Insteresting theory claiming Higgs-boson doesn't exist

GWC Community Off-Topic/Other
#1

http://www.higgs-boson.org

It’s odd that a website with higgs-boson.org as its URL is actually about disproving the theorized particle.

But it makes so much sense.

It derived from one simple point about how the past belief that mass bends the space-time and thus generates gravity is false. The author argues that it’s the closed volume of an object that bends space-time.

The example given is take two metal hollow spheres of equal mass, one’s surface is porous with holes, the other’s surface doesn’t have holes and encloses the hollow center. Now put each sphere into a bucket of water, the sphere with holes will not cause the water to overflow the bucket, but the sphere with no holes will displace a larger quantity of water.

The author states that the space-time bends in the same manner. So mass doesn’t generate gravity, but closed-volume of an object generates gravity. There are particles with closed volumes, others with open volumes, and some intermixed.

He went on to basically applying this one key concept to all the challenges that faces physics and astronomy today. He even explains E=mc² and how energy is really generated by fission and fusion in a manner so simple, non-Sheldons can understand as well. (again, using the metal spheres as example).

Really fun read, if you are into this kind of stuff.

#2

I’m still thinking on this. First thought: Volume is the amount of space an object takes up. A cubic centimeter has that capacity, but that’s not mass. Mass is the amount of stuff in a thing. It can change with velocity and energy. This is a proven thing, via Einstein. By these definitions they are not interchangeable. A box is not equal to the dirt I put in it, so to speak.

A black hole has a small volume, but of conceivably infinite mass. If volume causes the bend in space-time then small volumes of little mass should have great effects, but do not. Also, small volumes of great mass should act the same as small masses of lesser volume, but they don’t.

A massless volume would seem to be equal to energy. If so that’s suspiciously like aether, disproven by Einstein. It would also seem that unoccupied space has nothing to expert against until a mass enters. But the pressure of space on a volume gives it its mass, so space should exert a force that generates mass where there is none. Wouldn’t all of space fill up with mass?

“Open Volumes (massless volumes): It is just a vacuum, but sometimes found in various forms. These volumes exist but do not produce any curvature of spacetime. They are “porous” regarding space-time.”

The above is like saying there is a volume of nothing which is nothing and the nothing curves nothing, but the nothing is something (space-time) which is curved and can be curved. So, therefore, nothing can have curvature, but it doesn’t because it is “porous” to itself.

Zero-point energy is not the same as this. Space/emptiness can be considered to be a something and that something can have energy, but that isn’t fact yet as far as I know. It is the energy of potential, if I understand.

Meanwhile, I still thinking….

#3

Wonderful, thanks for replying.

The website actually addresses what you are saying about mass.

When mass changes with velocity and energy, it’s actually the mass effect that makes it appear as if the mass is increasing. And instead of having to use dark energy to explain mass effect, in this theory mass effect is simply the increased stress put on the object by space-time.

the math part of that is written here:
http://www.spacetime-model.com/subpages/en/mass_calculation.htm

I am not entirely sure if I understand this part correctly, but what I got is that mass is just a by-product of the close-volume bending space-time and creates gravity. Therefore open-volumes are mass-less. And closed volumes’s mass is just a reflection of how much it is bending space-time. So it is a causality diversion from the traditional “mass bends space-time” theory, this theory is saying “space-time is bent, so there appears to be mass”.

the explanation for black holes is written here:
http://www.spacetime-model.com/subpages/en/von_laue.htm

As explained in Neutron Stars section, since a neutron star is exclusively made of closed volumes (neutrons), the spacetime curvature is maximum and so is its “mass effect”. So I am assuming black hole is just a even larger concentration of closed volumes.

#4

another interesting topic brought up by this new point of view is that space-time appears fluidic. This of course isn’t the first time someone suggested that. I just find it interesting that for a while physicists worked really hard to prove there isn’t such a thing as aether which permeates the entire universe. With the new concept of space-time, it is increasingly sounding like the old aether.

#5

CERN LHC awaits for result to possibly reveal higgs bosson

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/physicists-anxiously-await-news-of-the-god-particle.html?ref=science

I am gonna say there’s no such thing as higgs bosson…