Higgs Boson, String Theory, Dark Matter

[JAK]

Okay, folks, I need some help here. I may have uncovered an interesting relationship between Higgs bosons, dark matter, and string theory. (It may even point to where the Higgs boson is hiding.)

However, to orient everyone, let me start with some nomenclature from the “20,000 foot level” which will bring yawns from the physicists. (Nevertheless, they are the ones I hope stick around.)

HIGGS BOSON
All of us are familiar with the terms gravity and light. These are two of the 4 known fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetic force (including light photons), weak nuclear force, and strong nuclear force.

The belief is that all of these can be grouped into two forms of “particles” – fermions and bosons:

“Informally speaking, fermions are particles of matter and bosons are particles that transmit forces.”

“Fermions ... apart from the familiar electron, proton and neutron, ... include the neutrinos, the quarks (from which protons and neutrons are made), as well as atoms like helium-3.”

“Examples of bosons include the photon and the W and Z bosons.”

- http://en.wikipedia.org/

As astrophysicists and many of us know, the photon is considered “massless,” yet it “bends” around large celestial objects. This bending implies that it is affected by gravity. For a photon to be affected, it may be associated with a “particle” transmitting the force of gravity. This particle is theorized as the Higgs boson. Thus, a photon of light may be tightly coupled with a Higgs boson:

“Higgs bosons are hypothetical elementary particles predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. These bosons are thought to play a rather fundamental role: according to the Standard Model, they are predicted to be the carrier particles of the Higgs field which is thought to permeate the universe and to give mass to other particles. As of January 2005, no experiment has detected the existence of the Higgs. The Higgs field is perceived the same from every direction and is mostly indistinguishable from empty space.

“The massive quantum excitation of the Higgs field is also called the Higgs boson.”

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Okay, the Higgs boson carries mass which is deemed central to the understanding of gravity. Further, it looks like empty space, it quacks like empty space ... hmm ...let’s continue ...


STRING THEORY

“... string theory posits that the Universe is fundamentally composed of 1-dimensional objects - things that are similar to a string. These strings would be so small that on even the tiny scale of particles they would seem like points. In string theory, each fundamental particle is created in some sense by different patterns of vibration of the strings. One might ask why physicists have constrained themselves to 0-dimensional points for all this time; the answer is that 1-dimensional objects are much harder to work with and often cause technical problems with causality and violations of special relativity's mandate that information can not travel faster than the speed of light.”

- http://en.wikipedia.org/

Higgs bosons are ubiquitous throughout the universe. Are they strings?

Let’s continue ...


DARK MATTER

“Dark matter is matter that cannot be detected by its emitted radiation but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter such as stars and galaxies. Estimates of the amount of matter in the universe based on gravitational effects consistently suggest that there is far more matter than is directly observable. In addition, the existence of dark matter resolves a number of inconsistencies in the Big Bang theory.”

- http://en.wikipedia.org/

Hmm ... gravitation = Higgs bosons = strings = empty space?

Why can’t it be detected?

How about wave interference?

Photons are deemed to flow in wave packets. A wave packet can also be produced by two waves of slightly different frequencies. In acoustics, this gives music a beat. Do two waves of slightly different frequencies give a particle to electromagnetic radiation as they give a beat to music?

- http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html/


When two waves are in phase, a larger amplitude results. When two waves are of opposite phase the sum wave is zero.

- http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/superposition/superposition.html/


DOUBLE WAVED STRINGS
I suggest that space is composed of double waved strings of equal frequency but of opposite phase. These waves cancel each other out (interference) resulting in a sum wave of zero. When canceling each other, they are neither seen nor detected other than via recognition of dark matter on a galactic scale. Thus, double waved strings may be the fabric of time and space. Light is just the glint off of a third wave (or other disturbance) passing through this fabric. As the fabric stretches from the disturbance, a slight frequency change between the double string waves occurs resulting in the appearance of wave packets – light. Perhaps the wave emitting light is one of the waves, and the Higgs boson is the other wave.

- http://www.optics.rochester.edu:8080/users/stroud/animations/diffthick.html

Thoughts?

 

[geni]

Thoughts?

Not enough maths (quantum theory can only really be described in the language of maths).

 

[JAK]

Re: Re: Higgs Boson, String Theory, Dark Matter

Not enough maths (quantum theory can only really be described in the language of maths).

