Removing Higgs from Atomic level

Hi,

I have been recently studying particle physics as I got a free course in my town near. Basic - Advanced (3 years).

In one of the classes I was learning about mass fields (higgs fields). It got me wondering, in fact even the lecturer I asked did not know what to say.

Anyway, like we can change a atomic charge to neutral or positive or negative via easy means (affordable) using ionization. Or we can knock out neutron's via creating a basic atomic fission by creating critical mass then the reaction happens without too much trouble.

I was thinking why can't we remove or at least change the higgs bosons this way therefore the higgs field could be removed or changed at will. That way the object becomes mass-less and then we can accelerate objects faster than lights therefore creating faster space ships. anyway the bonds would not break as they are controlled by strong and weak force unlike mass or gravity.

And if we wish to add weight we could may simple reduce the weight in few objects to such that they will be near light speeds maybe few micro millimeters apart. Which is not too bad.

Then to add mass simply re-strengthen the field via the opposing method to that of reducing the field strength. This could offer the next gen applications:

- FTL drives: As we could reduce weight to that of photons then speed up to go faster than light, not only this would prove tachyons true but also keep within einsteinian physics rules.

- Weapons of Mass Destruction: As we could create a weapons which increase field strength of a single proton or neutron to that of black hole (∞), from then on the particle would suck up other particles and grow larger and still avoid evaporation from hawking radiation. So we can destroy entire solar systems to squadrons of 10s stars.

- New powerful energy creation labs.: Using FTL drives we could travel 10's or 100's of light years and create black holes in positive matter rich places (near center of galaxy) then create gamma ray absorbers and then as the black holes sucks up matter it emits strong gamma radiation which can be exploited to make energy more effective than nuclear power plants which need more money spent unlike these which are controlled by nature

- Space Colonization: Using the FTL drives we could create bases or cities using bare minimum energy and travel to distant places

- Super-Fast Building construction: Using mass-less or levitating objects we can use bare minimum of hard work to build large super-structures as they can then be extremely powerful.

- Global Telekinesis or Object moving: Using mass changes and such we can alter and move objects from place to place at will. This would create new-generation of ease.

- Terraforming: Let's use Mars as an example, as the Marses mass is too weak the atmosphere gradually escapes however imagine making mars more heavier it could support atmosphere from then we can nuke the place few times to generate heat and bam we start to speed up terraforming idea.



---------------------

Reasons for not using this for day to day uses:


- Can kill thousands and can probably cause extinction
- People can say we are trying to play god
- Too dangerous for uses if this got into hands of wrong individuals


Tell me what you think.
Anyway, like we can change a atomic charge to neutral or positive or negative via easy means (affordable) using ionization. Or we can knock out neutron's via creating a basic atomic fission by creating critical mass then the reaction happens without too much trouble.


Keep in mind you are not 'changing' the charge, only moving charges around. Whatever happens, conservation applies and the charge is still there in the end. For example, in ionization, the atom you are interested in appears to change charge, but what you have actually done is moved the charge to somewhere else in the universe. This is achieved by changing the value of the electric field, which exists in all places in the universe, in the area of space you are interested in changing it.


I was thinking why can't we remove or at least change the higgs bosons this way therefore the higgs field could be removed or changed at will.


This sentence seems to show a lack of understanding of quantum field theory. The higgs field exists in all places and has a (non zero) value in all places. The higgs boson is something that you only observe when you excite the field. You want to be talking about changing the value of the field, not the boson.


That way the object becomes mass-less and then we can accelerate objects faster than lights therefore creating faster space ships. anyway the bonds would not break as they are controlled by strong and weak force unlike mass or gravity.




And if we wish to add weight we could may simple reduce the weight in few objects to such that they will be near light speeds maybe few micro millimeters apart. Which is not too bad.


So now you see that to achieve this weight reduction, you want to reduce the value of the higgs field in the area in which your object exists. This is certainly possible. The problem is, the value the higgs field sits at (on average) is enormous. The amounts of energy required to change the field value so that an object with mass become almost massless are comparable to energy output from the sun. Therefore, it's not a practical way to reduce the weight of objects.
Last edited on
Some seeds are cast by the wayside, some burn, some shrivel, some sprout, and this says nothing of whether the sprouts blossom.

