When I was a kid, I used to come up with crazy theories based on partial, ultimately inaccurate understandings of things; my father used to cringe when I explained my theories, and would then dismiss my musings with a “Noooooooooooooooo . . . “
But hey, despite my father’s discouragement, I never lost the knack for coming up with bogus, half-assed theories. So in light of the recent publicity regarding the world of high-energy physics and the search for the Higgs boson (the particle that would intermediate the field interactions that give mass to most elementary particles), I’m at it again.
OK, I know this ain’t right, but — the principle of supersymmetry requires a symmetric partner for every particle; it represents a bigger version of the not-quite-super-symmetry between particles and antiparticles (which have opposite charge characteristics). So, what if there are super-symmetric particles relative to the Higgs boson (or bosons — might be more than one kind)? Would they have some sort of “opposite” characteristic relative to the Higgs field interaction? If so, would they involve something of an anti-Higgs field, whereby particles would gain a sort of “anti-mass”?
And if so, would the characteristics of such “anti-mass” be an opposite form of gravity? All particles with mass attract each other via gravity. So, would particles endowed with the supersymmetric “anti-mass” thus act according to anti-gravity, a repulsion force? And if so, would that have anything to do with the “dark energy” that is unexpectedly accelerating the universe’s expansion, in opposition to the slowdown expected by gravity?
An anti-mass property might also have to react to force in the opposite way — instead of resisting acceleration, it would fly off at the slightest touch. So just where would all this “supersymmetric stuff” be? Because of its reverse-gravity and reverse-force properties, would it already have been scattered out to the fringes of the time-space manifold which encompasses our universe? Would these particles in-effect push against the edge of timespace, slowly reviving the inflation process and thus stoking the mysterious runaway expansion?
Nah, probably not. Sorry for all the pseudo-scientific gibberish. Alexander Pope said famously that “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; drink deep or taste not the spring”. I definitely have not drank deep from the springs of particle physics and modern cosmology. But I still think it’s harmless fun coming up with such wacky ideas. In fact, here’s another guy who enjoys this kind of thing!
Jim,
So it seems that even as a child you were a thinker. I say Terrific!! There are only too many people around who simply use their brains to keep their ears apart. Thinking is what the brain was meant to do–as the heart was meant to pump. People wouldn’t think of their hearts not pumping; but they don’t hesitate to let their brains atrophy. OR how many people are there who never really listen to another person; they simply use their brain to think what they are going to say after the person is finished speaking. I’m starting a rant so will quit. Glad to hear you were a thinker even as a child.
As regards your idea about the Higgs boson: I don’t know why your idea should be any more silly/stupid than any of the other ideas scientists come up with.
I’ve made no secret of my theory that scientists think about something and then go looking for it; the looking for it produces the thing they are looking for–and voila!! they discover it.
So, I’d say rather than dismissing your idea (which has an elegance about it) why could it not be right if you had the proper “tools” to look for it. Looking for the proof of your idea would allow it to come into existence and thus…..
And why can not my theory be correct? Isn’t one of the main ideas of some scientific theory that the observer influences what is observed?
I say keep up the thinking. Who knows? In the entirety of what is creation/the universe why can’t thinkers influence the general “layer” of thought that covers the universe–as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would have said.
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 5, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Jim,
So it seems that even as a child you were a thinker. I say Terrific!! There are only too many people around who simply use their brains to keep their ears apart. Thinking is what the brain was meant to do–as the heart was meant to pump. People wouldn’t think of their hearts not pumping; but they don’t hesitate to let their brains atrophy. OR how many people are there who never really listen to another person; they simply use their brain to think what they are going to say after the person is finished speaking. I’m starting a rant so will quit. Glad to hear you were a thinker even as a child.
As regards your idea about the Higgs boson: I don’t know why your idea should be any more silly/stupid than any of the other ideas scientists come up with.
I’ve made no secret of my theory that scientists think about something and then go looking for it; the looking for it produces the thing they are looking for–and voila!! they discover it.
So, I’d say rather than dismissing your idea (which has an elegance about it) why could it not be right if you had the proper “tools” to look for it. Looking for the proof of your idea would allow it to come into existence and thus…..
And why can not my theory be correct? Isn’t one of the main ideas of some scientific theory that the observer influences what is observed?
I say keep up the thinking. Who knows? In the entirety of what is creation/the universe why can’t thinkers influence the general “layer” of thought that covers the universe–as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would have said.
MCS
Comment by MCS — July 5, 2008 @ 11:25 am