True. But the math can be time intensive to produce. I presented the suggestion hoping to have someone say, "Oh yeah, Dr. So-n-so at Smash-a-Particle U. is already working on that!" I hate to "re-invent the wheel" (or the mathematics, for that matter).

My link to the Kettering acoustic wave animation site appears to be flawed in my original post. Here it is again:
Wave Animation Website

 

[PixyMisa]

As astrophysicists and many of us know, the photon is considered “massless,” yet it “bends” around large celestial objects. This bending implies that it is affected by gravity. For a photon to be affected, it may be associated with a “particle” transmitting the force of gravity. This particle is theorized as the Higgs boson.

No, this is incorrect. The theoretical transmission particle for gravity is the graviton.

Higgs bosons are ubiquitous throughout the universe. Are they strings?

If string theory is correct, then yes.

Photons are deemed to flow in wave packets. A wave packet can also be produced by two waves of slightly different frequencies. In acoustics, this gives music a beat. Do two waves of slightly different frequencies give a particle to electromagnetic radiation as they give a beat to music?

No.

 

[TeaBag420]

Re: Re: Higgs Boson, String Theory, Dark Matter

No, this is incorrect. The theoretical transmission particle for gravity is the graviton.

If the OP wrote correctly what he intended to write, you misunderstood him.

"For a photon to be affected, it may be associated with a “particle” transmitting the force of gravity. This particle is theorized as the Higgs boson."

First of all, "may be associated"? Not "is" or "isn't"?

Second, gravity operates in the absence of photons. Hence, he could not have been referring to gravitons.

As written, he is referring to a "particle" with which which a photon "may be associated..."

Clue #1: using Wikipedia as a source.
Clue #2: it would take too much time to "generate" (i.e. learn) the math.

In fairness to the OP, he was asking if there is any scientific (read legitimate) research being done along the lines he suggests.

I'm not going to address your hypothetical equation of strings and Higgs bosons, because I don't know enough about either even on a popular level, but I'm very suspicious of it.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by JAK
I suggest that space is composed of double waved strings of equal frequency but of opposite phase. These waves cancel each other out (interference) resulting in a sum wave of zero. When canceling each other, they are neither seen nor detected other than via recognition of dark matter on a galactic scale.

Why "other than [...] dark matter"? The two waves together should be completely equivalent to nothing at all, if they cancel each other out.

Thus, double waved strings may be the fabric of time and space. Light is just the glint off of a third wave (or other disturbance) passing through this fabric. As the fabric stretches from the disturbance, a slight frequency change between the double string waves occurs resulting in the appearance of wave packets – light.

Why should there be any "frequency change" between them? If the "fabric" stretches, it should stretch both of the waves equally because they're both in exactly the same place---that's how they were able to cancel each other out to begin with---so after any stretching, they should still cancel each other out.

 

[PixyMisa]

It appeared to me, and still does, that the referent "this particle" referred to the immediately preceding "a particle transmitting the force of gravity." As I read it, he was suggesting that the transmission particle for gravity was the Higgs boson.

And under string theory, strings account for all physical properties. Whether the theory is correct or not, no-one knows. But if it is, Higgs bosons are strings.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Oh man....

First of all, massless particles are not affected by gravity in Newtonian dynamics because they don't have mass. The bending of light rays by massive objects only becomes clear once you view gravity as a local manifestation of a global spacetime curvature (i.e. General Relativity).

Secondly, as others have pointed out, the Higgs has nothing directly to do with gravity.

Thirdly, go read some physics books. Do you really think that physicists are so stupid that they can't figure out the solution based on details as simple as those found in Wikipedia?

 

[Tez]

Why dont you head over to these forums:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Read a few threads there. Any similarities with your OP pop out at you?

 

[JAK]

Oh man....

First of all, massless particles are not affected by gravity in Newtonian dynamics because they don't have mass. The bending of light rays by massive objects only becomes clear once you view gravity as a local manifestation of a global spacetime curvature (i.e. General Relativity).

Exactly! Therefore, if a photon bends around a massive galaxy, then it is affected by the curvature of space. As I recall, that would imply that the photon must have some facet affected by the curvature. If gravity requires mass, and a photon is massless, then it must be tightly coupled with some other facet which carries mass. The Higgs boson carries mass.

...
Secondly, as others have pointed out, the Higgs has nothing directly to do with gravity.
...

True. Yet, the Higgs boson carries mass, and mass is directly related to gravity. Whether that is due to the hypothetical graviton, or my preference, due to some form of resistance which makes it "sink" in space/time causing the curvature.