This idea might make sense, this idea might be practical, what it isn't is detailed.

You're saying essentially "So we should totally strip objects of their mass and that will make everything easier." But to what extent is this easy to accomplish? Each potential use of your idea, listed in bold, is an enormously different task from the next, complete with different hurdles, different costs, different rates of success, different safety hazards, and are handled by different branches/combinations of branches of science/engineering. Everything on this Earth took time, effort, luck, and these ideas are seeds which may not grow.

I guarantee you all of these things are likely being researched by different organizations right now, it doesn't mean that practice will catch up to theory any time soon.

Not to mention:


- Can kill thousands and can probably cause extinction
- People can say we are trying to play god
- Too dangerous for uses if this got into hands of wrong individuals


These three considerations, which hold progress on each bolded idea back longer than any of the research and development considerations, and generally come into every radical increase in power/potential that mankind gains.

These are cool ideas, don't get me wrong. But I don't have much to say on them other than that because they're such enormous pipe dreams. Like telekinesis.
Last edited on
Really you probably need to be able to shield/repel the Higs Field; similar to how magnetic fields cannot penetrate superconductors.

Last edited on
Hi,

Actually it is a elementary particle proved in LHC during 1 in 1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) high energy particle collisions, to be specific 7 TeV on March. The boson actually is the "cause" for the field.
It is the one which interacts and the interaction is called the higgs field. As we can knock out few protons or neutrons or even electrons. Or as we can control the magnetic fields. Theoretically we should be able to use some level radiation possibly using a new-gen magnetic field or some type of quanta.

This if they could be weakened by some type of exotic new particle maybe with a property of negative mass similar to that of tachyons we could start to "neutralize" field of higgs boson. Therefore controlling mass factor.

This could be proven by:
E= mc2/√1-v2/c2

which should, give negative mass number therefore einstein's theory does permit it however E=mc2 may not but simple re-adjusting the equation should give us our mathematical proof of permit of existence.

This is the basic equation for imaginary mass energy output equation. This should also permit anti-telephone tachyons as general relativity implies tachyons, if they existed, could be used to communicate backwards in time. This opens new possibilities such time control, however it is a different problem due to paradoxes and such.
This should also permit anti-telephone tachyons as general relativity implies tachyons, if they existed, could be used to communicate backwards in time. This opens new possibilities such time control, however it is a different problem due to paradoxes and such.


Bear in mind that general relativity, while offering up very accurate predictions of gravity and its effects, is known to be an incomplete and in some situations, an incorrect theory of gravity. A new theory of quantum gravity is required to complete knowledge of gravity. i.e. Don't lean too heavily on general relativity to make predictions.

It is the one which interacts and the interaction is called the higgs field. As we can knock out few protons or neutrons or even electrons. Or as we can control the magnetic fields. Theoretically we should be able to use some level radiation possibly using a new-gen magnetic field or some type of quanta.


All none higgs fields have an mean zero value (it fluctuates due to quantum effects, but mean is zero). This means that they are very easily manipulated. In contrast, the higgs field sits at an average value that is very high. This is the reason we are not going ahead and building machines to control its value. No-one has any doubt we can control this field, it's just a matter of generating the energy to do so. Even using matter-antimatter for energy generation, a tremendous amount of matter and anti-matter would be required for this kind of energy generation.

Also, @OrionMaster - Have you done anything about super-symmetry yet? This one higgs field so far discovered might not be the only higgs field...
Hi,

Yes, higgs field is never zero unlike magnetic fields which can become zero after certain point.

In fact I am confident about about negative mass fields. My belief falls that like higgs field which can generate mass; there can be exotic elementary particles far away from the standard model. Which could possibly be generating negative mass fields and require smaller amount of energy to create than of creating mass.

Similar to higgs field before initial condensation (has negative mass field) and would be a tachyon as it could travel at superluminal speeds (FTL). This theoretically speaking offers new possibilities in which the energy in a field is such that the energy relay stops before the critical energy state is reached. To avoid condensation we can give and take energy to particles to create negative mass fields just enough to avoid such condensing in which new particles could be created from the energy of the negative mass field. This could possibly be used to neutralize or negate the mass fields of normal state of higgs field after condensation has been met.

