What exactly is the "fabric" of Spacetime?

[Flannel Jesus]

Are you aware that for a so-called "english teacher" you write very clumsily, and with no other intended purpose than to just try to put 'the other' down?

Which, for one being a so-called "teacher", is very contradictory and very hypocritical. And, this is without even going into all of the inconsistencies that you have expressed here.

He's an English teacher? That's terrifying but also not surprising. He can't write for crap.

You really think that? Why?

[accelafine]

Are you aware that for a so-called "english teacher" you write very clumsily, and with no other intended purpose than to just try to put 'the other' down?

Which, for one being a so-called "teacher", is very contradictory and very hypocritical. And, this is without even going into all of the inconsistencies that you have expressed here.

He's an English teacher? That's terrifying but also not surprising. He can't write for crap.

You really think that? Why?

Why do you ask? Go find someone else to annoy. That seems to be all you do on here.

[Walker]

Thoughts?

Wouldn’t the fabric be the Higgs Field?

"The Higgs field was proposed in 1964 as a new kind of field that fills the entire Universe and gives mass to all elementary particles. The Higgs boson is a wave in that field. Its discovery confirms the existence of the Higgs field."
https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson

[Flannel Jesus]

He's an English teacher? That's terrifying but also not surprising. He can't write for crap.

You really think that? Why?

Why do you ask? Go find someone else to annoy. That seems to be all you do on here.

I ask because I've read a lot of people's posts on here and that guy seems, at the very least, to write with above average clarity and has a good grasp of English.

I like to annoy Age in particular, yeah, but... I mean, that's what he does to others. I'm only reflecting his behaviour back onto him.

[Flannel Jesus]

Thoughts?

Wouldn’t the fabric be the Higgs Field?

"The Higgs field was proposed in 1964 as a new kind of field that fills the entire Universe and gives mass to all elementary particles. The Higgs boson is a wave in that field. Its discovery confirms the existence of the Higgs field."
https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson

The Higgs field isn't proposed as The field permeating the universe, defining space - it is meant to be understood as one of the fields that permeates space. There would, supposedly, be others.

[Walker]

Thoughts?

Wouldn’t the fabric be the Higgs Field?

"The Higgs field was proposed in 1964 as a new kind of field that fills the entire Universe and gives mass to all elementary particles. The Higgs boson is a wave in that field. Its discovery confirms the existence of the Higgs field."
https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson

The Higgs field isn't proposed as The field permeating the universe, defining space - it is meant to be understood as one of the fields that permeates space. There would, supposedly, be others.

"fills the entire Universe ...", like the fabric of a flannel bedspread fills the field of dreams. (The English milieu).

[Flannel Jesus]

Wouldn’t the fabric be the Higgs Field?

"The Higgs field was proposed in 1964 as a new kind of field that fills the entire Universe and gives mass to all elementary particles. The Higgs boson is a wave in that field. Its discovery confirms the existence of the Higgs field."
https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-boson

The Higgs field isn't proposed as The field permeating the universe, defining space - it is meant to be understood as one of the fields that permeates space. There would, supposedly, be others.

"fills the entire Universe ...", like the fabric of a flannel bedspread fills the field of dreams.

Yes, fills the entire universe as one of the many fields that fill the entire universe. The fields are all occupying the same space, doing their own interacting operations in the same space. Not just one field.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... 20neutrino)

By one way of counting there are 17 fields in the Standard Model:

6 for quarks (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom)
3 for charged leptons (electron, muon, tau)
3 for neutrinos (electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino)
1 for photon (carrier of electromagnetic force)
1 for gluon (carrier of strong nuclear force)
1 for W weak boson (charged carrier of weak nuclear force)
1 for Z weak boson (neutral carrier of weak nuclear force)
1 for Higgs

Each field fills all of space.

[Walker]

The Higgs field isn't proposed as The field permeating the universe, defining space - it is meant to be understood as one of the fields that permeates space. There would, supposedly, be others.

"fills the entire Universe ...", like the fabric of a flannel bedspread fills the field of dreams.

Yes, fills the entire universe as one of the many fields that fill the entire universe. The fields are all occupying the same space, doing their own interacting operations in the same space. Not just one field.

Well, how's about: it's all one field with internal dynamics and distinctions whose differentiations are incomplete due to the limitations of human perception that rely on dualistic differentiation for comprehension of the Uni-verse ... One-verse, undifferentiated.

[Flannel Jesus]

https://www.quora.com/Could-the-Higgs-f ... an%20exist.

Could the Higgs field be space itself?

