Unified Field Theory: The Higgs Field

The following can be viewed with the graphics intact at the following
index page
http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/index.html

The Relativity of Quantum Processes - A Correction

For several decades there has been controversy over whether or not
highly red shifted quasars can be found located in low red shifted
galaxies. The matter has been revisited in recent years, and this time
it appears that a highly red shifted quasar has been located in a
nearby galaxy..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111115201.htm
Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A
Nearby Galaxy?. "How could a galaxy 300 million light years away
contain a stellar object several billion light years away?"

The Pioneer spacecraft are decelerating at a constant rate (the
product of the speed of light and Hubble's constant). The Inverse
Square law describes an energy field wherein the density of the field
decreases with distance, which is to say that the energy field ‘red
shifts' the further away from the center of the field a point is
located, and we could say that the energy field ‘blue shifts' closer
to the center of the field. We assume that momentum is relative, in
that the Pioneer spacecraft would require more momentum as they move
into a dilated part of the field if they are to maintain a consistent
velocity. This then suggests that the total potential velocity of the
two spacecraft must be increasing as the two spacecraft decelerate.

We could then say that as the field energy ‘red shifts' (the density
decreases) the momentum field of the two Pioneer spacecraft must ‘blue
shift' to compensate if the two craft are to maintain their former
velocity. It must also be true that if the field ‘blue
shifts' (becomes more energetically dense nearer the source of the
field) the momentum field of the two spacecraft would have to ‘red
shift' (a decrease in momentum field density) if the two space craft
were to maintain a consistent velocity.

We therefore assume that if a relative process is to produce
equivalent momentum, the process must produce a red shifted result
when the surrounding energy field is blue shifted, and when the energy
field red shifts, the process must produce a corresponding blue
shifted result if momentum is to remain constant.

This leads to the conclusion that there are three factors that
contribute to the red shifting of an observed phenomenon: the Doppler
effect, the gravitational red shift, and the quantum process red
shift. One of the problems we encounter with a highly red shifted
quasar in a low red shift galaxy is that the red shifting cannot be
explained by the Doppler effect and the gravitational red shift
alone. Therefore, if it is true that highly red shifted quasars are
found located in low red shifted galaxies, then it must be considered
proof positive that momentum is relative and that the relativity of
quantum processes must be a logically following result of this
relativity of momentum. Quasars appear highly red shifted because the
quantum processes emitting the radiation are releasing highly red
shifted electromagnetic radiation at the source.

The anomalous rotation of galaxies has led to the conclusion that
something called ‘dark matter' must exist, for galaxies are found to
exhibit a red shift that is a flat line, when the gravitational red
shift would lead us to expect a curve (the galaxy appears to rotate
like one solid body and the red shift appears equivalent both in the
low intensity part of the gravitational field and in the high
intensity center of the field, which gravitational red shift alone
cannot explain). However if we take the example of the two Pioneer
spacecraft as our model, then we can see that the quantum processes in
the blue shifted field of the galaxy (towards the center) are keeping
quantum momentum constant by releasing highly red shifted light at the
source, in much the same way as must be true of highly red shifted
quasars.

Taken together these three examples are strong indications that both
momentum and processes are relative.


The Atom Uncertainty Principle

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...book-atom.html
Physicists finally create 'textbook' atom

The earliest images of an atom showed a nucleus (much like the sun)
being orbited by electrons (much like the planets in orbit). This
image then became obsolete as research continued, and it became
obvious that it was impossible to predict the behavior of a quantum
system, and that all one could ever do is calculate probabilities.
Therefore the planetary ‘orbit' of the electron was replaced with a
‘smear'.

This then gave rise to the idea that quantum physics represented some
kind of walled off enclave in the sciences where all of the laws of
classical physics ‘break down' and can no longer be applied, for the
world of the atom is a strange new world, it was said, with a strange
physics all its own.

One way to understand the concept is to imagine a dart board hanging
on a wall. A dart is hurled towards the dart board. Let's assume that
it is ejected by some sort of spring loaded aiming device. Classical
physics, given the correct information, could then predict where on
the dart board the flying dart would strike (in much the same way that
an object can be placed into a precise orbit above the earth, if the
aim is correct, and so on).

However in quantum physics no such predictions can be made. As soon
as the dart leaves the cannon, the atom uncertainty principle comes
into play, and, we are told, all the laws of classical physics break
down and we enter into a weird realm of random disorder. The result
will be the production of a scatter graph, showing the surface of the
dart board, with dots representing the possible impact point of the
tossed dart. The points will be clustered nearest the most probable
locations of the dart impact.

Let's assume that you charge up a glow in the dark toy with light and
then enter into a dark closet to watch it discharge over a period of
four or five minutes. Now suppose that you were a quantum scientist,
and you were to choose one hundred atoms to monitor closely. Let's
assume that the probability distribution states that out of one
hundred atoms, fifty would emit a greenish photon within the first
minute. If you were to choose any one atom it would be impossible to
predict whether or not that one atom would emit a photon within the
first minute. After the experiment was over, and repeated many times,
you would notice that fifty atoms, on average, released photons in the
first minute, as predicted, but you could never predict just which
atom might be included among the fifty. You can only wait and see.
This is the atom uncertainty principle. It is one of the most
important foundational doctrines of quantum physics.

The discovery of the atom uncertainty principle led to the development
of a certain philosophical system, in that this principle, it was
said, was telling us something very profound about the nature of the
universe, when examined at the very deepest level. We needed to
question all our ideas concerning such things as ‘causality' (one
thing following another in some sort of relationship) and now come to
understand that the universe is basically a very disordered place full
of random chaos which then produces the illusion of order that we
perceive through a process of ‘emergent properties' (order arising out
of meaningless and seemingly uncontrollable chaos). This then led to
Albert Einstein's famous cranky response, ‘God does not play dice with
the universe'.