Thirdly, go read some physics books. Do you really think that physicists are so stupid that they can't figure out the solution based on details as simple as those found in Wikipedia? [/B]

This is directly to my point. I could spend years exploring the validity of what I am sharing. It is much faster and easier to find a specialist in the field to respond quickly and intelligently. JREF has brought many intelligent experts from many fields into this forum. If the person with the knowledge I seek is not presently within the forum, there is a good chance that someone in the forum has contacts or knows of specialsts in the fields who may quickly and concisely support or refute what I have presented.

Further, one expert is not sufficient. Frequently, experts have very narrow expertise as well as biases. My issue addresses three areas of research: particle physics, astrophysics, and theoretical physics. Finding someone laterally connected in these will be difficult if not impossible.

Finally, the advantage of starting with a JREF post allows a quick screening for gross errors of thought. Conflicts, as can be seen in the responses above, are to be expected and very useful for me in clarifying what I am seeking.

The crux of my approach is the fact that waves of equal frequency but opposite phase will cancel each other out resulting in no wave and no detectable energy. It appears that most of our testing is geared to find changes in detectable energy. IF two waves are canceling each other, they will escape our test methods.

Regarding dark matter, first, why do photons bend around galaxies? Gravitons? Curvature of space? Are photons associated with some mass? If so, do photons carry mass? Or are photons tightly coupled with a carrier of mass?

Second, if dark matter cannot be detected, then two candidates readily come to mind:
1. Mass is tied to some "invisible" factor. (Two waves canceling each other addresses this.)
2. Photons and other radiation is not completely massless, and that radiation which is in transit does carry some mass. If photons must be considered massless for theoretical/mathematical reasons, then somehow being coupled with Higgs bosons would provide the mass needed for in-transit radiation to justify the existence of dark matter.

 

[JAK]

Why dont you head over to these forums:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Read a few threads there. Any similarities with your OP pop out at you?

Thanks, Tez. I'm on my way!

 

[JAK]

Why dont you head over to these forums:

http://www.toequest.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=91

Read a few threads there. Any similarities with your OP pop out at you?

BTW, I came across something in great harmony with me which I thought you may appreciate:

The theme of retaining a comprehensive `big picture' view of the work I do is extremely important to me. I am far more interested in initiating and provoking new avenues of inquiry, and then encouraging others into them with me, than in following established lines of research that I consider obvious.

I avoid mathematical machinations for their own sake; seeking a deeper understanding of the connections between different areas of physics is my primary passion. -T.G.R.

 

[SpaceFluffer]

Further, one expert is not sufficient. Frequently, experts have very narrow expertise as well as biases. My issue addresses three areas of research: particle physics, astrophysics, and theoretical physics. Finding someone laterally connected in these will be difficult if not impossible.

I work in experimental particle astrophysics, and have a solid background in field theory. Your ideas are jibberish.
I, of course, agree that one expert is not enough to validate any idea. But we're not talking about one expert here, we're talking about many, many smart physicists over the last few decades. And that's only if your ideas make any sort of sense, which they don't.

Regarding dark matter, first, why do photons bend around galaxies? Gravitons? Curvature of space? Are photons associated with some mass? If so, do photons carry mass? Or are photons tightly coupled with a carrier of mass?

What the heck does any of this have to do with dark matter? Absolutely nothing. Also, photons have no mass.

I reiterate my previous comment to go read some physics books. Or if you'd already done some of that, I suggest you pay more attention the second time around.

 

[TeaBag420]

It appeared to me, and still does, that the referent "this particle" referred to the immediately preceding "a particle transmitting the force of gravity." As I read it, he was suggesting that the transmission particle for gravity was the Higgs boson.

And under string theory, strings account for all physical properties. Whether the theory is correct or not, no-one knows. But if it is, Higgs bosons are strings.

So "account for" = "is"? Please elaborate.

"All physical properties"? There is an absence of elephants in this room. Please elaborate.

If Higgs bosons are strings (assuming the theory is correct, which I understand you did not assert) what other things are strings? Any? None? Some?

Sorry to go all Nagarjuna on you, but it sounds like you are winging it.

 

[TeaBag420]

BTW, I came across something in great harmony with me which I thought you may appreciate:

I would suggest that you look into Gurdjieff's Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, which contains an extensive discussion of The Laws of Falling. It sounds like what you are looking for. Be forewarned, though, that the book is intended to be read aloud.

