You probably ought not to think of spin as being really like a spinning top. It's better, I think, to accept it as a fundamental quality of a particle, just like its mass, or its charge is. In this respect, hitting a particle is not able to change its spin form 1/2 to zero, for example.

It is true that the spin of an electron can point up, or down, when measured, but you'll never see it coming out as zero.

It is unseen so far, but that does not mean that we think that it is going to be unseen forever. Particle physics has been pretty good in recent years at finding previously anticipated particles, and having them match expectations.

The Higgs is a force carrying particle, not a "matter-like" particle, such as electrons and positrons are.

If I am understanding correctly the spin is more related to whether its an anti-particle or a particle with mass?

As I had proposed earlier, I'm thinking that the anti-particles all move to the other side after creating a particle with mass.

In laymans terms, like a fuel cell, electrolysis within the ether I'm calling the Higgs Field or our space. An electrolysis process perhaps sending the anti-particles across to the other side of the mirror or (brane?) I know I'm using terms like mirror and amniotic fluid which are not correct terms for physics, but it just makes it easier for me to point out my thoughts...

I do know that a lot of this is already known by mainstream. Including what has been termed superfluidity if Im correct? Primarily the difference in this proposal is that as I mentioned the Higgs Field is a sea of nuetrinos that create that fluidity and that atoms within it are able to transfer charge between each other, as well as across the anti-particle bridge ?

If Im not mistaken Feynman proposed most of what Im saying but was unable to account for the anti-particles. Which I believe this would?

As I hypothesized earlier, and I'm not 100% on this, but radioactivity would be the natural bleed off of an element within the fluidic field at a rate dependent on the elements density as created long ago in Stars or LGRBs.

My math skills are primary at best so I am unable to put the theory into equation. I was hoping that someone such as yourself would have enough interest to examine it further. Am I making better sense Or am I still rambling..

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Would that be considered the strong force?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

No, it is an independent variable. Electrons and their anti-particle both have spin 1/2.

When comparing a particle to its antiparticle, some numbers change sign, such as charge and lepton number, and some stay the same, such as mass and spin.

Unfortunately, it makes it much harder for others to follow them, as we do not know which are the cogent features of your analogy, and which are unimportant in it.

No, it is not mainstream. Superfluidity is, yes, but it is a very specific phenomenon, which has nothing to do with what you are describing.

It is as though you told me that there existed a bridge between our worls and the afterlife, and when questioned on it, said that bridges were perfectly normal everyday well understood items.

Basically, you are taking a word, using it is a metaphor, and then trying to claim validity for the idea. It is, unfortunately, still just a word game, rather than an explanation of physics.

Neutrinos are leptons, the Higgs field is mediated by bosons, so this dos not work. They are also electrically neutral, so cannot transfer charge.

These two facts disprove that part of your idea, I'm afraid. I am not sure why you repeat it. If you think that I am wrong on this particular point, please let's discuss it, it does not make sense for you to ignore this disproof, and then use the idea again later.

Perhaps you are again thinking that terms like neutrino, charge, and so on, are some kind of metaphor, like when new-age practitioner will use Energy to mean something that they don't define. They are not, they are every bit as meaningful as words like strawberry or MacBook. If you claimed that London buses were powered by Macbooks crossing over through the ether via transfer of strawberries from the other side, you'd know that it made no sense.

What you have written above reads every bit as badly. You have conflated completely different concepts, used words in non-standard ways, and made statements of fact that we have already disproven by looking under the bonnet, as it were, of the situation in question.

Yes, you are very much mistaken here. Feynman never proposed anything like this, and never had any problem accounting for antiparticles.

Can you please give me a reference for where you heard such a thing?

Your sentences are well formed, but as with my example above of engines, laptops, and soft fruit, they are describing meaningless things. My iPhone is no more composed of string than the Higgs is composed of electrons, neutrinos, or anything similar.

No, the strong force couples to colour, which is another fundamental quantity that some particles have. The strong force is a little unusual in that the force carriers (gluons) are themselves carriers of colour, and so can couple to each other, but it is not mediated by the Higgs.

The Higgs comes from the electroweak part of the Standard Model, not the strong force part.

