Paper Suggest Higgs Boson May Not Be Spin Zero Particle

[Dubbelosix]

The Higgs as a spin 2 particle cannot be ruled out yet.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1202.6660&ved=2ahUKEwiw9ZzIxufnAhVHXMAKHXI4CPEQFjAMegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0MIslreQ1JW8KB9nf6O07v&cshid=1582456754979

 

It just doesn't make sense to me to say the Higgs Boson is a spin zero particle, as everything, even in the ground state is in motion. In this next link it amplifies that whole the observational evidence says it has a spin zero, this cannot be conclusively arrived at.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://home.cern/news/news/physics/question-spin-new-boson&ved=2ahUKEwiw9ZzIxufnAhVHXMAKHXI4CPEQFjAPegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2tP1qOdGM7cXw3-ukzfG8O&cshid=1582456938372

 

To add, it has been argued that the Higgs boson having a spin, would break gauge invariance because that would mean the universe also had a spin... Hello? Spin has been the crux of many a conversation for me here, the universe probably did have a spin for if it did not, it would violate Poincare symmetries, the gauge symmetries only apply to certain applications to field theory. Dark flow is also an observational evidence of this violation of Lorentz symmetry in special relativity.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Here's another good read

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0502011&ved=2ahUKEwjpjd7vyOfnAhUTTcAKHQMlA_MQFjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0vGirCysBhsg2q_deXtOyY

[Dubbelosix]

I would just be careful with the last paper, it highlights the Lorentz violations which is special to the spin discussion, but I am no where near to accepting the gravitons as a Goldstone Boson, as I have stated a few times, gravity is not one quantum field, being quantized itself, but is a contribution of all types of matter fields encoded in the classical, or possibly semi classical formalism of the stress energy tensor.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Dubbelosix

[Dubbelosix]

Let's just make a summary what I have said in the past

 

1. Primordial spin would satisfy the full Poincare group of spacetime symmetries (something that we should expect in nature)

 

2. Primordial spin was shown to exponentially decay as it linearly expands, according to the work of Hoyle and Narlikar

 

3. The spin of a universe implies there is a preferred direction and would explain the excess of matter over antimatter production (the chirality problem) and can also explain why there is an excess of galaxies that prefer to spin in a particular direction.

 

4. Dark flow has been experimentally tested and strong evidence suggests it does exist, in which we state that this is the residue or the left over for better words of the exponential decay of the spin predicted by Hoyle and Narlikar

 

5. Hawking has even stated in his own paper, that it is more than possible the universe is spinning, but it would have to be spinning at a very slow pace now

 

6. Primordial spin can play the primary role of dark energy in the early universe, the issue of accelerating today is open for new work. For instance, the universe can expand enough that gravity can no longer play a role in slowing it down. It is also possible that we have interpreted the physics of distant lanterns wrong in which I have stated that distant light sources tell us something about the past expansion of the universe but not necessarily telling us anything about the current expansion. So it could be saying the universe did accelerate in the past, whether it tells us it is accelerating today is another question for the scientists.

 

7. Spin has been a largely ignored in the cosmology world for many unfortunate reasons, mostly because a lack of understanding the history and existing literature which can model spin accordingly. Weak arguments like not detected a background axis, is still a mountain that some cannot seem to get over. Its also rooted unfortunately from a misapplication of Einstein field equations in which the torsion has often been treated as a vanishing component. The only big success is that spin models can incorporate successfully into cosmology but more work is required on this. The last major implication of spin on the surrounding environment was the prediction of frame dragging.

Edited February 23, 2020 by Dubbelosix

[pittsburghjoe]

I told you Higgs was bogus. Spacetime is responsible for physicality.

[Dubbelosix]

No I am not saying it is bogus, the idea is right, it's just not a standard Higgs Boson, I wish you would stop rattling on at me about your own ideas and just listen to what I say for once. I have always stated the Higgs Boson is not of the standard type, but what you go on about is unintelligible to me.

Edited February 24, 2020 by Dubbelosix