What Einstein meant to say was that if you had the right equation, you
could predict events in the quantum world. I am convinced that this
is true, and that the atom uncertainty principle is not the foundation
of some philosophical system purporting to describe ‘ultimate
reality', but rather this atom uncertainty principle is an
anthropocentric human projection onto the universe, and actually
describes the state of quantum physics in the twentieth century more
than it describes ‘the deepest reality of existence.' At the same
time I cannot advocate Einstein's approach, because it is ridiculous,
for to predict quantum events would require equations encapsulating
quadrillions of variables, and that is just not a practical approach.

The controversy between Einstein and the quantum physicists remains of
paramount important today, because it defines the way forward for
science. Where do we go from here? We cannot recycle properly,
because quantum physics does not yet allow it. We have mother
nature's solar cell (the glow in the dark toy, which is both a solar
collector and a built in battery storage device) but we have no decent
solar cell technology, because quantum physics does not allow it. The
atom uncertainty principle is responsible for this lack of progress in
the field of quantum mechanics, and if this principle is false, then
it must be challenged and it must be toppled from the pinnacle upon
which it was placed in the last century. The future of science and
the future of humanity depends upon arriving at the correct solution
to this controversy. It is not just a debate about philosophy.

I am convinced that the correct way forward is to simplify the
equations, by eliminating variables, and in this way by simplifying
the environment, to eliminate all the random chaos that occurs in that
environment (which is responsible for all this chaotic and
unpredictable behavior that resembles gambling and dice throwing) it
would then be possible to do things no one ever thought possible
before. We must simplify the environment to allow atoms to exist in a
tranquil state of undisturbed entropy. This means nullifying the
effects of gravity, tiny though this might be. Atoms should be
allowed to exist in a field without a gradient, absent the effects of
relative momentum. Atoms should be undisturbed by outside
environmental influences. We should simplify the problem by
eliminating quadrillions of variables and thus create a stable,
classical predictable controllable quantum system.

Now evidence has emerged that Einstein was correct, and that the
quantum philosophers of the previous century were wrong. For the
first time a classical atom has been created in a lab experiment.
This means that the atom uncertainty principle has been tossed into
the dust bucket of history, for it is now possible to predict exactly
the state of an atom, and there is no need for those smears or those
probability distributions.


The Higgs Field

You may have heard about the problems that occurred at the Large
Hadron Collider, which has been under repair over the winter. The
purpose of this collider is to search for ‘the Higgs Boson', this
being one of the last pieces in the puzzle in the field of particle
physics.

According to particle physics, the Higgs field is an energy field that
permeates all of space. As such it is this field that is responsible
for giving matter its property of being a ‘mass'. The idea here is
that the field reacts to matter as though matter was a disruption in
the field. It is also this field that gives a quantized ‘mass like'
property to ‘bosons' (tiny fragments of energy released into the field
by means of a force, such forces being required if the entropy of the
field is to be disturbed by such unwanted intrusions).


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/ graphics/gphoton.gif
In the diagram above we see an atom releasing energy by slowly leaking
excess energy into the field (at the top). This never happens, for
the field generates impedance, and therefore a force is always present
whenever energy is transferred between fields. The result is that
energy can only be transferred when it is ‘quantized'. It released
all at once in packets which require force. For this reason a force
field is always involved in any transfer of energy (one example of
this would be the force you feel when you step on the accelerator of a
car to increase the momentum energy, and then feel yourself being
pushed back into the seat by the impedance of the surrounding field
energy of the universe...something similar happens in all transfers of
energy, and there is a force involved to overcome the resisting
impedance of the field on the receiving end of the transfer).

It has been said that the Higgs field is responsible for giving matter
its ‘mass' and this idea does not make sense to me, for it would be
better to say that a Higgs field is responsible for matter keeping its
property of being a ‘mass' once it already has that property. As for
how matter came to be a ‘mass' in the first place is problem that
remains to be resolved.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...ics/break2.gif
In the diagram above we display a crude device designed to verify the
existence of this energy field. We use mechanical force to create a
discontinuity in the energy field by squeezing together two similar
poles of two bar magnets. This generates a powerful force field. (A
bar magnet has two poles, and I am assuming that squeezing together
two North Poles would create an ‘empty discontinuity' in the space
field.) The result will be the transfer of energy in the form of
momentum (resulting in movement and pushing apart the poles of the
magnets). Since it is impossible to push apart the two poles of the
magnets, we assume that one of the products of this mechanical stress
will be the constant production of heat energy.

We assume that all fields are Higgs fields (this is the Unified Field
Theory after all). Even the tiniest subatomic particle has such a
field, which is a momentum field. The earth is surrounded by a warped
space field, which is a momentum field. Whenever energy is
transferred by means of this warped space field the result is always
expressed in the form of an exchange of momentum energy (examples
include flybys of spacecraft to give them a boost in speed, or the
increasing momentum of the moon as the moon gains momentum energy
through the tidal interaction, or when a tiny particle is accelerated
by using the momentum field of magnets to impart momentum energy to
the momentum field surrounding the particle).

We assume that all Higgs fields are momentum fields and that all
interactions are interactions between fields. The Higgs field does
not ‘interact with masses' but instead it interacts with the mass
field.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/page.../sttornado.jpg
Now what happens when momentum cannot be expressed in the form of
motion. It must be expressed in some other way. Some sort of curious
relationship exists between ‘spin' and ‘charge' in that two particles
with opposite spin possess ‘attractive charges'. In the image above
we see two ‘charged particles' which possess momentum and then
collide. (We assume that the ‘spin' is expressed in the surrounding
field energy, as indicated by the blue arrows, with the field energy
suggested by the purple color surrounding the ‘mass', colored green).
Momentum is then conserved in the form of angular momentum. The
particles cannot bounce or richochet, because they are attractive to
one another. They stick together, and therefore they must spin, as
their momentum is converted to the angular momentum of spin. This
generates a spinning magnetic field, which converts the momentum of
other particles to angular momentum as well. On the right we then see
one of those enormous space tornadoes that create stars and planets in
the universe. Whatever creates these enormous electromagnetic
vortexes must be very common for there are billions of galaxies with
billions of stars and billions and billions of planets.



