Are there anti-higgs particles?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Sariaht
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Particles
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of anti-Higgs particles and their potential implications in physics, particularly in relation to gravity, dark matter, and the nature of particles at a fundamental level. Participants explore theoretical ideas, challenge existing notions, and engage in technical reasoning regarding the properties and behaviors of particles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if gravity is a relativistic effect, there could exist particles smaller than Higgs particles that repel each other through gravity, possibly relating to dark matter.
  • Others argue that dark matter is known to be attractive, and therefore the idea of repelling particles does not align with current understanding.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of detection of Higgs particles themselves, questioning the necessity of introducing anti-Higgs particles.
  • One participant asserts that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime and is not directly related to the speed of particles.
  • Another participant discusses the relationship between particle speed, virtual mass, and inertia, suggesting that gravity is not relativistic.
  • There are technical discussions involving equations and concepts related to relativistic effects, with some participants expressing confusion over the mathematical expressions presented.
  • One participant suggests that a symmetrically spacetime-inverted Higgs potential could have applications, though this idea is not elaborated upon.
  • Disagreements arise regarding the interpretation of relativistic effects and their implications in the context of gravity and particle physics.
  • Some participants express frustration over the clarity and coherence of others' arguments, indicating a lack of understanding of the presented concepts.
  • Another participant speculates that anti-Higgs particles could explain properties of exotic matter, but expresses skepticism about the viability of the theory.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the existence of anti-Higgs particles or the implications of gravity as a relativistic effect. Multiple competing views remain, with ongoing debate about the nature of gravity, dark matter, and the validity of proposed theories.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved assumptions about the nature of gravity, the status of Higgs particle detection, and the mathematical steps involved in the arguments presented. The discussion reflects a mix of classical, quantum mechanical, and relativistic considerations without clear resolutions.

Sariaht
Messages
356
Reaction score
0
If gravity is a relativistic effect, and a cause of the speed of particles, shouldn't there be particles smaller than higgsparticles, that repell each other through gravity. Maybe that's 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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 


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.
 
That's not really fact.

D(vr)=?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Does a symmetrically spacetime-inverted Higgs potential suggest any applications?
 
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)
 
Last edited:
-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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
  • #10
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #11
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.
 
  • #12
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?
 
  • #13
That made even less sense. And please edit your post so you attribute only my quotes to me, and not your whole reply.
 
  • #14
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?
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Undergrad New Constraints On The Higgs Boson Width
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
High School How does vibration affect the Higgs field interaction?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate What Happens When a Street Urchin Walks Into the Higgs Boson Analogy?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Higgs inflation and quadratic gravity
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Graduate Questions about the behavior of the Higgs particle and Higgs field
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
8K
Graduate How Does the Higgs Field Affect Particle Mass?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
10K
Graduate Can we say the Higgs is 'the originator of Time'?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Graduate What Lies Beyond the Higgs Boson in Particle Physics?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Undergrad Does Spacetime rotate like a vortex?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Graduate How Does the Higgs Field Relate to Mass and the Universe?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K