Higgs Boson

Ok. That is the answer I was looking for, but the next step for me would be why does a higgs boson predict all those things in your list?

All of reality can be described and predicted by the stochastic electro dynamic model just as well as the standard model can. The biggest difference is that the SED model incorporates the existence of zero point energy fields in its predictions and the standard theory does not.

But the standard theory does predict the existence of zero point energy. That's how scientists knew it was there.

quote:

---

All of reality can be described and predicted by the stochastic electro dynamic model just as well as the standard model can. The biggest difference is that the SED model incorporates the existence of zero point energy fields in its predictions and the standard theory does not.

---

I think that you mean that this supposed model (if there is such a thing) CLAIMS that the zero point energy field has a number of effects which conveniently leave no evidence.Now perhaps you would like to actually try to explain the mechanism which produces those effects, instead of claiming to have a model which is never produced.

Well we know there are two forces, the electromagnetic force and the weak force. The carrier of the electromagnetic being the photon and the carriers of the weak force being the two W bosons and the Z boson.Since the W bosons carry electric charge we know that the two forces are related in some way. The idea arrived in the 70s was that this was because they were originally one force, the electroweak force.Unfortunately if you write down the equations for the electroweak force, relativity and quantum mechanics demand everything should be massless. Which they obviously aren't.The only possible way around this is to have something which breaks the symmetry associated with the electroweak force. According to the theory certain interactions even though they involve different numbers and species of particles have the same probability of occurring. This is the symmetry I'm speaking of.Any mechanism which reduces the symmetry to a smaller set of symmetries will natural cause the force to split in two and give the W bosons and the Z boson their mass.The mechanism has to involve a field with no spin, any other type of field would not only reduce the electroweak symmetries but also break relativity, which we know observationally to be false. This is the reason for the spin-0 condition.If it had any weak isospin other than 1/2, then too much of the symmetry would be broken. Weak Isospin can be 0, 1/2 and 1. Weak Isospin-0 wouldn't break the symmetry and Weak Isospin-1 breaks it too much, leaving behind two electromagnetic forces rather than an electromagnetic force and a weak forceThe Higgs can't have a mass too high due to quantum triviality. Basically if you put a mass higher than a certain value in the equations, all the interactions of the Higgs field with the other fields immediately become zero. Since it doesn't interact, then it can't break the symmetry, so it must be beneath that mass.Its decays and interactions are naturally controlled by the rules of quantum field theory once the three properties above (spin-0, Weak Isospin-1/2 and low mass) are in place. No other decays are possible under quantum mechanics and relativity.So:
(a) Spin-0 demanded by relativity
(b) Weak Isospin-1/2 demanded by observations (we don't have two electromagnetic forces)
(c) Low mass demanded by quantum triviality
(d) Interactions fixed by quantum mechanics and relativity.So the Higgs has to look like this or quantum field theory would be wrong in some way.And now we've found a boson with exactly those properties.Edited by Son Goku, : Some editing.

The Higgs particle

Sorry for the understatement, but just wanted to say... good job! :]

There is no such thing as a photon. Particles don't carry forces. Prove that the phenomena that people call W and Z bosons are indeed particles. If they are particles, they possess the phenomena of charge; they don't "carry" anything. Yes, the weak force and the electromagnetic force are related, and it is because they both result from the interaction of matter waves. The first mistake is assuming that quantum mechanics describes reality in any meaningful way. Symmetry associated???? That sounds like mathematical games to me. How would they know if they have the same probability of occurring? How would they know this? There is something obviously wrong with the standard model and/or quantum mechanics for there to that much matter and energy to be unaccounted for. Just because a theory has nice mathematics and makes good predictions, doesn't mean it accurately represents reality. The higgs boson is nothing more than the all pervasive zero point energy field that I have mentioned here before. The standard model of physics just makes it fit into neat little imaginary particles with imagined force carrying capabilities.Now, for my detractors, I read his whole post. I understand what he is saying. I just don't think it reflects reality. I suppose the usually suspects will be here shortly to jeer me to death because I upset their apple cart.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I'm so glad we've cleared that up. I wonder if they can retroactively take Einstein's Nobel Prize away and give it to you instead.One thing still puzzles me: what does a single-photon detector detect?

electro magnetic waves of a certain frequency

Can I see your data?

The only way you will upset the apple cart of established physics, is by setting out, with cogent mathematics, a comprehensive competing theory, which allows you to make mathematically based predictions, which can in turn be tested and verified in experiments.That's what Einstein did. It's what the group of scientists who include Professor Higgs did. They sat down and did the maths and came up with the predictions. Those predictions have, in the case of the Higgs-like boson, now been tested and verified to a confidence level of 99.99996%. In the case of Einstein, they've been tested in numerous ways - you and I test them most days when we use our SatNavs and don't end up in a river.You won't upset apple carts by saying things like "they both result from the interaction of matter waves". That's an interesting phrase, but without the maths, it has no meaning in science.Show us your maths.

Why do detectors pick up isolated objects with spin-1 when they analyse a beam of light? Well it would be more accurate for me to have said that the field which causes the electromagnetic force is associated with photons and the weak nuclear fields are associated with the W and Z bosons. You're not really making any valid points, you're just constantly say "maybe you're wrong".Sure "maybe" quantum mechanics is incorrect, but from all experimental evidence it doesn't seem to be and at the moment that's a huge amount of experimental evidence.Do you have anything concrete to suggest it's wrong. Do you have anything more developed to say. Think about about it, the Standard Model is tested everyday in nuclear reactors and accelerators and it provides the full explanation for the energy production of the sun and several other physical processes. The fact that it sounds silly to you is of no consequence, unless you have an actual developed criticism. The theory predicts it and experiments observe it. It's what quantum field theory predicts and its consequences have been experimentally verified. Cosmological observations have verified it as well. I think you have an incorrect perception of the Standard Model.The Standard Model wasn't created to explain everything, it was created to explain the electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces. Based on experiment it seems to do that pretty well.There are things it doesn't describe, like Dark Matter, but that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect the reality of the three forces it does try to describe.For example the theory of photosynthesis tries to explain the production of chemical energy in plants. It doesn't describe what happens chemically in animals, but that doesn't mean it doesn't reflect reality. You haven't upset anything, as your criticisms don't really say anything, just:
"Maybe you are wrong!"
without any reference to the actual experimental evidence which suggests we're at least somewhat right.Edited by Son Goku, : Spelling mistake.

What are you talking about?

They pick up a pulse in an electromagnetic wave. The spin comes from what phase the wave is in.