jacc in the box - extra stuff -back-Science from the Soap Box
_______________________________________________________
gravity and massThere's a real problem in the scientific community—a lot of 'em believe that everything, by way of particles and forces, need to be symmetrical. The stark reality is that these guys can aspire to symmetry and order on a chalk board but are faced with the undeniable fact that the universe is in actuality asymmetrical and chaotic.
For this discussion let's look at the four forces: strong, weak, electro-magnetism and gravity. Currently there are theories that can explain all of them except for gravity, and the problem with gravity is two fold. First, there is no observable messenger-particle like the photon is in electro-magnetism. Secondly, gravity is so damned weak, so imperceptively feeble when compared to electro-magnetism at the nano scale, that the science geeks cannot accept it. To them it's so not possible.
Some interesting theories have sprung up (e.g. supergravity) that require dimensions to be real for their ideas to hold true. I almost feel sorry for the people that thought them up because here I come out of the blue to piss in their Cheerios.
It's been my contention that dimensions do not exist so, if I'm right, then the force of gravity does not percolate up through a million-billion parallel universes making gravity a force we share amongst all. To me this is so not possible.
However, in the spirit of fair play, I'll go out on a limb here and say that maybe there is a symmetry between electro-magnetism and gravity.
We always think that symmetry must exhibit the same characteristics, but that does not necessarily have to be. Electro-magnetism is over a million-billion times stronger than gravity, yes, but its reach is short to be sure. On the other hand gravity has a reach that exceeds electro-magnetisms reach by that same factor and therein lies a symmetry of sorts. It is counterintuitive but argumentatively sound.
However, and this is big, the problem with this discussion is that gravity is a totally passive force akin to vacua energy (i.e. dark energy) and is not a force in league with the strong, weak or electro-magnetic forces. Think about it—there are no messenger particles associated with gravity that can be observed, measured or manipulated.
Whether you accept the idea from Einstein that mass warps the fabric of space and that objects "gravitate" towards one another because of said warping, or if you accept my idea of spacial displacement where mass stretches the particulate structure of space in a like manner, the same holds true. Gravity happens to be passive, and where matter is drawn towards a vacuum the same can be said for objects with mass and how they "fall" (i.e. slide) towards one another other through their respective warp signature footprints in space.
If either of those ideas are true then gravity, like vacua, does not exist as a force as we know it.
As it is with time and dimensions we see gravity in a completely wrong light. It is not a substantive thing like electro-magnetism and photons, but the by-product of the effect mass has on space. If this is so then it begs to be asked...how exactly does mass factor in?
There's a problem with mass—we can't seem to find it. We're spending billions building ever so stronger atom smashers just to shatter protons at higher energy levels all in search of the elusive Higgs Boson. Not to say it's a wasted effort but a particle such as the Higgs should jump out at you like a Roman candle. So far they've had no luck. (update below)
I can't seem to buy into the reintroduction of aether—what is now called the Higgs-Scalar Field. I find it as unpalatable as branes (membranes) in string theory. Admittedly I do not know much about the Higgs-Scalar Field and how it ties into the W and the Z bozon, but if the field has no associated force and messenger particle then go away. Figure out how maybe photon's factor in all this and you'll have my attention. I'll be all ears but until then...
As an alternative, and this may sound pretty crazy, but maybe mass is a force, id est a consequence of the electro-magnetic/weak processes? If they actually find a mass particle it is logical to assume that without some force involved then mass would be inert and have no direct effect or tug on space. Since they can't find mass per se it is my suggestion that photons, performing their electro-magnetic/weak duties, may very well be the (or part of the) mechanism(s) that is tugging on the structure of space and creating both the gravitational phenomena and mass as an expression of resistance. Without some tangible force there would be no substantive mechanism to draw space towards what would be in fact the dynamical illusion of mass.
So, I'm calling it...
Photons of the electro-magnetic/weak force is ultimately responsible for what we perceive as mass and gravity is the by-product of its effect on the structure of space.
Since I'm not a mathematician, can't even fake it, here is where I extend the offer to some dork, who will stop giggling about what they just read, and do the math. That dork, if he or she publishes, will win the hatred of the physics community and a trip to Sweden.
So, dork-tron, have a nice flight.
__________________________________________________________
Now, if this idea here does not work for you then I have another idea that's a twist on the one above. I've posted that at the end of the next article re EM scale and photons because it made more sense there. The idea is pretty crazy so consider yourself warned.
nicholas ralph baum
December 4, 2010
__________________________________________________________UPDATE (7/5/2012) It appears that preliminary reports out of CERN is that they may have found the Higgs! It would be kinda cool if they do validate the Standard Model once and for all, but I still have a problem with the Higgs Field. As with gravity and dark energy I believe that we have a distorted view of what mass is.
copyright © nicholas ralph baum - all rights reserved [contact us]