 

[PixyMisa]

So "account for" = "is"? Please elaborate.

No. No! Read it again.

The original post said:

For a photon to be affected, it may be associated with a “particle” transmitting the force of gravity. This particle is theorized as the Higgs boson.

(My emphasis.)

The way it is written, "a particle" and "this particle" refer to the same particle, i.e. the Higgs boson. Not the photon. I never said anything about the photon.

"All physical properties"? There is an absence of elephants in this room. Please elaborate.

All physical properties. Mass. Charge. Spin. You name it, it's strings.

If Higgs bosons are strings (assuming the theory is correct, which I understand you did not assert) what other things are strings? Any? None? Some?

Everything. Everything is strings.

If string theory is correct.

Sorry to go all Nagarjuna on you, but it sounds like you are winging it.

If you think that, then you don't know anything about string theory. Which is fine - it''s all pretty abstract and not terribly useful in everyday life - and it could even be wrong.

But it's not a good position to be in when you are arguing with someone else about string theory.

 

[PixyMisa]

Exactly! Therefore, if a photon bends around a massive galaxy, then it is affected by the curvature of space. As I recall, that would imply that the photon must have some facet affected by the curvature.

Correct. And this special facet is that light travels in a straight line.* But if space is curved, straight lines are curved.

* Technically, light follows a... Damn, what's the term? Geodesic. That's it.

 

[TeaBag420]

No. No! Read it again.

The original post said:

(My emphasis.)

The way it is written, "a particle" and "this particle" refer to the same particle, i.e. the Higgs boson. Not the photon. I never said anything about the photon.

All physical properties. Mass. Charge. Spin. You name it, it's strings.

Everything. Everything is strings.

If string theory is correct.

If you think that, then you don't know anything about string theory. Which is fine - it''s all pretty abstract and not terribly useful in everyday life - and it could even be wrong.

But it's not a good position to be in when you are arguing with someone else about string theory.

Ah, I got hung up on your statement:

"No, this is incorrect. The theoretical transmission particle for gravity is the graviton."

Which leads me to the analogy that the "transmission" particle for light is the photon. It was the word "transmission" that threw me off.

One or both of you phrased your argument incorrectly.

I stipulate that I know nothing about string theory that involves mathematics ( I suspect you don't know the math either), but I do know how to analyze arguments.

So the absence of elephants in this room is composed of strings, if string theory is correct?

The more you say "everything is strings" the less I think you know what you are talking about, unless you throw out a math bone once in a while. Color: strings? Weight: strings? Really? www.wickedweasel.com STRINGS!!!!

 

[PixyMisa]

Ah, I got hung up on your statement:

"No, this is incorrect. The theoretical transmission particle for gravity is the graviton."

Which leads me to the analogy that the "transmission" particle for light is the photon. It was the word "transmission" that threw me off.

One or both of you phrased your argument incorrectly.

Well, either JAK's original post was poorly worded (quite possible) or he's confused about the difference between gravitons and Higgs bosons.

I stipulate that I know nothing about string theory that involves mathematics ( I suspect you don't know the math either),

You've got me. I never got past multivariable calculus.

but I do know how to analyze arguments.

Uh-oh. One of those.

So the absence of elephants in this room is composed of strings, if string theory is correct?

No.

Absence of elephants is not a thing. So an absence of elephants is made up of an absence of strings. Or not made up of an absence of strings. Which amounts to the same thing, logically.

An absence of elephants has no physical properties to explained, so it's kind of hippopotamus anyway.

The more you say "everything is strings" the less I think you know what you are talking about, unless you throw out a math bone once in a while. Color: strings? Weight: strings? Really?

Yes.

Remember what string theory is. It's a grand unified theory intended to explain all particles and forces. (Of course, if all forces have carrier particles, then explaining all particles explains all the forces.)

String theory explains (or attempts to explain) everything in terms of strings. That's why it's called string theory.

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by JAK
If gravity requires mass [...]

It doesn't. It requires energy.

[...] and mass is directly related to gravity. Whether that is due to the hypothetical graviton, or my preference, due to some form of resistance which makes it "sink" in space/time causing the curvature.

I think you're taking too literally the popular pictures of heavy balls deforming rubber sheets by sinking into them.

1. Mass is tied to some "invisible" factor. (Two waves canceling each other addresses this.)

If they cancel, there's nothing left to address anything.