Paul Camp
Ph. D. in theoretical physics and 30 years experience

No. Among other things, you can’t make space at the LHC. The field equation for the Higgs is not remotely similar to the Einstein equations. It is just a totally different thing that assumes a preexisting spacetime on which it can exist.

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, how's about: it's all one field with internal dynamics and distinctions whose differentiations are incomplete due to the limitations of human perception that rely on dualistic differentiation for comprehension of the Uni-verse ... One-verse, undifferentiated.

OK, but then you wouldn't call this combined uni-field the 'higgs field'. It would be a bit odd to single out one particular standard model particle to give the name to your one unified field.

[Walker]

Well, how's about: it's all one field with internal dynamics and distinctions whose differentiations are incomplete due to the limitations of human perception that rely on dualistic differentiation for comprehension of the Uni-verse ... One-verse, undifferentiated.

OK, but then you wouldn't call this combined uni-field the 'higgs field'. It would be a bit odd to single out one particular standard model particle to give the name to your one unified field.

- "your one unified field." (Mine? I'll have you know, such cheap rhetorical tricks are disgusting. I prefer classier tricks.)

You're confused. I'm not Higgs, and not all differentiations are equal, in fact, Higgs is the most fundamental differentiation they is, they is. Ain't it? If not, what is?

[Flannel Jesus]

Well, how's about: it's all one field with internal dynamics and distinctions whose differentiations are incomplete due to the limitations of human perception that rely on dualistic differentiation for comprehension of the Uni-verse ... One-verse, undifferentiated.

OK, but then you wouldn't call this combined uni-field the 'higgs field'. It would be a bit odd to single out one particular standard model particle to give the name to your one unified field.

- "your one unified field." (Mine? I'll have you know, such cheap rhetorical tricks are disgusting. I prefer classier tricks.)

You're confused. I'm not Higgs, and not all differentiations are equal, in fact, Higgs is the most fundamental differentiation they is, they is. Ain't it? If not, what is?

There was no trick in that, I think you're reading too much into that. I don't even know what you think that means lol, you've latched onto one word to feel insulted by it.

I have no intention to insult, so if that's how this conversation has gone with you, that's probably a time for me to take a step back. You're the one who presented the idea of the unified field, so when I say 'your field', that's all I mean - simply "this idea that you've presented here". Nothing clever, sneaky, disgusting - not even a word choice that's interesting or worthy of note. I'll stop here with you.

[Walker]

He can't write for crap.

You really think that? Why?
[/quote]


If meager money means crap, then most do ... write for crap.

[Walker]

OK, but then you wouldn't call this combined uni-field the 'higgs field'. It would be a bit odd to single out one particular standard model particle to give the name to your one unified field.

- "your one unified field." (Mine? I'll have you know, such cheap rhetorical tricks are disgusting. I prefer classier tricks.)

You're confused. I'm not Higgs, and not all differentiations are equal, in fact, Higgs is the most fundamental differentiation they is, they is. Ain't it? If not, what is?

There was no trick in that, I think you're reading too much into that. I don't even know what you think that means lol, you've latched onto one word to feel insulted by it.

I have no intention to insult, so if that's how this conversation has gone with you, that's probably a time for me to take a step back. You're the one who presented the idea of the unified field, so when I say 'your field', that's all I mean - simply "this idea that you've presented here". Nothing clever, sneaky, disgusting - not even a word choice that's interesting or worthy of note. I'll stop here with you.

Oh, I'm just foolin' around. Seeing how you respond, as an English teacher. All I know about Higgs, you could fit on a butterfly. You know, light.

[Flannel Jesus]

- "your one unified field." (Mine? I'll have you know, such cheap rhetorical tricks are disgusting. I prefer classier tricks.)

You're confused. I'm not Higgs, and not all differentiations are equal, in fact, Higgs is the most fundamental differentiation they is, they is. Ain't it? If not, what is?

There was no trick in that, I think you're reading too much into that. I don't even know what you think that means lol, you've latched onto one word to feel insulted by it.

I have no intention to insult, so if that's how this conversation has gone with you, that's probably a time for me to take a step back. You're the one who presented the idea of the unified field, so when I say 'your field', that's all I mean - simply "this idea that you've presented here". Nothing clever, sneaky, disgusting - not even a word choice that's interesting or worthy of note. I'll stop here with you.

Oh, I'm just foolin' around. Seeing how you respond, as an English teacher. All I know about Higgs, you could fit on a butterfly. You know, light.

I'm not an english teacher. You've misread some stuff and got confused.