Gluonic Higgs-like Mechanism

I have thought of a slightly different way of explaining the mechanism that gives protons most of their mass. I saw it explained recently in a youtube video; the explanation was that it is the vacuum energy of the gluon field that gives rise to most of the proton mass due to the equivalence of mass and energy (the Higgs mechanism contributes slightly). This explanation seems strange to me for a simple reason: Photons have energy contained in their field and yet they have no mass since they move at light speed.

The explanation runs contrary to how mass normally presents itself in the standard model as an interaction with the Higgs field. Firstly I need to expound how I think about the Higgs mechanism since it bears almost exact resemblance to my explanation. The Higgs potential has a non-zero vacuum expectation value and it is this fact that is used to explain mass; the Higgs potential can also be used to tell us about how the Higgs boson interacts with itself. The Higgs boson also interacts with matter and can change the momentum of a particle it interacts with and this occurs frequently enough for the particle to be kept from travelling a great distance unimpeded. The mean free path of the particle is small and so it bounces back and forth over this small distance and this makes it look like it isn’t moving at the speed of light. Between interactions with the Higgs, however, it is moving at the speed of light. Higgs bosons “bounce” off each other  and this ensures that we have a frothing soup of Higgs bosons  flying in all directions which is why particles can’t get very far before they interact with a Higgs.

 The parallel that gluons have with the Higgs is that they too can “bounce” off one another. The mechanism I described for the Higgs interaction applies now to quarks and gluons meaning that gluons slow down quarks like Higgs bosons slow down other particles (and quarks). 

Why language is a poor physical theory

Many arguments for the existence of god rely on the existence of the universe and the fact it had a “beginning”. I highlight beginning in this fashion because this term does not always make sense when applied to what is referred to as the singularity. The issues with arguments with this basis are to some extent unresolvable by mere debate.

The first problem is the application of the word existence. It’s used in a careless and presumptuous fashion; our familiar concept of existence is based upon our experience within the universe. Following this obvious statement we can drape new words around the definition of existence: Something exists when it can be considered to be an element of the universe. This makes sense because we say things exist if they can be found within our universe.

This is where the carelessness comes in; when people try to construct arguments appealing to the supposedly unbelievable fact that the universe “exists” and had a beginning we come across the problem which may be an inconsistency. They apply the word “exists” to the universe. What exactly does it mean for the universe to exist when the standard usage of the word uses the universe itself as the arbiter for whether or not something exists? We would have to find the universe within itself to confirm if it exists or not. Doing this means we are judging whether or not the universe exists by using the same universe which we are in the process of classifying. You need the universe in the first place before we can judge the existence of something else. This gives rise to circularity/infinite regress which indicates that we can’t use the word and its logical application to deduce anything. For this to make sense we would need something outside the universe which it is suspended in to make a clear judgement about what it means for the universe to exist. We have no idea what this may be if it even makes sense to ask since we are consigned to using the universe itself to discern existence. This shows clearly that we can’t use the “existence” of the universe to tell us anything about what lies outside of it.

This should highlight the problem with using our language to tease out things about the workings of the universe and beyond: it just cannot be trusted outside its range of applicability; the range being defined by exactly where it developed to be applicable. Language developed on our planet for the communication of simple concepts related to our survival. These concepts were mundane and limited by our perceivable scale; our language doesn’t even apply well to things that exist within the universe outside of this scale. This is why Philosophy only gets you so far.

Another similar example is applying the notion of existence laid out here to God Himself/Herself/Itself. Most often the arguments in God’s favour require God to be outside the universe which is an obvious problem when it comes to his existence. Given that we can only make statements about existence using the universe we can’t make any statement about God’s existence since he is required to be outside the universe. I also remind you that we can’t say for certain what “God created the universe” means because the word “create” is native to us who reside within the universe and applies to objects in it. As indicated when God was introduced we can’t even apply concepts such as gender, personality and being to God if He/Her/It (whatever) doesn’t exist in the universe because these concepts were developed within the universe.

A slight stab at the Cosmological Argument

The argument proceeds roughly as follows: The universe is not eternal and therefore must have had a cause. The cause must also be eternal. The argument then precociously goes on to say that this cause must be anthropomorphic, caring, loving and personal and even further, if you are a Christian, is said to have a son within the universe. Asserting there must be a cause is reasonable if you have an open definition for what a cause might be, for instance any process that resulted in the creation or allowed for the creation of the universe in a sense could be viewed to be a cause. The problem comes when you say that it is a god and even more so when you ascribe more properties to this entity. When doing this you are picking out one of the potentially infinite amount of hypotheses that you could pick out. The Christian god for instance is increasingly unlikely because of all the extra baggage it carries with it: divine intervention, Jesus as the son (implying this creator has mating capacity of some kind and a genome) and various other obsessions he seems to have with us as a single species on the speck of dust we live on.