In the diagram of the device shown above we see that the device is not
able to generate motion (so as to push apart the poles of the bar
magnet) and therefore it must conserve momentum in some other form,
and this would result in the generation of heat. We could then verify
the existence of the Higgs Field (which we will assume is just one
more name given to this energy field which pervades all space), and we
can also prove the existence of a Higgs Boson (since a force carrier
is required to transfer this field energy). Let's suppose that the
mechanical force used to screw the device together was ‘X' joules. We
would monitor and record heat energy equivalent to ‘X+1' joules, just
to eliminate any possible doubt. The energy could not have been
produced by mechanical force (X joules) and therefore must be field
energy. This would then suggest that a ‘Higgs Boson' must be a force
carrier of momentum energy in the universe. This also causes me to
wonder whether it is really required that there be a ‘graviton' (this
would seem to be redundant and would be giving another name to a
‘Higg's Boson', and it seems that there are already more than enough
different names given to the same phenomenon by different fields of
the sciences, which then contributes to a lack of clarity).



We suggest that a momentum field possesses some internal ‘spin'
property, for a relationship exists between momentum and
‘temperature'. When momentum cannot be translated into motion, it is
translated into angular momentum, and in the case of the generation of
heat, it is translated into internal angular momentum, the spin of the
momentum field receiving the energy. This idea does make sense if we
think of ‘temperature' as possessing properties similar to a
‘charge'. Hot gas expands as the increased charge increases repulsion
(the result of an increase in this ‘internal spin' of the momentum
field, where momentum energy is transferred when motion is
impossible). Similarly as the spin goes down towards absolute zero,
the charge phenomenon disappears and the result is the creation of a
Bose Einstein Condensate, where all the atoms behave like one single
atom clustered into one single lump (the absence of any residual
repulsive spin charge, caused by lowering the temperature to absolute
zero, thus reducing the repulsive spin charge to absolute zero at the
same time).

In this way we can see that a Higgs Boson is a force carrier of
momentum, for the result of creating a disruption in the field by
squeezing together two similar poles of the bar magnet is to generate
momentum force (to push apart the two poles) and if that proves to be
impossible the momentum energy is then translated into ‘internal spin'
in the momentum field of quantum masses, and assumes the form of
‘stored momentum' (a repulsive charge, which increases as the transfer
of momentum energy continues). The same Higgs field that maintains
‘mass', would be the same Higgs field that pushes mass from one point
to another in the field, resulting in motion (for the property of
motion we assign to the field itself, as the problem is pushed from
one location to another, where the process is repeated). Even though
a ‘g force' is not felt when no transfer of energy into the momentum
field is taking place (the object is maintaining ‘conserved momentum')
a force must still be present for energy is being transferred by means
of motion (from point A to point B as the object coasts through
space).

We would then consider a Higg's field to be equivalent to a
gravitational field, which is a momentum field (with this ‘warped
space field' being the carrier of all the energy referred to when we
speak of ‘conserved momentum'). We can see that ‘temperature' is a
variant of momentum energy (we assume that the momentum field
possesses this property of ‘internal spin'). We can see this ‘charge
like' repulsion as a form of ‘stored momentum' and if such a device
was to become hot enough to bend metal, the result would be motion,
the product of momentum, which would eventually push apart the two
similar poles of the bar magnets. What we refer to as ‘friction'
would be the perceived ‘physical manifestation' of the force involved
in the transfer of this internal spin energy between quantum systems
(with the end result being the reduction of charge as the system
approaches a state of equality, for it is characteristic of energy
systems to move toward a state of entropy where energy is evenly
distributed in the field).




Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is heat energy there
is electricity. What is required is that we must translate this
momentum force into external angular momentum (rather than heat),
which would drive a rotor shaft which would drive an electromagnetic
turbine, which would produce electricity, which would be one more way
of demonstrating that a Higgs Field and a Higgs Boson are part of the
universal energy cycle, for it proved possible to employ a Higgs boson
to run a toaster and a coffee pot in the morning.

You should post this to sci.astro.research


"bkh99" wrote in message
...
The following can be viewed with the graphics intact at the following
index page
http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/index.html

The Relativity of Quantum Processes - A Correction

For several decades there has been controversy over whether or not
highly red shifted quasars can be found located in low red shifted
galaxies. The matter has been revisited in recent years, and this time
it appears that a highly red shifted quasar has been located in a
nearby galaxy..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111115201.htm
Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A
Nearby Galaxy?. "How could a galaxy 300 million light years away
contain a stellar object several billion light years away?"

The Pioneer spacecraft are decelerating at a constant rate (the
product of the speed of light and Hubble's constant). The Inverse
Square law describes an energy field wherein the density of the field
decreases with distance, which is to say that the energy field ‘red
shifts' the further away from the center of the field a point is
located, and we could say that the energy field ‘blue shifts' closer
to the center of the field. We assume that momentum is relative, in
that the Pioneer spacecraft would require more momentum as they move
into a dilated part of the field if they are to maintain a consistent
velocity. This then suggests that the total potential velocity of the
two spacecraft must be increasing as the two spacecraft decelerate.

We could then say that as the field energy ‘red shifts' (the density
decreases) the momentum field of the two Pioneer spacecraft must ‘blue
shift' to compensate if the two craft are to maintain their former
velocity. It must also be true that if the field ‘blue
shifts' (becomes more energetically dense nearer the source of the
field) the momentum field of the two spacecraft would have to ‘red
shift' (a decrease in momentum field density) if the two space craft
were to maintain a consistent velocity.

We therefore assume that if a relative process is to produce
equivalent momentum, the process must produce a red shifted result
when the surrounding energy field is blue shifted, and when the energy
field red shifts, the process must produce a corresponding blue
shifted result if momentum is to remain constant.

