "Red Shift"
observed.
There are other better and much more viable proposals that were never
evaluated by pears.
If we even accept that the direct cause must be an increase in the
distance between the solar system and the outer galaxies, then there
is a better scenario to explain that increase of distance without
expanding the universe. The "kids" never saw a vortex and were stuck
with red balloons.
It is ABC knowledge for any topologist that a vortex have inner parts
accelerated towards the core faster than the outer parts.
I may elaborate if you wish, but until then please know that I do not
indorse the BB fantasy.

>
>
> | That is why I came to the conclusion that a static charge has no
> | primordial meaning.
> | By examining the hordes of QCD particles we notice that charge is a
> | property of particles rather than a particle called charge.
> | So saying that order emerging from chaos creates any topology that has
> | a property of charge is acceptable but saying that chaos is charged or
> | that it is made of charges is not acceptable by logic.
> |
> | A standing and spinning vortex can have charge as a property and a
> | propagating wave with alternating phase may have charge as a property
> | because both are forms of order, however chaos may not have any
> | property pertaining to charge or any physical property else. Chaos is
> | in the arena of metaphysics and mathematical models but not yet a
> | natural or physical quantity that may be arbitrated.
> |
> | This leaves us with the primordial Force.
> | The heart, and the cause of the primary interferences arises from pure
> | logical laws in an infinite continuum.
> | A key subject that links what I am talking about to the standard QM
> | model is the "Instanton".
> | Not that I am in agreement with it, but that it was proposed to solve
> | some forbidden grounds' problems related to quantum tunnelling by
> | proposing imaginary time.
> |
> | Einstein seems to have had his own mental image concerning the
> | curvature of space and adopted the Riemannian geometry. I deal with a
> | similar mental conception but through a new discipline I proposed and
> | called Quantology.
> | I consider a point to be a spherical shell boundary between two
> | infinities each with a different sign.
> | Absolute infinity is an extremely relative issue the reference of
> | which is any Zero Point.
> | External to the point is a positive infinity and internal to the point
> | is a negative infinity the Gaussian curvature of which follows the
> | sign. Both infinities have a common limit at the Zero Point spherical
> | shell boundary but they are continuous through that limit. While the
> | Greek argued about how many points would be in a line interval, I
> | argue about how many points can be inside a point. Yes there is no
> | error here because a logical concept of infinity allows this to happen
> | as long as an arbitrated "size" was never involved. My Zero Points are
> | THE Zero Points because I have every explanation for such a good name
> | as that zero stands in the middle between two infinities. Each Zero
> | point within and without a logical-referential ZP is rightfully
> | between two infinities. As the mind can imagine we could call one
> | infinity a convex infinity while the other is a concave infinity; one
> | diverges while the other converges. There is something logically very
> | peculiar about this situation where convergence and divergence
> | contradict and compete for the "logical-space" that may not be both
> | converging and diverging (with a very big UNLESS) unless the
> | boundaries were dynamic by default and always crossing and
> | interfering. That is why I proposed that the primordial Force is
> | founded on a geometrical-logic casing an equal possibility of tensor
> | divergence and tensor convergence at every ZP out of the infinitely
> | powered infinite number of points. By the examination of that scenario
> | it leads us to the logical perception of the primitive state of chaos.
>
> You are going much deeper here than I have been trying to go. I just
> suppose that the Universe is filled with some kind of basic point-like
> entity that is ultra-mundane in its "bare" state. No charge, possibly no
> mass, but does have some kind of geometrical form. I have not tried to
> figure out what this form might be yet, but I will study and think about
> what you are describing and see if it fits. Now, I figure these entities
> being massless or near massless are in constant motion. They are
> string-like and cloud-like since being massless and in action with all the
> others. IOW, their motion is constrained to be circular-like because of how
> they all are interacting. They are essentially defining spacetime.

[EL]
Fill a bucket with water and tap it with your finger in the center on
the surface.
Soon the wave that hits the edge shall converge and you may witness
the new diverging wave passing through the reflected converging one.
Extend that model to a 4D model with spheres "crossing" spheres.
That is the fundamental dynamic cause of all what moves.
All converging and diverging boundaries reflect on the Zero Points
boundary everywhere.
 
>
> | Here we have a logical situation where it does not make any difference
> | whether "order" comes before "order" could be recognized or if it was
> | considered "order" because it was later recognized as "order". In
> | simpler words, it is equally valid to consider that any emerging order
> | may be the cause or the effect of its perception and recognition or
> | both.
> |
> | At this stage of primordial evolution of nature one may investigate a
> | complete and independent discipline concerning the study of chaos and
> | the emergence of fractal patterns of spherical boundary interference.
> |
> | We are still in the metaphysical arena up to that stage of logical
> | analysis. Never before the discovery of self-organizing and
> | self-referencing torus knot dynamics that either space or time could
> | exist in the physical sense of the meaning.
> |
> | At that stage of logical analysis we arrive at the discipline of
> | studying the emergence of torus knot dynamic orbits, which are
> | dimensional topologies that have no units of measure arbitrated for
> | its quantification. It is only through the escalation of topological
> | complexity and the evolution of dynamic orbital interaction that a
> | relative state of motion could be pinned down to arbitrate a system of
> | quantification.
>
> I think I can agree with that.
>
> | Quantum mechanics handles a very strange situation by being a
> | quantum-logical system rather than a continuous-logical system, and
> | that is why action at a distance, tunnelling and other paradoxical
> | concepts arise. It is the continuous interaction between order and
> | chaos that links order-chaos-order bridges because every chaotic gap
> | between interacting ordered systems must be "forced" into order for
> | interaction to take place. By forcing chaos into ordered force-vectors
> | we have our physical local-fields.
>
> This is like classical and quantum are actually a duality in that one can't
> exist with out the other. I am a big fan of the yin-yang duality concept.

