Anti-higgsparticles

[Sariaht]

If gravity is a relativistic effect, and a cause of the speed of particles, shouldn't there be particles smaller than higgsparticles, that repell eachother through gravity. Maybe thats the dark matter in the universe. If there are such particles, it's much possible that there are anti-higgsparticles aswell. What do you think?

[FZ+]

Problems:
1. Dark matter is attractive
2. The cosmological constant is not antigravity
3. Higgs particles have not themselves been detected yet
4. Nothing currently neccessitates the invention of such further particles. There may be such particles, and there may be not, but the present goal of physics is to minimise the number of fairies, not to see how many more we can squeeze in there.

[GRQC]

Originally posted by Sariaht
If gravity is a relativistic effect, and a cause of the speed of particles,


Gravity is "caused" by curvature of spacetime, and has nothing to do with the speed of particles.

[Sariaht]

D(vr)=?

[Lord Flasheart]

The speeding of particles increases their virtual mass, also known as inertia. Speed up a particle really fast, and it has the inertial properties of an unmoving object at a higher mass. Therefore, gravity is not relativistic, even though the alleged gravitons can travel at the speed of light.

Just my duo of pennies.

[Loren Booda]

Does a symmetrically spacetime-inverted Higgs potential suggest any applications?

[Sariaht]

You don't know the meaning of the expression "a relativistic effect", Flas H.

Einstein claimed it to be, though he never left any proof for this.

((1-v2/c2)½ = s)

D(vr) = ar - vr2/(c2s)

[Sariaht]

-vr2/(c2s) = ?

(delta X = x, pi = q)

let the average speed of a particle be h/mx.

The minimum speed of a particle is h/(4qmx)



P.S:

let m be the mass of average free particle here on planet earth (the atom mass divided with two).

Also, let x be the atom radius, c:a 10-10 meters.

[GRQC]

Originally posted by Sariaht
You don't know the meaning of the expression "a relativistic effect", Flas H.


You seem to be missing a fine point as well. "Relativistic" doesn't exclusively imply "special relativistic". Gravity is relativistic in the sense that it is described by the theory of general relativity, as opposed to Newtonian theory. Relativistic doesn't strictly imply veolcity.

[Sariaht]

Originally posted by GRQC
You seem to be missing a fine point as well. "Relativistic" doesn't exclusively imply "special relativistic". Gravity is relativistic in the sense that it is described by the theory of general relativity, as opposed to Newtonian theory. Relativistic doesn't strictly imply veolcity.

Gravity is a relativistic effect like in the way magnetism is a relativistic effect.

If not, what's -vr2/(c2s) then?

h / 4qmx = vmin

m = the average mass for a particle not held together with another particle through the strong force. let's say matom/2.

Let x be the atom radius ra.

From this equation I get about G/158 = G/16q2.

That's because vmin2 << vaverage2. 158 times actually. that's 16*q2.

MmG/r2 = F.

[GRQC]

Originally posted by Sariaht
Gravity is a relativistic effect like in the way magnetism is a relativistic effect.


Not really.


If not, what's -vr2/(c2s) then?


I'm not sure. What is it? Relativistic effects introduced by GR involve mass and coordinate radius, not velocity.


h / 4qmx = vmin

m = the average mass for a particle not held together with another particle through the strong force. let's say matom/2.

Let x be the atom radius r2.

From this equation I get about G/158 = G/16q2.

That's because vmin2 << vaverage2. 158 times actually. that's 16*q2.

MmG/r2 = F.

I'm not really sure I follow what you did, but the fact that you end up deriving Newtonian gravity in an argument that's supposed to be about general relativity is telling of something.

[Sariaht]

Originally posted by GRQC
Not really.

Look. That's not fact, but philosophy.

Space is not a vase.

I'm not sure. What is it? Relativistic effects introduced by GR involve mass and coordinate radius, not velocity.

That should've been ra, not r2.

I'm not really sure I follow what you did, but the fact that you end up deriving Newtonian gravity in an argument that's supposed to be about general relativity is telling of something.

Are you reading my hand?

[GRQC]

That made even less sense. And please edit your post so you attribute only my quotes to me, and not your whole reply.

[Sariaht]

Originally posted by GRQC
That made even less sense. And please edit your post so you attribute only my quotes to me, and not your whole reply.

I don't understand anything of what your saying.

h/4qma/2*ra = plank's constant divided with four times 3.1415... times the atom mass divided with two times the atom radius = vmin for the average free particle.

this is put into the second term of the derivata of vr (that's the relativistic speed).

Comprende?

[GRQC]

Originally posted by Sariaht

Comprende?

No, I don't 'comprende'. I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say. What do atomic radii have to do with free particles? If you have an expression with atomic radii, chances are you're talking about bound systems, which are not free particles. You are absolutely not making any sense, and as far as I'm concerned are just spewing out arbitrary equations without concern of whether they're classical, quantum mechanical, or relativistic.

If you can present your argument in a coherent fashion, and preferably use the LaTeX formatting features for your equtions, then people might be able to follow what you're saying.

[Sariaht]

Anti higgs particles would explain the properties of exotic matter, since there would be smaller particles then the higgsparticles.

Your theory might or might not work. I think not.