A Word on Demons

I have a few rejections for claims on the existence of demons. This was provoked by finding out that “serious” exorcism is taught at the Vatican; then again the Vatican can’t really be held in high esteem for its “sensibilities”. First of all I will highlight some of the portrayals of demons and attack the likelihood of such properties using what is known about the physical world. The first is inherent invisibility. This property requires that the demon does not interact electromagnetically and from this it becomes a challenge to conceive of how it may influence electrical signals in the brain. If we are absolute with what has been said there is indeed no way for such a demon to have such an influence and even less likely for it to exist as some sort of sentient being. Furthermore it is hard to imagine that some creature like being can compactify itself somewhere within a person such that it can meddle with the brain. It is highly unlikely that such a creature could be made out of non-electromagnetically interacting matter since the formation of complex macroscopic structures such as life requires the electromagnetic force since it is the only candidate with suitable properties (strength, range and particles subject to its interaction). Of course some may say that demons are really just spirits and it should be obvious why this isn't physically possible. To deny such reasoning is to deny the judgement of many physicists in their study of the natural world. If demons are such persisting entities in terms of time then they surely would have shown up as a mystery of physics and perhaps biology.

Parseval's Identity

Some Musings on the universe

I begin with Lawrence krauss’s idea which is the thought that if the total energy of the universe is zero then it’s conceivable that the universe came from absolute nothing. The evidence that the total energy of the universe is zero is the observation that the universe appears flat overall. Bringing in general relativity to justify this, a metric that is flat overall looks something like the Minkowski metric except that it may be locally curved however the total energy contributed by every inhomogeneity is zero.

The universe is then a mass fluctuation out of absolute nothingness but adds up to nothing and so could be considered nothingness which isn’t in equilibrium. There is a certain implication from this which is somewhat philosophical but also pragmatic: this absolute nothingness was imbued with the law of energy conservation. The nothingness then could be said to have some sort of mathematical adherence; this in itself could be considered to be a property and so the pre-universal state wasn’t necessarily absolute nothingness. One could progress and ask how far do we have to go reach a point where there was absolute nothingness; does such a thing exist? Maybe this mathematical adherence is fundamental to anything that could be considered a state of pre-universal nothingness. However there is one thing which is more grounded and that is to say that since the universe sprung from this “nothingness” which possesses laws the nothingness could be said to be some sort of extra-universal plane-just a description nothing inexplicably profound-which the universe exists within even now.

I would also like to expound a conceptual idea of mine that takes a different stance to the one which conceives time as always flowing. The idea is simply that space-time is static and we experience times slices through it as moments. We can say that constant motion through time is required in order for us to perceive-without motion through time there would be no perception. So we are 4 dimensional structures in space-time and each three dimensional slice of constant time is the “present” and moving through these slices generates our perceptions. A side note here would be this is not as depressing as it sounds; these structures (us) are still self-influencing and influence their own future. So in a sense our perceptions and time are running in tandem by necessity.

Thoughts on Education

I thought I would start with a post concerning the current state of education in a general sense. As far as my judgement on this matter is reliable one thing is for certain; school systems very rarely promote curiosity. I noticed this crushing pressure myself in school and definitely resented it. I suppose that the tight schedules and the intent to cram as much information into an individual’s mental repository as is possible pushes curiosity to the sidelines. The next thing that seems to be discouraged in cases of the academic subjects is complete understanding.

An example would be being presented something in mathematics without proof and by extension a lack of appreciation for the capacity of proof. As a result a student may view mathematics as a vast expanse of formulas with various applications and not see the rich interconnectedness between all mathematical expressions and ideas. This deficiency could again be attributed to the lack of available time for all these things to be presented in the classroom. Now even if this was the case I can still say that on the part of those giving this education this is a poor job.

People often leave school with lots of information (possibly little information) but no understanding and therefore no way of extending and applying the knowledge except in a very cosmetic and parrot like fashion which is often how it was taught to them. Thus people having these deficiencies will be less than adept at solving problems outside the bounds of the standard form of problems encountered at school but within the scope of their knowledge.

Society does not receive a great deal of benefit from people with this lack of ability and yet the system isn't changed for the better. The ability to think independently and deeply should be cultivated and sustained unlike the current rote and robotic procedures teaching currently entails. But this beast feeds itself on what it produces; people that go on to become teachers have had their curiosity stamped out and so cannot promote it and maintain it in their students and so the circle continues. There are exceptions to this but then the educational system comes in, with it’s defined curricula inducing rote learning which maintains the problem. I may be wrong however; maybe people really are inherently lacking in curiosity and general interest for things.