This leads to the conclusion that there are three factors that
contribute to the red shifting of an observed phenomenon: the Doppler
effect, the gravitational red shift, and the quantum process red
shift. One of the problems we encounter with a highly red shifted
quasar in a low red shift galaxy is that the red shifting cannot be
explained by the Doppler effect and the gravitational red shift
alone. Therefore, if it is true that highly red shifted quasars are
found located in low red shifted galaxies, then it must be considered
proof positive that momentum is relative and that the relativity of
quantum processes must be a logically following result of this
relativity of momentum. Quasars appear highly red shifted because the
quantum processes emitting the radiation are releasing highly red
shifted electromagnetic radiation at the source.

The anomalous rotation of galaxies has led to the conclusion that
something called ‘dark matter' must exist, for galaxies are found to
exhibit a red shift that is a flat line, when the gravitational red
shift would lead us to expect a curve (the galaxy appears to rotate
like one solid body and the red shift appears equivalent both in the
low intensity part of the gravitational field and in the high
intensity center of the field, which gravitational red shift alone
cannot explain). However if we take the example of the two Pioneer
spacecraft as our model, then we can see that the quantum processes in
the blue shifted field of the galaxy (towards the center) are keeping
quantum momentum constant by releasing highly red shifted light at the
source, in much the same way as must be true of highly red shifted
quasars.

Taken together these three examples are strong indications that both
momentum and processes are relative.


The Atom Uncertainty Principle

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...book-atom.html
Physicists finally create 'textbook' atom

The earliest images of an atom showed a nucleus (much like the sun)
being orbited by electrons (much like the planets in orbit). This
image then became obsolete as research continued, and it became
obvious that it was impossible to predict the behavior of a quantum
system, and that all one could ever do is calculate probabilities.
Therefore the planetary ‘orbit' of the electron was replaced with a
‘smear'.

This then gave rise to the idea that quantum physics represented some
kind of walled off enclave in the sciences where all of the laws of
classical physics ‘break down' and can no longer be applied, for the
world of the atom is a strange new world, it was said, with a strange
physics all its own.

One way to understand the concept is to imagine a dart board hanging
on a wall. A dart is hurled towards the dart board. Let's assume that
it is ejected by some sort of spring loaded aiming device. Classical
physics, given the correct information, could then predict where on
the dart board the flying dart would strike (in much the same way that
an object can be placed into a precise orbit above the earth, if the
aim is correct, and so on).

However in quantum physics no such predictions can be made. As soon
as the dart leaves the cannon, the atom uncertainty principle comes
into play, and, we are told, all the laws of classical physics break
down and we enter into a weird realm of random disorder. The result
will be the production of a scatter graph, showing the surface of the
dart board, with dots representing the possible impact point of the
tossed dart. The points will be clustered nearest the most probable
locations of the dart impact.

Let's assume that you charge up a glow in the dark toy with light and
then enter into a dark closet to watch it discharge over a period of
four or five minutes. Now suppose that you were a quantum scientist,
and you were to choose one hundred atoms to monitor closely. Let's
assume that the probability distribution states that out of one
hundred atoms, fifty would emit a greenish photon within the first
minute. If you were to choose any one atom it would be impossible to
predict whether or not that one atom would emit a photon within the
first minute. After the experiment was over, and repeated many times,
you would notice that fifty atoms, on average, released photons in the
first minute, as predicted, but you could never predict just which
atom might be included among the fifty. You can only wait and see.
This is the atom uncertainty principle. It is one of the most
important foundational doctrines of quantum physics.

The discovery of the atom uncertainty principle led to the development
of a certain philosophical system, in that this principle, it was
said, was telling us something very profound about the nature of the
universe, when examined at the very deepest level. We needed to
question all our ideas concerning such things as ‘causality' (one
thing following another in some sort of relationship) and now come to
understand that the universe is basically a very disordered place full
of random chaos which then produces the illusion of order that we
perceive through a process of ‘emergent properties' (order arising out
of meaningless and seemingly uncontrollable chaos). This then led to
Albert Einstein's famous cranky response, ‘God does not play dice with
the universe'.

What Einstein meant to say was that if you had the right equation, you
could predict events in the quantum world. I am convinced that this
is true, and that the atom uncertainty principle is not the foundation
of some philosophical system purporting to describe ‘ultimate
reality', but rather this atom uncertainty principle is an
anthropocentric human projection onto the universe, and actually
describes the state of quantum physics in the twentieth century more
than it describes ‘the deepest reality of existence.' At the same
time I cannot advocate Einstein's approach, because it is ridiculous,
for to predict quantum events would require equations encapsulating
quadrillions of variables, and that is just not a practical approach.

The controversy between Einstein and the quantum physicists remains of
paramount important today, because it defines the way forward for
science. Where do we go from here? We cannot recycle properly,
because quantum physics does not yet allow it. We have mother
nature's solar cell (the glow in the dark toy, which is both a solar
collector and a built in battery storage device) but we have no decent
solar cell technology, because quantum physics does not allow it. The
atom uncertainty principle is responsible for this lack of progress in
the field of quantum mechanics, and if this principle is false, then
it must be challenged and it must be toppled from the pinnacle upon
which it was placed in the last century. The future of science and
the future of humanity depends upon arriving at the correct solution
to this controversy. It is not just a debate about philosophy.

I am convinced that the correct way forward is to simplify the
equations, by eliminating variables, and in this way by simplifying
the environment, to eliminate all the random chaos that occurs in that
environment (which is responsible for all this chaotic and
unpredictable behavior that resembles gambling and dice throwing) it
would then be possible to do things no one ever thought possible
before. We must simplify the environment to allow atoms to exist in a
tranquil state of undisturbed entropy. This means nullifying the
effects of gravity, tiny though this might be. Atoms should be
allowed to exist in a field without a gradient, absent the effects of
relative momentum. Atoms should be undisturbed by outside
environmental influences. We should simplify the problem by
eliminating quadrillions of variables and thus create a stable,
classical predictable controllable quantum system.

Now evidence has emerged that Einstein was correct, and that the
quantum philosophers of the previous century were wrong. For the
first time a classical atom has been created in a lab experiment.
This means that the atom uncertainty principle has been tossed into
the dust bucket of history, for it is now possible to predict exactly
the state of an atom, and there is no need for those smears or those
probability distributions.


