Quantum gravity physics based on facts, giving checkable predictions

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Standard Model says mass = Higgs field, but could that be Z boson field!

Conventionally, the Higgs boson gives the Z boson of the electroweak theory its mass, which in turn is responsible for short range, compared to the infinite range of the photon. The Higgs field of the vacuum couples with the Z boson to give it mass at low energies ('spontaneous symmetry breaking'), but at very high energies the Z boson behaves like the photon, and isn't limited in range ('symmetry' with the photon). But the dynamics for this theory are speculative and sketchy (no prediction of particle masses), and experimental confirmation of the correct details of the Higgs boson is awaited. The Z boson was discovered at CERN in 1983 and has a mass of 91 GeV.

It is quite likely that the mechanism for inertial and gravitational mass is radiation-equilibrium based, as shown by Drs Rueda and Haisch: see http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9802031, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209016, http://www.calphysics.org/articles/newscientist.html and http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/ns-ijv081005.php.

Let's integrate the radiation picture with a dynamics that predicts particle masses, like (0.511 Mev).(137/2)n(N + 1) = 35n(N + 1) Mev. Could the gravitationally-trapped (static) Z boson the Higgs boson? This turns the existing picture around: normally part of the reason for the Higgs field is to give the Z boson its mass! Could the conventional picture be back to front? The radius of a black hole for its mass is only 2GM/c^2.

The Z boson is the 91 GeV neutral, 'massive photon' involved in the electroweak theory. Hans de Vries and Alejandro in their paper http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0503104, Evidence for radiative generation of lepton masses, show that the Z boson mass is about twice Pi times the 137.0 (or 1/alpha) factor, times the muon mass: 2.Pi.137.105 MeV = 91 GeV.

1. Mass of Z boson when moving at light speed (not trapped) = 91 GeV because it is going too fast for the vacuum charges around it to polarise into a veil which shields the Z boson's electric fields (like the photon, the Z-boson has positive and negative electric fields in equal amounts).

2. When trapped in a black hole by its own mass, the vacuum polarises around each side of it (positive and negative electric fields), attenuating the fields by the 137 factor, and a geometric spin factor of twice Pi. This reduces its mass to 91/(2.Pi.137) = 105.7 MeV, muon mass.

3. You still have to obtain the net charge of the muon (which is also the electron charge): as shown on my home page, the electron itself has a polarised vacuum charge veil around it. If the Higgs boson (trapped Z-boson) creating the mass is outside the vacuum veil, there is a 1.5 x 137 additional shielding factor (giving electron mass), but if the Higgs boson (trapped Z boson) is inside the polarised veil, this additional shielding factor does not apply. Hence:

Z-boson mass: 91 GeV

Muon mass (electron with a Higg's boson/trapped Z-boson inside its veil): 91/(2.Pi.137) = 105.7 MeV.

Electron mass (electron with a Higg's boson/trapped Z-boson outside its veil): 91/[(1.5).(137).(2.Pi.137)] = 0.51 MeV.

Could a static, gravitationally-trapped version of the Z boson be the mass-causing Higgs field boson? The Z particle is like a massive photon, and that it can be trapped gravitationally into a small loop, the radial electric field lines around it on one side will be positive and the other side they will be negative. Despite being neutral, the electric fields inside any photon, when trapped, are called charge. Therefore the virtual charges of the vacuum are polarised like a veil around it, shielding it by the 137 factor. If the mass-causing vacuum particles or Higgs field is outside the polarised veil, then their coupling (and the effective mass) will be reduced by a factor of 137, and spin geometry may introduce a further reduction of twice Pi.

(Taking a semi-classical model of pair production, a 1.022 MeV gamma ray is electromagnetic radiation, which is often modelled by Maxwell's wave concept, in which the transverse electric field is negative for half a cycle of a sine wave and positive for the other half, with an orthagonal magnetic field. If you could break up a such a gamma ray, and each half-cycle were trapped by gravity into a loop, you would have a positron and an electron, each having spherically symmetric electric field and a dipole magnetic field.)

