For the past 50 years, the Standard Model of particle physics has given us a complete mathematical description of the particles and forces that shape our world with the exception of gravity. It predicts with so much accuracy the microscopic properties of particles and the macroscopic ones of stars and galaxies that many physicists feel it is the ultimate theory of matter and energy.
But as Charles Seife mentions on page 142 of his book Alpha & Omega “Taken literally the plain vanilla form of the Standard model does not say anything about particle mass at all: in fact if theorists try to put mass in to its equations they blowup and become meaningless.”
In 1964 Peter Higgs showed that one can solve this problem and explain why particles have inertial or rest mass if one assumes space is permeated by what is called a Higgs field.
He was able to show that if the particles called boson change their velocity or accelerate, then the Higgs field should exert a certain amount of resistance or drag which according to his theory is the origin of mass. In a slightly more precise terminology, the origin of mass is an interaction between a particle and the (nonzero) Higgs field. It also assumes the disturbance created by mass as it moves through this field would break it’s symmetry triggering the Higgs mechanism, causing the bosons it interacts with to have mass and generate the particle called the Higgs boson.
In 4 July 2012, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN’s Large Hadrons Collider announced they had each observed a new particle the Higgs boson which many physicists tell us confirms the existence of the Higgs field.
However the Standard model’s explanation of mass as a broken symmetry of a spatial environment does not tell us what it is symmetrical to. In other words it does not answer the question “What spatial boundary or axis are the components of the Higgs field asymmetrical to?”
As was mentioned earlier the addition of the Higges field to the Standard Model gives us an almost complete mathematical description of the particles and forces that shape our world in terms of broken symmetries because it does not incorporate the gravitational forces into it.
Einstein on the other hand mathematically derived the causality of gravity in terms of an asymmetrical property of a space-time environment.
However the fact that Einstein used the broken symmetry of a space-time environment to derive gravity or the forces associated with mass suggests he may have provided a method of defining the physical mechanism responsible for the symmetry breaking the Standard Model assumes is responsible for that mass.
This is true even though time is only observed to move in one direction forward and never appears to stop so therefore does not have a boundary by which one can define asymmetries.
However he gave us the ability redefine the asymmetries in a space-time environment responsible for mass in terms of their spatial properties when he defined them in terms of the constant velocity of light because that provided a method of converting a unit of time to its equivalent unit of space in four *spatial* dimensions.
Additionally because the velocity of light is constant it also defined a one to one quantitative and qualitative correspondence between his space-time universe and one made up of only four *spatial* dimensions.
The fact that one can use Einstein’s theories to qualitatively and quantitatively define the displacement he associated with gravitational energy and mass in a space-time environment in terms of four *spatial* dimensions is bases for assuming as was done in the article “Defining energy†Nov 27, 2007 that all forms of energy including that associated with mass can also be defined in terms of a spatial displacement in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
This would allow one to define the asymmetrical properties or broken symmetries Einstein associated with gravity in terms of a spatial displacement in the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimensions.
However it also allows the Standard Model to use Einstein theories define the asymmetry associated with the energy of the mass component of particles in terms of their spatial instead the time properties of space.
For example the symmetry of the mathematics of the Standard Model tells us that particles and antiparticles are always created in pairs. However the only way to explain this in a space-time environment is to assume that they are moving backwards in time. Yet, as was mentioned earlier no one has ever observed time to move backwards.
Yet if one interprets the symmetry of the Standard Model in terms of its spatial instead of its space-time properties as was shown above to be possible one would realize that because we can move in two direction upwards and downwards in the spatial dimensions one can easily define the symmetrical boundary between particles and antiparticles in terms the equal distance they would occupy above and below the physical “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.
Yet one can also define asymmetrical properties of the Higgs field the Standard Models assumes is responsible for mass in terms of object or particle occupying the volume either above or below the physical “surface” of a three dimensional space manifold with respect to fourth *spatial* dimension.
In other words converting or transposing Einstein space-time theories to their spatial equivalent as was done above shows that the asymmetries the Standard Model associates with mass and those Einstein associated with gravity share a common property of the geometry of space.
It should be remember Einstein’s mathematical model which defines the physical geometry of our universe tells us that an all objects must simultaneously exist in both a space-time environment and one consisting of four spatial dimension because as was shown above one can use his mathematics to define two identical universes; one in four dimensional time and another made up of only four *spatial* dimensions.
Which one we use to define a solution to a problem, as mentioned earlier is only dependent on how an observer interprets his mathematics.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2016