Personally, I would assume Dark matter\energy could be similar to the negative mass fields but a positive mass which can have stronger or positive overview throughout the universe thus the expansion. However maybe during Universe lifetime the negative mass fields could be defeated by the weakest elementary force (gravity). Which could lead to universe end of a Big Crunch and again Big Bang and so on forever due to gravity being beaten by dark matter again.

Do keep in mind this is all theoretical.
Last edited on
Personally, I would assume Dark matter\energy could be similar to the negative mass fields but a positive mass which can have stronger or positive overview throughout the universe thus the expansion.


Dark matter and dark energy are different things.

Dark matter is a term invented for a kind of mystery mass that we can't see that would account for the discrepancies between gravitational predictions and what we observe. It's theorized not to be negative mass.

Dark energy is a term used to describe a theoretical force that is causing the expansion of the universe.

Nothing is known about either really except their theoretical quantities, which correspond to how far off our model based physics predictions are from our observations. So they are sort of a placeholder for either what is wrong with our physics, or what properties or particles we are not able to observe which are causing the unaccounted effects.

I think that dark energy, or whatever causes the expansion is an interesting thing though, and hopefully one day an understanding of the Higgs could shed more light on the phenomena.
Last edited on
Hi,

I am actually been researching this for around 2 to 3 days and I have been looking at all vital elementary forces and their elementary particles which could potentially be exploited. I found a "strange" one all elementary particles can be exploited by current human technology.

- Electromagnetism: Using Electric and Magnets (This barely requires any energy)
- Weak & Strong Force - Nuclear Fission

And the final one is gravity, I personally think there is a high chance we could control gravity using some new technology which may appear in future similar to the ways we could control the other elementary forces stated above.
Personally, I would assume Dark matter\energy could be similar to the negative mass fields but a positive mass which can have stronger or positive overview throughout the universe thus the expansion. However maybe during Universe lifetime the negative mass fields could be defeated by the weakest elementary force (gravity). Which could lead to universe end of a Big Crunch and again Big Bang and so on forever due to gravity being beaten by dark matter again.


Unfortunately, dark matter appears to be known. We know our universe allows particle masses from the graviton up to a black hole and that particles should be able to exist at any mass in-between this. We have probed only a tiny fraction of the lower allowed energies and so it is expected that as we experiment at higher and higher energy levels, new, stable particles will be found. This is the current favoured explanation of dark matter and pretty much every theoretical physicist agrees. Of course, everyone hopes that as the LHC goes to higher and higher energy levels we see something other than this. It would be much more exciting!

Dark energy is a term used to describe a theoretical force that is causing the expansion of the universe.


Dark energy is predicted by both quantum mechanics and relativity, so it looks like we are on the right track. The trouble is, it is predicted but not explained and it is predicted (by QM) to have a way higher value than observed. Here we are really stuck.

- Electromagnetism: Using Electric and Magnets (This barely requires any energy)
- Weak & Strong Force - Nuclear Fission


Don't forget nuclear fusion! We've made some pretty nasty weapons from that, some exotic elements and experimental (and the sooner the better, viable) fusion reactors.


And the final one is gravity, I personally think there is a high chance we could control gravity using some new technology which may appear in future similar to the ways we could control the other elementary forces stated above.


Why do you think this? Gravity is entirely different to the other known forces of nature. controlled interactions in this field are mediated by gravitons and not only can we not build some kind of gravity machine that creates these, they are so small we haven't yet even observed one... And it has to be said probably never will.


Last edited on
Hi,

You are right here, but the thing was when Higgs Field was proposed it too was thought to never exist, however as our technological growth and sensitivity tools and new experimental methods increase and get better we could find similar particles.

As for the gravity machine, I doubt it would be something simple however we do know that gravity and electromagnetism are linked phenomena and one must admit we are quite adept at controlling electromagnetic phenomena, so one can presume that such a connection might eventually lead to using our control of electromagnetism to control gravity. General Relativity, another one of Einstein’s doings, is one way to describe such connections. Another way is through new theories from quantum mechanics that link gravity and inertia to something called "vacuum fluctuations."

Infact the equational physics using mathematics is so similar therefore we could control it:

F = GMm/R2

Electrostatic field generation based on Coulomb's Law:

F = keqQ/r2


as you see one can link these via slightly editing the equations such as by removing the constants equally we can see a lot of similarity.