Here is a nice essay dealing with the Dirac and the perturbative QFT in physical terms:

Dr M. E. Rose (Chief Physicist, Oak Ridge National Lab.), Relativistic Electron Theory, John Wiley & Sons, New York and London, 1961, pp 75-6:

'The solution to the difficulty of negative energy states [in relativistic quantum mechanics] is due to Dirac [P. A. M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. (London), A126, p360, 1930]. One defines the vacuum to consist of no occupied positive energy states and all negative energy states completely filled. This means that each negative energy state contains two electrons. An electron therefore is a particle in a positive energy state with all negative energy states occupied. No transitions to these states can occur because of the Pauli principle. The interpretation of a single unoccupied negative energy state is then a particle with positive energy ... It will be apparent that a hole in the negative energy states is equivalent to a particle with the same mass as the electron ... The theory therefore predicts the existence of a particle, the positron, with the same mass and opposite charge as compared to an electron. It is well known that this particle was discovered in 1932 by Anderson [C. D. Anderson, Phys. Rev., 43, p491, 1933].

'Although the prediction of the positron is certainly a brilliant success of the Dirac theory, some rather formidable questions still arise. With a completely filled 'negative energy sea' the complete theory (hole theory) can no longer be a single-particle theory.

'The treatment of the problems of electrodynamics is seriously complicated by the requisite elaborate structure of the vacuum. The filled negative energy states need produce no observable electric field. However, if an external field is present the shift in the negative energy states produces a polarisation of the vacuum and, according to the theory, this polarisation is infinite.

'In a similar way, it can be shown that an electron acquires infinite inertia (self-energy) by the coupling with the electromagnetic field which permits emission and absorption of virtual quanta. More recent developments show that these infinities, while undesirable, are removable in the sense that they do not contribute to observed results [J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev., 74, p1439, 1948, and 75, p651, 1949; S. Tomonaga, Prog. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto), 1, p27, 1949].

'For example, it can be shown that starting with the parameters e and m for a bare Dirac particle, the effect of the 'crowded' vacuum is to change these to new constants e' and m', which must be identified with the observed charge and mass. ... If these contributions were cut off in any reasonable manner, m' - m and e' - e would be of order alpha ~ 1/137. No rigorous justification for such a cut-off has yet been proposed.

'All this means that the present theory of electrons and fields is not complete. ... The particles ... are treated as 'bare' particles. For problems involving electromagnetic field coupling this approximation will result in an error of order alpha. As an example ... the Dirac theory predicts a magnetic moment of mu = mu[zero] for the electron, whereas a more complete treatment [including Schwinger's coupling correction, i.e., the first Feynman diagram] of radiative effects gives mu = mu[zero].(1 + alpha/{twice Pi}), which agrees very well with the very accurate measured value of mu/mu[zero] = 1.oo1...'


At 1:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copy of comment elsewhere


‘… and why the electron us not a tiny, rotating classical shell of charge…’

May I ask what kind of reasoning you used, please?

1. The equator would have to go at a speed of 137c:

‘It had been an audacious idea that particles as small as electrons could have spin and, indeed, quite a lot of it. … the ‘surface of the electron’ would have to move 137 times as fast as the speed of light. Nowadays such objections are simply ignored.’ – Professor Gerard t’Hooft, In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p27.

2. The centripetal accelerative motion of charge would radiate energy (like QFT says it does if gauge bosons carry energy and are continually exchanged between charges to create electromagnetic force fields)
3. The electron is really a string in 10/11 dimensions
4. The half-integer spin of the electron means it would have to rotate 720 degrees to get back where it started (like the Moebius strip-loop with half a turn, so you trace out a single line twice the circumference, i.e. two rotations to return to the starting point)
5. The electron is really a Penrose twister of some sort
6. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says the electron will move when measured, so we can forget classical ideas
7. The Standard Model says the electron’s mass is due to the Higgs field, so the electron is confined electromagnetic energy

At 1:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Copy of comment elsewhere


‘…not manifestly crazy…’

‘We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough.’ - Niels Bohr to Wolfgang Pauli, 1957.

Pauli had written to Fierz, 12 August 1948: ‘I think the important and extremely difficult task of our time is to try to build up a fresh idea of reality.’

It is interesting Pauli also invented the put-down ‘not even wrong’ to dismiss non-predictive nonsense. People often seem to dismiss ideas as being ‘crazy’ and fail to remember that the neutrino was just such a suggestion (Bohr initially argued that beta decay could be explained by a statistical violation of energy conservation!)....


Post a Comment

<< Home