The Higgs Field

You may have heard about the problems that occurred at the Large
Hadron Collider, which has been under repair over the winter. The
purpose of this collider is to search for ‘the Higgs Boson', this
being one of the last pieces in the puzzle in the field of particle
physics.

According to particle physics, the Higgs field is an energy field that
permeates all of space. As such it is this field that is responsible
for giving matter its property of being a ‘mass'. The idea here is
that the field reacts to matter as though matter was a disruption in
the field. It is also this field that gives a quantized ‘mass like'
property to ‘bosons' (tiny fragments of energy released into the field
by means of a force, such forces being required if the entropy of the
field is to be disturbed by such unwanted intrusions).


http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/ graphics/gphoton.gif
In the diagram above we see an atom releasing energy by slowly leaking
excess energy into the field (at the top). This never happens, for
the field generates impedance, and therefore a force is always present
whenever energy is transferred between fields. The result is that
energy can only be transferred when it is ‘quantized'. It released
all at once in packets which require force. For this reason a force
field is always involved in any transfer of energy (one example of
this would be the force you feel when you step on the accelerator of a
car to increase the momentum energy, and then feel yourself being
pushed back into the seat by the impedance of the surrounding field
energy of the universe...something similar happens in all transfers of
energy, and there is a force involved to overcome the resisting
impedance of the field on the receiving end of the transfer).

It has been said that the Higgs field is responsible for giving matter
its ‘mass' and this idea does not make sense to me, for it would be
better to say that a Higgs field is responsible for matter keeping its
property of being a ‘mass' once it already has that property. As for
how matter came to be a ‘mass' in the first place is problem that
remains to be resolved.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...ics/break2.gif
In the diagram above we display a crude device designed to verify the
existence of this energy field. We use mechanical force to create a
discontinuity in the energy field by squeezing together two similar
poles of two bar magnets. This generates a powerful force field. (A
bar magnet has two poles, and I am assuming that squeezing together
two North Poles would create an ‘empty discontinuity' in the space
field.) The result will be the transfer of energy in the form of
momentum (resulting in movement and pushing apart the poles of the
magnets). Since it is impossible to push apart the two poles of the
magnets, we assume that one of the products of this mechanical stress
will be the constant production of heat energy.

We assume that all fields are Higgs fields (this is the Unified Field
Theory after all). Even the tiniest subatomic particle has such a
field, which is a momentum field. The earth is surrounded by a warped
space field, which is a momentum field. Whenever energy is
transferred by means of this warped space field the result is always
expressed in the form of an exchange of momentum energy (examples
include flybys of spacecraft to give them a boost in speed, or the
increasing momentum of the moon as the moon gains momentum energy
through the tidal interaction, or when a tiny particle is accelerated
by using the momentum field of magnets to impart momentum energy to
the momentum field surrounding the particle).

We assume that all Higgs fields are momentum fields and that all
interactions are interactions between fields. The Higgs field does
not ‘interact with masses' but instead it interacts with the mass
field.


http://www.awitness.org/unified/page.../sttornado.jpg
Now what happens when momentum cannot be expressed in the form of
motion. It must be expressed in some other way. Some sort of curious
relationship exists between ‘spin' and ‘charge' in that two particles
with opposite spin possess ‘attractive charges'. In the image above
we see two ‘charged particles' which possess momentum and then
collide. (We assume that the ‘spin' is expressed in the surrounding
field energy, as indicated by the blue arrows, with the field energy
suggested by the purple color surrounding the ‘mass', colored green).
Momentum is then conserved in the form of angular momentum. The
particles cannot bounce or richochet, because they are attractive to
one another. They stick together, and therefore they must spin, as
their momentum is converted to the angular momentum of spin. This
generates a spinning magnetic field, which converts the momentum of
other particles to angular momentum as well. On the right we then see
one of those enormous space tornadoes that create stars and planets in
the universe. Whatever creates these enormous electromagnetic
vortexes must be very common for there are billions of galaxies with
billions of stars and billions and billions of planets.



In the diagram of the device shown above we see that the device is not
able to generate motion (so as to push apart the poles of the bar
magnet) and therefore it must conserve momentum in some other form,
and this would result in the generation of heat. We could then verify
the existence of the Higgs Field (which we will assume is just one
more name given to this energy field which pervades all space), and we
can also prove the existence of a Higgs Boson (since a force carrier
is required to transfer this field energy). Let's suppose that the
mechanical force used to screw the device together was ‘X' joules. We
would monitor and record heat energy equivalent to ‘X+1' joules, just
to eliminate any possible doubt. The energy could not have been
produced by mechanical force (X joules) and therefore must be field
energy. This would then suggest that a ‘Higgs Boson' must be a force
carrier of momentum energy in the universe. This also causes me to
wonder whether it is really required that there be a ‘graviton' (this
would seem to be redundant and would be giving another name to a
‘Higg's Boson', and it seems that there are already more than enough
different names given to the same phenomenon by different fields of
the sciences, which then contributes to a lack of clarity).



We suggest that a momentum field possesses some internal ‘spin'
property, for a relationship exists between momentum and
‘temperature'. When momentum cannot be translated into motion, it is
translated into angular momentum, and in the case of the generation of
heat, it is translated into internal angular momentum, the spin of the
momentum field receiving the energy. This idea does make sense if we
think of ‘temperature' as possessing properties similar to a
‘charge'. Hot gas expands as the increased charge increases repulsion
(the result of an increase in this ‘internal spin' of the momentum
field, where momentum energy is transferred when motion is
impossible). Similarly as the spin goes down towards absolute zero,
the charge phenomenon disappears and the result is the creation of a
Bose Einstein Condensate, where all the atoms behave like one single
atom clustered into one single lump (the absence of any residual
repulsive spin charge, caused by lowering the temperature to absolute
zero, thus reducing the repulsive spin charge to absolute zero at the
same time).