F = GMm/R2


This is not the equation of gravity. This is (sorry I tried to write it as best I can in a post, but it's better with pen && paper):

Rμ v - 1/2 G μ ν R = ((8 pi G) / c4) T μ v

When you bear in mind that each of these terms with a mu nu (μ v) are each representing a matrix, this really does not look like equations for anything else.

however we do know that gravity and electromagnetism are linked phenomena


This link, though often suspected, has never been proven. This is what theories like loop quantum gravity and string theory are attempting to explain (among other things).

Edit: (sorry I tried to write it as best I can in a post, but it's better with pen && paper)
Last edited on
Hi,

It is the Universal Gravitation Equation, anyhow from looking at the two force equations, you can see the similarities and how gravitational force can be considered parallel to the force between two charges.

Besides being proportional to the inverse of the square of the separation, both forces extend to infinity. They also both travel at the speed of light.
It is the Universal Gravitation Equation


It's also not correct. Although, it gives good estimates and it's very useful to use if an estimate is all you want. Relativity is the way gravity really works and if you want to keep a satellite in orbit and try to use Newton's equation, your satellite won't be staying in orbit.

Besides being proportional to the inverse of the square of the separation, both forces extend to infinity. They also both travel at the speed of light.


It's also unknown if gravitons (if they even exist) do travel at the speed of light and if gravity does indeed have unlimited range. You seem to be inferring a great deal about gravity is true in all your posts in this thread when it is actually either proven incorrect or only theoretical.

Also, you entire postulate of accelerating objects to faster than light speed by reducing the higgs field value is flawed. Objects without mass travel at the speed of light; not faster than light. Even if you could somehow reduce higgs field strength to zero in someplace, the leptons in that area would travel only at the speed of light.

Edit: Typos.
Last edited on
Hi,

It is all theoretical infact my idea of making all higgs zero on a object would still have mass because higgs really only has effect on electrons which are nearly massless which by theory should not be changing the mass too much.
As I am talking theoretically, I would assume tachyons exist which is one exotic particles, therefore it is safe to say they can go faster than speed of light.

Surely expansion of universe is going faster than light as we can see longer (in light-years) than the universes age which could should mean Einsteins and all equations ever created and proposed would collapse in a number substitution.

Last edited on
Surely expansion of universe is going faster than light as we can see longer (in light-years) than the universes age...


We cannot see longer in light years than the universe's age, because light does not travel faster than light. I think the best Hubble image for distance is around 13.2 billion light years, which is short of the predicted age of the universe.

which could should mean Einsteins and all equations ever created and proposed would collapse in a number substitution.


Actually, general relativity predicts the expansion. The equation I wrote above is missing the cosmological constant, a term which if you follow all the maths through, should really be included. I just left it out because it was a pain writing that equation out in a post like this and it is often excluded anyway. This is energy inherent in space itself.
Also, you do a number substitution to use the equation. In fact, that's what Einstein did to predict the correct orbit of Mercury and the angle of deflection of light as it passed the sun, which was confirmed experimentally around five years later during a solar eclipse.

Anyway, if you want to get a better understanding of gravity, I suggest you follow Susskind's lectures on relativity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk although you will need to learn calculus to a decent level before-hand if you haven't already.

As I am talking theoretically, I would assume tachyons exist which is one exotic particles, therefore it is safe to say they can go faster than speed of light.


When you talk theoretically, you don't just say stuff like let's assume tachyons exist because it's convenient. You say, let's assume they exist. Now let's work out the consequences of this. Assuming none of the consequences contradict current proven theory and do not contradict themselves, then you can start talking about applying it to the real world. When you say, let's just assume tachyons exist well you may as well say well let's just assume Santa Clause exists and he can help solve global warming by giving rides in his sleigh instead of people flying in planes.

Edit: That last sentence sounds a bit harsh, but it's not meant to be. The point is just that if you start making theories, they should still be based as much as possible on proper science and should have reasons for existing. Instead of just saying tachyons exists, why should they exist? Or instead of saying 'we can build a gravity machine' find a plausible way of how to do this which isn't easily refuted with known science. Then you're getting into really interesting and proper theoretical physics.




Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.