Atom
Part II Science Channel "How atoms stick together"

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

If Im not mistaken it is believed that the EM forces were once separate forces and combined to create the EM force? My thinking is that they may still be separate and opposing but combine when collisions occur to create EM or light, and that a kind of recycling takes place on a molecular level? In space Plasma has no conductivity, but in the presence of a magnetic field? The idea suggests that both our space and the mass within it are beamed to us on Earth. Not to justify Aliens or God or any entity but its all just a Grand Illusion as I call it. The same way a Cathode Ray Tube creates an image on a television set or computer screen but with dimension.

As far as the two sides of the mirror, Im not referring to an Afterlife or any philosophical type entity but just an anti-copy of everything on our side as far as particle availability. Since the other side receives no photons from what I hypothesize the particles there would have no particular arrangement, but be available for our side to draw from.

In electrical theory a neutral can carry a charge in a backfeed situation. Resonance is created as well. If say a dipole moment occured reversing the polarities I would think it could be plausible that a backfeed situation could occur?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

"Get thee to a library." EM forces are not recycled by molecules. Light is an electromagnetic wave. Time-varying E causes time-varying H, which causes time-varying E... No molecules in sight (except, perhaps, to contain the wiggling charges that set the whole sequence into motion).


I have no idea what you mean by "a neutral can carry a charge in a backfeed situation." A neutral what? And what's a backfeed? And how does resonance get created by this?

ETA: I'm having a tough time parsing your text. It's presented almost as a stream-of-consciousness inner dialogue, where you have used words in a way that is unfamiliar (hence the "get thee to a library" suggestion above). If you could spend extra time to craft your text in a way that is more readable to someone other than you, it would go a long way to making this less painful for all involved.

Thanks.

Lets see if I can reword the statement concerning backfeed. I'm basing the idea on standard electrodynamics. In a parallel circuit (A Pos+ and a Neg- Charge or nuetral) running parallel to each other, in other words side by side, two wires, one positive one negative. If the negative side or nuetral is shared with another, and the other circuit is Earth grounded, a backfeed can occur on the neutral. In other words the current reverses polarity and the electrons flow backwards on the negative wire. A ground path loop has been created.

My point being that perhaps a negatively charged particle may in some circumstances like say a magnetic dipole effect (reverse polarity effect) carry a positive charge?

Basically what I think I have been trying to propose is that there would be no need for a force carrier particle if the particle itself were able to reverse its charge and pull from the anti-side or from other particles within the field itself? Or something to that effect. Thats why I said I didnt think the Higgs Boson existed. The field would exist just without the force carrying particle? If you had a pos charged particle or Boson and a neg charged particle or Fermion and they were surrounded by pos charged nuetrinos and neg charged nuetrinos composing an ether or fluid, it would seem that the polarities of each could interact if a dipole event was switching the polarities within the field? Or of the magnetic field.

If equated to a hydrogen fuel cell. then the charges would be moving across the membrane?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

If I understand you, then you are saying that because a "ground loop" can cause feedback (not "backfeed") in some electrical systems, that somehow a similar mechanism might cause charge reversal?

That's a pretty big leap (maybe a couple). Let's start with the feedback/backfeed mechanism. First, a ground loop can indeed cause feedback in, say, audio systems. But such a loop doesn't cause charge or current reversal. You seem to be conflating negative/positive feedback with a negative/positive charge (or current); these are different things. There is no change in the sign of charge due to feedback (whether caused by ground loops or something else), so this can't be a mechanism on which to base a charge reversal analogy.

Now looking at your last sentence, you seem to be saying that a magnetic dipole "effect" is a "reverse polarity effect." But, as the name implies, a dipole is a thing with two polarities -- in this case, north on one end, south on the other. An isolated elementary electrical charge is not a dipole, so I'm not getting what you're saying.

The opposing magnetic field to an electrical charge would be effectively shut down for an instant though wouldnt it? Long enough for an electron to move from one particle to another? Like from the anti-side to the matter side? And afterwards the original charge would probably disappear?

Basically Im suggesting that perhaps the dipole would eliminate the opposing field or EW long enough for the electrons or protons to interact in the field I mentioned in the last post? Not necessarily changing the polarity of the particle itself but eliminating its EW or magnetic opposition for an instant. Allowing electrons to flow, or possibly backfeed as I put it.?.

Think of a fuel cell and current moving in one direction or through a membrane? I think thats a good analogy?...