In this way we can see that a Higgs Boson is a force carrier of
momentum, for the result of creating a disruption in the field by
squeezing together two similar poles of the bar magnet is to generate
momentum force (to push apart the two poles) and if that proves to be
impossible the momentum energy is then translated into ‘internal spin'
in the momentum field of quantum masses, and assumes the form of
‘stored momentum' (a repulsive charge, which increases as the transfer
of momentum energy continues). The same Higgs field that maintains
‘mass', would be the same Higgs field that pushes mass from one point
to another in the field, resulting in motion (for the property of
motion we assign to the field itself, as the problem is pushed from
one location to another, where the process is repeated). Even though
a ‘g force' is not felt when no transfer of energy into the momentum
field is taking place (the object is maintaining ‘conserved momentum')
a force must still be present for energy is being transferred by means
of motion (from point A to point B as the object coasts through
space).

We would then consider a Higg's field to be equivalent to a
gravitational field, which is a momentum field (with this ‘warped
space field' being the carrier of all the energy referred to when we
speak of ‘conserved momentum'). We can see that ‘temperature' is a
variant of momentum energy (we assume that the momentum field
possesses this property of ‘internal spin'). We can see this ‘charge
like' repulsion as a form of ‘stored momentum' and if such a device
was to become hot enough to bend metal, the result would be motion,
the product of momentum, which would eventually push apart the two
similar poles of the bar magnets. What we refer to as ‘friction'
would be the perceived ‘physical manifestation' of the force involved
in the transfer of this internal spin energy between quantum systems
(with the end result being the reduction of charge as the system
approaches a state of equality, for it is characteristic of energy
systems to move toward a state of entropy where energy is evenly
distributed in the field).




Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is heat energy there
is electricity. What is required is that we must translate this
momentum force into external angular momentum (rather than heat),
which would drive a rotor shaft which would drive an electromagnetic
turbine, which would produce electricity, which would be one more way
of demonstrating that a Higgs Field and a Higgs Boson are part of the
universal energy cycle, for it proved possible to employ a Higgs boson
to run a toaster and a coffee pot in the morning.

bkh99 wrote:

The following can be viewed with the graphics intact at the following
index page
http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/index.html

The Relativity of Quantum Processes - A Correction

For several decades there has been controversy over whether or not
highly red shifted quasars can be found located in low red shifted
galaxies. The matter has been revisited in recent years, and this time
it appears that a highly red shifted quasar has been located in a
nearby galaxy..
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111115201.htm
Discovery Poses Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A
Nearby Galaxy?. "How could a galaxy 300 million light years away
contain a stellar object several billion light years away?"

The Pioneer spacecraft are decelerating at a constant rate (the
product of the speed of light and Hubble's constant). The Inverse
Square law describes an energy field wherein the density of the field
decreases with distance, which is to say that the energy field ‘red
shifts' the further away from the center of the field a point is
located, and we could say that the energy field ‘blue shifts' closer
to the center of the field. We assume that momentum is relative, in
that the Pioneer spacecraft would require more momentum as they move
into a dilated part of the field if they are to maintain a consistent
velocity. This then suggests that the total potential velocity of the
two spacecraft must be increasing as the two spacecraft decelerate.

We could then say that as the field energy ‘red shifts' (the density
decreases) the momentum field of the two Pioneer spacecraft must ‘blue
shift' to compensate if the two craft are to maintain their former
velocity. It must also be true that if the field ‘blue
shifts' (becomes more energetically dense nearer the source of the
field) the momentum field of the two spacecraft would have to ‘red
shift' (a decrease in momentum field density) if the two space craft
were to maintain a consistent velocity.

We therefore assume that if a relative process is to produce
equivalent momentum, the process must produce a red shifted result
when the surrounding energy field is blue shifted, and when the energy
field red shifts, the process must produce a corresponding blue
shifted result if momentum is to remain constant.

This leads to the conclusion that there are three factors that
contribute to the red shifting of an observed phenomenon: the Doppler
effect, the gravitational red shift, and the quantum process red
shift. One of the problems we encounter with a highly red shifted
quasar in a low red shift galaxy is that the red shifting cannot be
explained by the Doppler effect and the gravitational red shift
alone. Therefore, if it is true that highly red shifted quasars are
found located in low red shifted galaxies, then it must be considered
proof positive that momentum is relative and that the relativity of
quantum processes must be a logically following result of this
relativity of momentum. Quasars appear highly red shifted because the
quantum processes emitting the radiation are releasing highly red
shifted electromagnetic radiation at the source.

The anomalous rotation of galaxies has led to the conclusion that
something called ‘dark matter' must exist, for galaxies are found to
exhibit a red shift that is a flat line, when the gravitational red
shift would lead us to expect a curve (the galaxy appears to rotate
like one solid body and the red shift appears equivalent both in the
low intensity part of the gravitational field and in the high
intensity center of the field, which gravitational red shift alone
cannot explain). However if we take the example of the two Pioneer
spacecraft as our model, then we can see that the quantum processes in
the blue shifted field of the galaxy (towards the center) are keeping
quantum momentum constant by releasing highly red shifted light at the
source, in much the same way as must be true of highly red shifted
quasars.

Taken together these three examples are strong indications that both
momentum and processes are relative.

The Atom Uncertainty Principle

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...book-atom.html
Physicists finally create 'textbook' atom

The earliest images of an atom showed a nucleus (much like the sun)
being orbited by electrons (much like the planets in orbit). This
image then became obsolete as research continued, and it became
obvious that it was impossible to predict the behavior of a quantum
system, and that all one could ever do is calculate probabilities.
Therefore the planetary ‘orbit' of the electron was replaced with a
‘smear'.

This then gave rise to the idea that quantum physics represented some
kind of walled off enclave in the sciences where all of the laws of
classical physics ‘break down' and can no longer be applied, for the
world of the atom is a strange new world, it was said, with a strange
physics all its own.

One way to understand the concept is to imagine a dart board hanging
on a wall. A dart is hurled towards the dart board. Let's assume that
it is ejected by some sort of spring loaded aiming device. Classical
physics, given the correct information, could then predict where on
the dart board the flying dart would strike (in much the same way that
an object can be placed into a precise orbit above the earth, if the
aim is correct, and so on).