[EL]
Great. :-)

>
> | Nice talk, but what is it that an interacting electron and proton (for
> | example) could force into order out of chaos, you might ask. They
> | influence the dynamic patterns of ZP boundary interference fractal
> | topologies. That is the background, which is the substrate of
> | existence that does not exist (due to its chaotic state).
> |
> | Here I tell you that although "Charge" is a property of some
> | particles, it was never exclusively confined to a finite topology of
> | that particle. Charge is the order set into the space "curved" by the
> | existence of such a particle. A solid geometry may never interact with
> | another solid geometry at a distance for no logical reason unless they
> | do that by influencing the properties of the gap that mediates them.
> | It is a very big mistake to think about charge extending infinitely
> | because they are effects of ordered topologies that control a spatial
> | "territory" that ends by encountering yet another ordered topology
> | that endures time. Yes the influence could add up and propagate but
> | the unique source is limited by logical-significance. Gravitation is
> | such an effect where a multitude of insignificant effects add up to
> | cross the boundary of significance and emerge as a phenomenon of
> | nature. Gravitation may only be "attractive" because its significance
> | is in the collective influence of space imbedded within the causing
> | population of ordered topologies.
> | Inner-space is convergent by default as the primordial logic that
> | causes the primary dynamics dictate.
>
> In my idea of the quantum vacuum spin matrix coupled with dual space,

[EL]
I doubt that it would be a matrix or that it would be quantified.
However, I have to respect your idea but beg to differ on the
semantics.

> charge is just a hole in the inner space of the dual space.

[EL]
You may consider each infinity of space on both sides of the ZP
boundary as a separate space.
So I would agree on the concept of a "double-space".

> It is a modified Dirac
> sea where the inner space is just the negative energy part of the sea

[EL]
I prefer to identify the inner space as the negative infinity rather
than a negative energy.

> (not really actually negative energy)
> but instead of there being an infinite continuum of filled energy states,
> there is only certain energy states that are possible and filled.

[EL]
To me, the energy arbitrated by consensus is nothing else than [M .
L^2 . T^-2]
That is why I shudder to call those primordial logical waves or space
as energy.
I hate confusion. :-)
Later on in my scheme of topological evolutionary complexity,
spacetime anchors are quanta by definition.
That is why energy comes quantified too, but there is non at the
fundamental level of nature.

> This is from John Polasek's "Dual Space" which fits pretty well with my concept.

[EL]
I apologise for not being aware of John's ideas and may consequently
make no comments.

> So when say an electron from the
> inner-space sea comes into our outer-space, it leaves a hole.

[EL]
Well that is what I was talking about when I said that if a location
is not occupied by order it is replaced by chaos.
That "hole" you can imagine is only the background chaos.

>To make a long story short,
> real matter makes holes in the inner space that are attractive.

[EL]
Ah, yes indeed, because chaos is in perfect temporal equilibrium and
has no net "pressure" or "tension".
However, once you talk about inner-space as I have defined it before,
then it is convergent by default (not attractive).
If the forces are convergent within a closed system then the system
must "collapse" or "condense" (That is to shrink in volume).

> They want to be filled in but can't due to the geometrical
> configuration of neutral real matter.

[EL]
I do not think so Fredi.
The only reason that the inner space is filled and only filled is that
quanta "respect" the territorial space of each other due to spin
interactions.
This means that the characteristics of a system with inner-space
manifest converging forces but the subsystems do have an outer space
in which forces are divergent.
This means that members of the set that has inner space would converge
towards each other but they must diverge away from each other if the
outer space of each member was violated by the outer space of yet
another member.

> IOW, the existence of say the earth forms a giant hole in the inner-space.

[EL]
Of what?

> This is gravity.

[EL]
Earth is a multi-complex structure.
I may not generalize what happens on the surface to what is happening
in the core.
There is temperature and pressure factors playing along with density
to decide what goes in and what stays out.
Gravitation has micro and macro effects that should never be confused.
There are insignificant residual force-vectors that accumulate only at
the macro level to manifest as a significant pseudo-force.
This means that there is no reason to assume that there is any "Giant
Hole" in any inner space of the system called earth.
It could be a multitude of fractional holes between particles
expressing themselves as an integrated unit on the surface and beyond
the atmosphere.
 

> I haven't quite
> figured out the exact mechanism of why the "neutral" holes want to come
> together but it is a very tiny anomally in the equilibrium of the quantum
> vacuum. I will study what you are saying in this message and see if any of
> it fits.

>
> | Once a very complex system was identified as a "Zero Point System" it
> | must be internally convergent and externally divergent across the
> | logical boundary of significance.
> |
> | On the other hand, charge is a very "local" effect imposed on space.
> | Then, magnetic effects, besides being orthogonal to charge, may not be
> | detached from the temporal attribute of dynamic interactions.
> | Magnetism, as a macro-phenomenon, is basically a rate of change of
> | state of space-charge (fields of potential force vectors).
> |
> | It is that precise "zone" of investigation in which your work comes in
> | Fredi. You are investigating that static state of space-gaps as an
> | influence of fermions.
> |
> | The inner structure of particle-waves include the dynamics of
> | sub-fields and may be called sub-magnetic vortexes for simplification.
> | You should avoid the study of the inner state of particles to avoid
> | mixing between the state of significant subsystems and the state of
> | inter-subsystem gaps.
>
> You kind of lost me here again. More study is in order on my part.
>
> FrediFizzx

[EL]
I am willing to answer any specific questions, so go ahead and ask.

EL

Quantcast