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Why would an electron require that a magnetic field be present in order to transfer electrons? Don't electrons in movement, as in a wire, create their own minute magnetic field?

No idea what you're trying for here. A dipole really isn't a thing in itself. Your average battery is dipolar. There's positive and negative terminals. The Earth is dipolar, there's a magnetic north and a magnetic south. What I mean to say, here, is that a dipole isnt' a thing free to take direct action on things. See where I'm coming from? This is kind of like referring to "A combustion".

Like osmosis, or electrochemical charge transfer? Is a membrane involved?

__________________
Tour of duty in Iraq completed. At home, fattening up, growing a beard.

I'll answer your previous post in two replies. The above piece is, I'm afraid. meaningless word salad. You have some words in there from science, but when you put them together like that, they just mean nothing at all.

What wee you trying to say? Can you please write it again, in a comprehensible fashion, and can you please read it back to yourself before you re-post it, and ask yourself whether what you are posting is intelligible?

I have literally no idea what you mean by "In electrical theory a neutral can carry a charge in a backfeed situation." It looks like you may be confusing what is termed the neutral wire in an electrical circuit, with uncharged particles in particle physics, but that would make no sense at all.

I also have no idea what backfeed is.

And in the second part of my reply, I'll repeat that the writing style means that I am going to struggle to pick anything meaningful out of most of this, which I am suspecting now is maybe what you want.

As to the first part, yes, electricity and magnetism were combined to form electromagnetism a very long time ago (Maxwell's equations neatly tie the two together). More recently, we were able to combine them with the weak nuclear force. It was this work that brought in the necessity for the Higgs.

What you go on to say from that ("and that a kind of recycling takes place on a molecular level") is just so badly written that I can't comment on it firther than to say that fr no reason, you have brought in the word molecular, which has no place in this discussion.

It is as though we were discussing traffic management in London, and you proposed that it was mainly to do with plate tectonics, I'm afraid.

ok Northernboy, give me a bit for study. I'll see if I can post a correllation between the processes in a more concise explanation.

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

I explained what Bosons and fermions were earlier, so I'm not sure how you managed to still post the above.

Can you please go back and read my post on the subject, and try to understand why it meant nothing like what you have just posted?

And sorry to belabour a point in what is likely to be the third reply in a row (I've been seeping while you were posting), but you are still writing in a way that makes it so very hard to follow what you mean.

You MUST use words in their standard meanings. You are flipping between various homonyms as though any word with the same spelling can be inserted in the place of any other, again, as you did with bridge earlier.

If you won't even use the standard rules of written English, you are going to make it very hard for anyone to help you.

(And please please please use question marks when a question is asked. Not merely to indicate that you are unsure about the thing you are writing.)

__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

Thats actually a very good question. And yes they would. I'll explain more in my next post.

Its not a dipole in a sense that I'm referring to. Its a dipole Magnetic Moment, a very brief period of time in which the poles switch polarity. The same way that Earth switches polarity every thousand years or so.

Absolutely, now your getting it.. I'm not positive about the membrane. I dont think there would be a need for it. Thats still a work in progress...

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

You seem to be using "moment" here to mean "short bit of time" which is not what the word means when used in "magnetic moment".

Do you know that they are completely different things? If so, why do you choose to conflate the two?

Alright, what I think should be done first is to bring everyone up to date on what the hypothesis suggests is true and what isnt as far as what mainstream subscribes to at present. So for the purposes of this theory here are the ground rules.

There is only mass and an ocean of nuetrinos/anti-nuetrinos that fills our space, coming to us from the voids between galaxies at c. The ZPF field is this ocean. No Dark Matter, no WIMPS etc.. only nuetrinos and anti-nuetrinos. This is our spacetime. That is also why two fermions cannot take up the same space I believe. Mass displaces this ocean as it takes up space within it. Any mass or particle that rotates within this ocean or (field) as I termed it earlier creates a magnetic field that holds its constituents in their ecliptic orbit. Even Atoms would be like mini stars. Continuing... No SR , or M theory type Quantum mechanics. Only QED possibly in some form. No BB or at least no expansion. Steady State because the SMBH is both creating matter and matter is leaving through the event horizon. If you wish to examine how its detailed to some degree in my previous post "Does a Fish Know its in Water". Basically creating the protons, electrons etc to form HI in LGRB.
Im going to leave it there for now to gauge whether its clear enough up to this point?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Okay, what you have at this point is literature, but not science. If your fundamental building blocks are things without charge, how does charge (we won't even talk about "protons, etc." yet) get created?

