The Higg particle(s) is not the important consideration. It is the action of the Higgs field that makes the electroweak force work.
The Higgs mechanism was incorporated into modern particle physics by Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam, and is an essential part of the standard model. In the standard model, at temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all elementary particles are massless. At a critical temperature the Higgs field becomes tachyonic, the symmetry is spontaneously broken by condensation, and the W and Z bosons acquire masses. (EWSB, ElectroWeak Symmetry Breaking, is an abbreviation used for this.) Charge accumulation sets up a tachyonic Higgs field in the nucleus where the tachyonic field, or simply tachyon, is a quantum field with an imaginary mass that represents an instability proportional to the strength of the EMF charge. Due to the instability caused by the imaginary mass, any configuration in which one or more field excitations are tachyonic will spontaneously decay. In some cases this decay ends with another, stable configuration with no tachyons. A famous example is the condensation of the Higgs boson. Under no circumstances do any excitations ever propagate faster than light in such theories — the presence or absence of a tachyonic mass has no effect whatsoever on the maximum velocity of signals. This Higgs field tachyonic instability can result in the formation of a W electroweak particle that causes LENR nuclear transformations. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:15 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > It is important that the "Higgs" appears to have the correct spin. This > apparently is required to get to the starting gate. Are you aware of any > recent measurements of this interaction with other particles which can only > occur in this manner? I tend to be skeptical of hype type arguments. Is > it not normal for high mass particles, that are created in accelerator > collisions, to decay quickly into less massive ones? Can the physics > community say for a fact that they will not find more massive particles as > the collision energies increase, assuming they can afford more powerful > machines in the future? > > My supposition is that more energetic particles will always exist to be > produced and found when more energy is available to generate them. The > latest one might merely be the first among an infinite series. > > I hate to be so skeptic, but it seems that physics advances mainly when > new things are observed which are not expected. Many of the great > discoveries were there in plain view for years until someone got lucky. My > favorite example is the laser which could have been discovered over 100 > years ago (gas type instead of ruby rod) had physics known more about the > behavior of atoms. Even though it was not understood, someone could have > built one from available materials. The basic ideas and construction are > simple. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joseph S. Barrera III <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 8:14 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA screws up bad. > > On 4/21/2013 5:06 PM, David Roberson wrote: > > > It seems a little premature to talk about the behavior of the Higgs > particle at this point. I am not aware of any tests that have been > conducted to support the assumed characteristics > > It appears to (a) have spin 0 and (b) interacts with other particles > proportional to their mass. Thus, so far, what has been seen is a strong > candidate for the Higgs (or at least *a* Higgs). > > I highly recommend this blog: http://profmattstrassler.com/ > > Try starting here: > http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/ > > - Joe > > >