However in quantum physics no such predictions can be made. As soon
as the dart leaves the cannon, the atom uncertainty principle comes
into play, and, we are told, all the laws of classical physics break
down and we enter into a weird realm of random disorder. The result
will be the production of a scatter graph, showing the surface of the
dart board, with dots representing the possible impact point of the
tossed dart. The points will be clustered nearest the most probable
locations of the dart impact.

Let's assume that you charge up a glow in the dark toy with light and
then enter into a dark closet to watch it discharge over a period of
four or five minutes. Now suppose that you were a quantum scientist,
and you were to choose one hundred atoms to monitor closely. Let's
assume that the probability distribution states that out of one
hundred atoms, fifty would emit a greenish photon within the first
minute. If you were to choose any one atom it would be impossible to
predict whether or not that one atom would emit a photon within the
first minute. After the experiment was over, and repeated many times,
you would notice that fifty atoms, on average, released photons in the
first minute, as predicted, but you could never predict just which
atom might be included among the fifty. You can only wait and see.
This is the atom uncertainty principle. It is one of the most
important foundational doctrines of quantum physics.

The discovery of the atom uncertainty principle led to the development
of a certain philosophical system, in that this principle, it was
said, was telling us something very profound about the nature of the
universe, when examined at the very deepest level. We needed to
question all our ideas concerning such things as ‘causality' (one
thing following another in some sort of relationship) and now come to
understand that the universe is basically a very disordered place full
of random chaos which then produces the illusion of order that we
perceive through a process of ‘emergent properties' (order arising out
of meaningless and seemingly uncontrollable chaos). This then led to
Albert Einstein's famous cranky response, ‘God does not play dice with
the universe'.

What Einstein meant to say was that if you had the right equation, you
could predict events in the quantum world. I am convinced that this
is true, and that the atom uncertainty principle is not the foundation
of some philosophical system purporting to describe ‘ultimate
reality', but rather this atom uncertainty principle is an
anthropocentric human projection onto the universe, and actually
describes the state of quantum physics in the twentieth century more
than it describes ‘the deepest reality of existence.' At the same
time I cannot advocate Einstein's approach, because it is ridiculous,
for to predict quantum events would require equations encapsulating
quadrillions of variables, and that is just not a practical approach.

The controversy between Einstein and the quantum physicists remains of
paramount important today, because it defines the way forward for
science. Where do we go from here? We cannot recycle properly,
because quantum physics does not yet allow it. We have mother
nature's solar cell (the glow in the dark toy, which is both a solar
collector and a built in battery storage device) but we have no decent
solar cell technology, because quantum physics does not allow it. The
atom uncertainty principle is responsible for this lack of progress in
the field of quantum mechanics, and if this principle is false, then
it must be challenged and it must be toppled from the pinnacle upon
which it was placed in the last century. The future of science and
the future of humanity depends upon arriving at the correct solution
to this controversy. It is not just a debate about philosophy.

I am convinced that the correct way forward is to simplify the
equations, by eliminating variables, and in this way by simplifying
the environment, to eliminate all the random chaos that occurs in that
environment (which is responsible for all this chaotic and
unpredictable behavior that resembles gambling and dice throwing) it
would then be possible to do things no one ever thought possible
before. We must simplify the environment to allow atoms to exist in a
tranquil state of undisturbed entropy. This means nullifying the
effects of gravity, tiny though this might be. Atoms should be
allowed to exist in a field without a gradient, absent the effects of
relative momentum. Atoms should be undisturbed by outside
environmental influences. We should simplify the problem by
eliminating quadrillions of variables and thus create a stable,
classical predictable controllable quantum system.

Now evidence has emerged that Einstein was correct, and that the
quantum philosophers of the previous century were wrong. For the
first time a classical atom has been created in a lab experiment.
This means that the atom uncertainty principle has been tossed into
the dust bucket of history, for it is now possible to predict exactly
the state of an atom, and there is no need for those smears or those
probability distributions.

The Higgs Field

You may have heard about the problems that occurred at the Large
Hadron Collider, which has been under repair over the winter. The
purpose of this collider is to search for ‘the Higgs Boson', this
being one of the last pieces in the puzzle in the field of particle
physics.

According to particle physics, the Higgs field is an energy field that
permeates all of space. As such it is this field that is responsible
for giving matter its property of being a ‘mass'. The idea here is
that the field reacts to matter as though matter was a disruption in
the field. It is also this field that gives a quantized ‘mass like'
property to ‘bosons' (tiny fragments of energy released into the field
by means of a force, such forces being required if the entropy of the
field is to be disturbed by such unwanted intrusions).

http://www.awitness.org/unified/pages/page2/ graphics/gphoton.gif
In the diagram above we see an atom releasing energy by slowly leaking
excess energy into the field (at the top). This never happens, for
the field generates impedance, and therefore a force is always present
whenever energy is transferred between fields. The result is that
energy can only be transferred when it is ‘quantized'. It released
all at once in packets which require force. For this reason a force
field is always involved in any transfer of energy (one example of
this would be the force you feel when you step on the accelerator of a
car to increase the momentum energy, and then feel yourself being
pushed back into the seat by the impedance of the surrounding field
energy of the universe...something similar happens in all transfers of
energy, and there is a force involved to overcome the resisting
impedance of the field on the receiving end of the transfer).

It has been said that the Higgs field is responsible for giving matter
its ‘mass' and this idea does not make sense to me, for it would be
better to say that a Higgs field is responsible for matter keeping its
property of being a ‘mass' once it already has that property. As for
how matter came to be a ‘mass' in the first place is problem that
remains to be resolved.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page...ics/break2.gif
In the diagram above we display a crude device designed to verify the
existence of this energy field. We use mechanical force to create a
discontinuity in the energy field by squeezing together two similar
poles of two bar magnets. This generates a powerful force field. (A
bar magnet has two poles, and I am assuming that squeezing together
two North Poles would create an ‘empty discontinuity' in the space
field.) The result will be the transfer of energy in the form of
momentum (resulting in movement and pushing apart the poles of the
magnets). Since it is impossible to push apart the two poles of the
magnets, we assume that one of the products of this mechanical stress
will be the constant production of heat energy.