And did you see NorthernBoy's comment re: moment? As he pointed out, this word has a different meaning than you think, in this context. "Get thee to a library" still applies.

Again, a great difficulty you are needlessly creating stems from your use of terminology in ways that are not standard, and therefore familiar only to you. If you sincerely want your ideas to be understood, a necessary precondition is for you to be able to speak the language. Otherwise, it's just word salad to us, and we'll eventually stop trying.

I'm afraid not.The magnetic field is what you get if you want electrostatics to be consistent with Special Relativity when viewed by a moving observer. If you observe a charge in ints rest frame then you observe an electrostatic force. If you now observe that charge in a frame moving relative to it, then you also observe a magnetic field. Clearly things such as the electrostatic field and the magnetic field are frame dependent components of some other frame independent object. That object is the electromagnetic field tensor.

In High Energy Gamma Radiation events, namely LGRBs between 2-500 secs. It was all discussed in my previous thread between myself and RussT. Galaxies are popping up everywhere thats there isnt one, more or less. And dont tell me that a BH needs a galaxy to exist. Because just the opposite is true..;-) Dwarf Galaxies are Ghost Galaxies that just havent cooled enough to become REAL galaxies. They're still void of metals but contain the Protons, Electrons ,then HI etc...Their density is still what you might call Virtual?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Sr is irrelevant in this theory, please read my ground rules stated in the previous post. I appreciate your input Fortis but your basing your argument on SR and I am suggesting there is no T=0 or Spacetime SR stuff...;-) The Twins are both old in my book..;-) I'm not 100% sure that I'm accurate on that statement anyway, but its irrelevant I think. If everyone for just a moment can just throw out some of what they have learned, (specifically the ground rules that I mentioned) then perhaps they will see what is really going on..

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Where does the gamma radiation come from, then?

As for E and M, relativity is important because it explains the observed frame-dependence of the corresponding forces. To many, many decimals. You can't handwave it away. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to come up with a quantitatively accurate alternative explanation. Otherwise, it's just word salad and a lovely tale.

From collisions of branes of pure energy (Plasma) and the ZPF field aka Higgs Field of nuetrinos as I have related the two. The same way two thunderclouds come together and produce lightning more or less. Only much more intense. (I'm just using that as an example not a relationship). There seems to be some kind of Anode/Cathode type interaction going on. Havent quite pinned it down completely , but its the collisions basically. There seems to be some kind of polarization, the same issue I have run up against in the quantum model. My ideas are that lights quanta is polarized as well and corresponds to the color charges, but like I said, Im not a particle physicist? Still there Northernboy?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Can you elaborate on that a little more? I get a little lost in the frame of reference stuff? What do you mean by frame dependence? Wouldnt that still assume that time and space are intertwined?

__________________
The notion that man is the center of all things is as antiquated as the belief that the world was flat. - me 2009

Each of your posts brings up a great many points, pretty much none of which are correct, but I hope that you'll understand that I am not going to spend time on every last one of them, as there are just too many.

On the above, though, I've explained several times to you now why the Higgs field is not mediated by Neutrinos. You have not responded to these points, but you are required to do so by the rules of this forum. Can you please deal with my points and questions rather than just repeating this disproven claim?

Secondly, branes are not "pure energy". You are clearly using either "branes" or "energy" in a non standard way. Again, I've explained to you that if you insist on making up your own meaning for well accepted physical terms, you make it impossible for anyone to understand what you mean.

Again, you have had it explained to you many times that honest discussion is not possible with the techniques which you employ. Can I ask, if you want to discuss in good faith, that you please stop using these dishonest techniques?

You compound this by again writing in ungramatical sentences, so compounding your obfuscation.

If you are not willing to stop playing these games, which I find rather infantile, why should I spend my time trying to help you?

Here's a deal for you, you start acting in better faith, and I'll do my best to explain things in a way that I think can best help you.

Yes, it does, and they are.

You may disagree with this fact (but your theory is in real trouble if you do), but you do not get to start off by assuming it. If you believe in this ATM theory, you need to argue it, not just assert it.