-2
$\begingroup$

I figure that either there's :

1) Already a theory that encompasses this idea, or a better idea to explain what I'm trying to visualize. 2) perhaps some sort of proof why this is wrong. 3) Everyone already thinks about it in an analagous way, and I just havn't seen it described before. 4) No one has thought of this because it's unthinkable:)

But I need to get this idea out of my head, so please blast away at it :)

So people often explain space-time curvature and orbits with a 2-dimensional example, with various massed balls on a rubber sheet or pool table.

I'll go with 2d as well, because it's easier to think about.

So you have a rubber sheet with a layer of liquid on it. The liquid would be analogous to the Higgs field. Now you can have masses in the liquid, represented by marbles. So, these masses do not attract each other, but DO attract the field and the field attracts them as well. So then as the liquid bulges around the marble, there becomes more liquid and hence gravity in that region that attracts other masses. Now, as energy is expended and the marble starts accelerating, the energy would be expended to enlarge a "bow shock" in front of it, and this bulge of the liquid would be indistinguishable from gravity. When you stop acceclerating, a negative bowshock behind you would balance the positive bowshock in front of you, negating any local gravity effect, but perpetuating forward motion. As you tried to accelerate and move faster, it would take more and more energy to create a bigger bow shock, approaching the limit of how big a bow shock could get at the speed of light (perhaps the negative bowshock behind you reaches 0 density and can't balance for any positive bowshock increases.

So anyways that's the basic idea. I know there are questions with how to treat friction (field vs self, and field vs masses) and field density minimums, some implied surface tension, does a balancing negative bowshock occur on the opposite side of the mass? and a host of other things, but then again the balls on a rubber sheet spacetime/gravity analogy has all kinds of issues as well.

In 3 dimensions I envision the higgs field as kind gaseous (compressible), having a higher density as a bow shock in front of the moving object.

This also gives me a way to see why gravity is such a weak force... it has to pull on the higgs field which locally thickens up, and in turn, this higher density pulls on other masses.

Thanks in advance for any constructive comments :)

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by John Rennie, user108787, Bosoneando, user36790, Jon Custer Oct 4 '16 at 20:40

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

1
$\begingroup$

"Already a theory that encompasses this idea"

As you seem to already be aware, it's called "general relativity". The equivalence principle deals with accelerations in the way you're talking about (I think).

GR works perfectly well without Higgs, and it works perfectly well without any masses at all. Higgs is entirely separate, all it does is provide a reason that some particles don't have zero energy. We call that non-zero energy "mass". But, as I say, GR works without it, and would work with any non-Higgs mass too.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.