We assume that all fields are Higgs fields (this is the Unified Field
Theory after all). Even the tiniest subatomic particle has such a
field, which is a momentum field. The earth is surrounded by a warped
space field, which is a momentum field. Whenever energy is
transferred by means of this warped space field the result is always
expressed in the form of an exchange of momentum energy (examples
include flybys of spacecraft to give them a boost in speed, or the
increasing momentum of the moon as the moon gains momentum energy
through the tidal interaction, or when a tiny particle is accelerated
by using the momentum field of magnets to impart momentum energy to
the momentum field surrounding the particle).

We assume that all Higgs fields are momentum fields and that all
interactions are interactions between fields. The Higgs field does
not ‘interact with masses' but instead it interacts with the mass
field.

http://www.awitness.org/unified/page.../sttornado.jpg
Now what happens when momentum cannot be expressed in the form of
motion. It must be expressed in some other way. Some sort of curious
relationship exists between ‘spin' and ‘charge' in that two particles
with opposite spin possess ‘attractive charges'. In the image above
we see two ‘charged particles' which possess momentum and then
collide. (We assume that the ‘spin' is expressed in the surrounding
field energy, as indicated by the blue arrows, with the field energy
suggested by the purple color surrounding the ‘mass', colored green).
Momentum is then conserved in the form of angular momentum. The
particles cannot bounce or richochet, because they are attractive to
one another. They stick together, and therefore they must spin, as
their momentum is converted to the angular momentum of spin. This
generates a spinning magnetic field, which converts the momentum of
other particles to angular momentum as well. On the right we then see
one of those enormous space tornadoes that create stars and planets in
the universe. Whatever creates these enormous electromagnetic
vortexes must be very common for there are billions of galaxies with
billions of stars and billions and billions of planets.

In the diagram of the device shown above we see that the device is not
able to generate motion (so as to push apart the poles of the bar
magnet) and therefore it must conserve momentum in some other form,
and this would result in the generation of heat. We could then verify
the existence of the Higgs Field (which we will assume is just one
more name given to this energy field which pervades all space), and we
can also prove the existence of a Higgs Boson (since a force carrier
is required to transfer this field energy). Let's suppose that the
mechanical force used to screw the device together was ‘X' joules. We
would monitor and record heat energy equivalent to ‘X+1' joules, just
to eliminate any possible doubt. The energy could not have been
produced by mechanical force (X joules) and therefore must be field
energy. This would then suggest that a ‘Higgs Boson' must be a force
carrier of momentum energy in the universe. This also causes me to
wonder whether it is really required that there be a ‘graviton' (this
would seem to be redundant and would be giving another name to a
‘Higg's Boson', and it seems that there are already more than enough
different names given to the same phenomenon by different fields of
the sciences, which then contributes to a lack of clarity).

We suggest that a momentum field possesses some internal ‘spin'
property, for a relationship exists between momentum and
‘temperature'. When momentum cannot be translated into motion, it is
translated into angular momentum, and in the case of the generation of
heat, it is translated into internal angular momentum, the spin of the
momentum field receiving the energy. This idea does make sense if we
think of ‘temperature' as possessing properties similar to a
‘charge'. Hot gas expands as the increased charge increases repulsion
(the result of an increase in this ‘internal spin' of the momentum
field, where momentum energy is transferred when motion is
impossible). Similarly as the spin goes down towards absolute zero,
the charge phenomenon disappears and the result is the creation of a
Bose Einstein Condensate, where all the atoms behave like one single
atom clustered into one single lump (the absence of any residual
repulsive spin charge, caused by lowering the temperature to absolute
zero, thus reducing the repulsive spin charge to absolute zero at the
same time).

In this way we can see that a Higgs Boson is a force carrier of
momentum, for the result of creating a disruption in the field by
squeezing together two similar poles of the bar magnet is to generate
momentum force (to push apart the two poles) and if that proves to be
impossible the momentum energy is then translated into ‘internal spin'
in the momentum field of quantum masses, and assumes the form of
‘stored momentum' (a repulsive charge, which increases as the transfer
of momentum energy continues). The same Higgs field that maintains
‘mass', would be the same Higgs field that pushes mass from one point
to another in the field, resulting in motion (for the property of
motion we assign to the field itself, as the problem is pushed from
one location to another, where the process is repeated). Even though
a ‘g force' is not felt when no transfer of energy into the momentum
field is taking place (the object is maintaining ‘conserved momentum')
a force must still be present for energy is being transferred by means
of motion (from point A to point B as the object coasts through
space).

We would then consider a Higg's field to be equivalent to a
gravitational field, which is a momentum field (with this ‘warped
space field' being the carrier of all the energy referred to when we
speak of ‘conserved momentum'). We can see that ‘temperature' is a
variant of momentum energy (we assume that the momentum field
possesses this property of ‘internal spin'). We can see this ‘charge
like' repulsion as a form of ‘stored momentum' and if such a device
was to become hot enough to bend metal, the result would be motion,
the product of momentum, which would eventually push apart the two
similar poles of the bar magnets. What we refer to as ‘friction'
would be the perceived ‘physical manifestation' of the force involved
in the transfer of this internal spin energy between quantum systems
(with the end result being the reduction of charge as the system
approaches a state of equality, for it is characteristic of energy
systems to move toward a state of entropy where energy is evenly
distributed in the field).

Where there is smoke there is fire. Where there is heat energy there
is electricity. What is required is that we must translate this
momentum force into external angular momentum (rather than heat),
which would drive a rotor shaft which would drive an electromagnetic
turbine, which would produce electricity, which would be one more way
of demonstrating that a Higgs Field and a Higgs Boson are part of the
universal energy cycle, for it proved possible to employ a Higgs boson
to run a toaster and a coffee pot in the morning.

My boson ran out. Can I borow yours tomorrow?
Family coming -