What is "stunning" from my perspective is your "leap of faith" at almost every single turn in the complete absence of physical evidence to support your assertions. The individual particles of the Higgs condensate can change energy states, but unless you intend to *create more particles* and put them into the condensate, you can't increase the volume and not also decrease the density of Higgs particles in the condensate. It can't happen. Since you can't demonstrate that *anything* can actually "create" a Higgs, you're expecting me to just "take this claim on faith" again and we're back to square one.
You're still stuck on the idea that there's some fixed number of Higgs particles, and you construct the condensate by stuffing a bunch of them together. But that's simply not the case. Yes, I know your link made it sound that way, but that was a gross simplification which is actually wrong.
Let's consider the electric field of a point charge. We can describe it as a function E(x). If we take the Fourier transform of this, we can decompose this function into sine waves. But sine wave electric fields are photons, so the electric field of a point charge is really just a collection of photons.
Except it isn't. If you take the photon number operator (the thing that tells you how many photons you have) and try to apply it to your electric field, you'll find out that the number of photons is
indeterminate. You do not, in fact, have a fixed number of photons that you can add together to get this field. You can talk about electric fields
as if they're made up of photons, you can even talk about electrostatic repulsion in terms of the exchange of virtual particles, and yet, the electric field of a static charge is
not made up of some fixed number of photons. The field and excitations of the field are not the same thing.
Same thing with the Higgs field. When describing how it interacts with other particles, some physicists like to talk about it
as if you can decompose it into a collection of individual particles, but that's not really correct. Your reliance on basically
one line from a source that's dumbing down the theory for a general audience is not exactly convincing people who know more about what's going on than that target audience.
Condensates are simply aligned groups of particles.
Once again, you fail to grasp that there are in fact
different kinds of condensates. As my earlier link already pointed out. You cannot use them interchangeably.
The Higgs condensate is simply a collection of Higgs particles, nothing more, nothing less.
No. The Higgs condensate is the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field. And just like electric fields vs. photons, the field and the particle
are not the same thing.
A Higgs condensate is not a magic "free energy machine"
Nobody ever claimed it was.
Assuming this is all true, you would actually have demonstrate a creation process for Higgs particles in the condensate *before* I would just accept your claim at face value.
It will probably be a few years before we will have solid evidence that we've created any Higgs bosons. But I already know
you are wrong. And I know you're wrong because you clearly don't understand the theory. Whether or not the theory is correct (it may not be), your statements about the theory are unambiguously wrong.
You can't just claim "Inflation causes Higgs bosons to be created" without some demonstration of concept.
Inflation doesn't create Higgs bosons.
It has no density defying "properties' of any sort.
"Defining", not "defying". And yes, it most certainly does have defining properties. If we find a particle which doesn't have those properties, then it does not match the theory, it is not a Higgs particle, and we must find a different name for it. Same goes for the Higgs field.
