On dark matter that isn't and On the legend of the Higgs boson

home

Science

Waiting for the Higgs boson:

Essence of the hypothesis (in English)

On dark matter that isn't
and
On the legend of the Higgs boson

pulsation des ondes d'espace jumelles

(animation : Olivier Blazy)

It doesn't take much to make a world, and the animation above sums up just how little it would take to generate, through further progressive complexifications, the entire universe as we know it.
Not at the very beginning of the universe, about which we can say nothing, but at a given moment in its evolution, we assume that it was simply animated by the crossed pulsation of twin waves nested inside each other, bouncing off their neighbors, breaking up immediately after this bounce to pass through each other, then recomposing themselves just before bouncing off their neighbors once again.
This animation only shows a sample of such bounces, because we have to imagine that these waves pave the entire universe and exist on a multitude of scales, from the extremely small to the extremely large. Here we won't go into the whole hypothesis developed in the text: “Waiting for the Higgs boson” (in French, with the essence of its thesis available in English pdf), but only relate some of its aspects to the results of recent observations.

One of these observations is that of gravitational waves.
The now-confirmed presence of gravitational waves implies that spacetime is a flexible, elastic-like medium, capable of deforming as they pass, which is entirely consistent with our hypothesis of space being paved by twin waves pulsating in place, since this is the very example of a flexible, elastic-like medium capable of deforming and then recovering as powerful deformation waves pass by.

What would such twin waves be made of?
It's important to bear in mind that it's certainly not a question of waves moving by deforming matter, even if it is extremely tenuous and could be described as “ether”. The existence of such an ether has long since been invalidated, and there is no question of reviving the notion. Since the waves we hypothesize cannot deform any matter in space, we are led to consider the radical idea that it is space itself that is deformed in this way. With this in mind, the twin waves pulsing through it can be called “space waves”.
The idea is that these twin space waves would have existed before matter existed, and that it is the increasing complexity of these waves that would have progressively generated matter. However, for twin space waves to have generated matter at some point in time, we need to add a first ingredient to our hypothesis.
This first ingredient is that their perfect bounce off each other would never have managed to synchronize beyond a certain scale of the universe.

This simulation models the distribution of galaxies in a cube 260 million light-years on a side.
The distribution of galaxies suggests a sponge-like structure, with a concentration on walls encompassing vast empty spaces.
The walls of these empty bubbles would, in our hypothesis, be the largest scale on which the perfect synchronization of space waves would have managed to occur, and it is the gathering of folds forming defects on the surface of these waves that would have progressively generated the matter of which galaxies are now made
[Document "Sciences et Avenir"]

At this scale, which is that of the great bubbles of vacuum at the periphery of which galaxies are arranged, defects in the coordination of the rebound of space waves would never have managed to be resolved, and some of them would have found themselves creased, dehorned. Quite naturally, to restore their perfect sphericity the waves affected by these defects would then have evacuated them towards waves in their vicinity, which in turn would have had no choice but to evacuate them in the same way towards neighbouring waves. In this way, folds affecting space waves began to travel endlessly from one wave to another at the speed of light. At the speed of light, because that's the speed at which the pulsation of space waves synchronized throughout the universe.

A fold that distorts one space wave is
necessarily expelled towards another wave,
which in turn expels it towards another
wave, and so on

It's not these folds that, by themselves, can be qualified as particles of matter: it's only by amalgamating in multitudes and then organizing themselves to turn in circles, and therefore as if on a same spot despite their relative displacement at the speed of light, that these myriads of gathered folds will become what we now call particles of matter.
These wave folds already have a name as they correspond to what is usually, but improperly, called: dark matter. Improperly, because it's not matter, but only what is used to make matter. A better term would be “pre-matter”. If it were a form of matter, even if it were extremely exotic and bizarre, it would be sensitive to electromagnetism, as is the case with all matter, and would therefore not be “black”.
If it isn't sensitive to electromagnetism, it's because it lives in a world before matter. Not a world that has disappeared forever, for example a world that only existed in the moment following some kind of big bang, but in our present world, in our present universe, for it is assumed that there was a time when the universe knew only pre-matter, and then that there was a time, the time of our present universe, when only some of the pre-matter organized itself into matter particles. There's nothing mysterious about this as the same thing happened later for living matter: at one point, the universe knew only atoms, i.e. non-living matter, and then a tiny fraction of the atoms arranged themselves to generate living organisms whose properties (birth, life, death, reproduction) were unknown when the universe was populated only by atoms, properties that atoms still don't know in our time when they still don't participate in living beings. In the same way, it's not hard to imagine that pre-matter, the vast majority of which has not organized itself into particles of matter, continues to function in our universe without knowing electromagnetism which only concerns the part of pre-matter that has transformed itself into matter.
It doesn't know electromagnetism but it does know gravity, and it's for this reason that pre-matter that hasn't transformed into matter gives the erroneous impression that the universe is made up of around 25% dark matter, around 5% ordinary matter and around 70% dark energy. The “great mystery” of dark matter can be explained quite simply by the fact that 5/6 of pre-matter would have remained in the state of pre-matter, while 1/6 of this pre-matter would have been transformed into matter, and while the energy corresponding to the pulsation of the twin space waves would correspond to the 70% of energy not accounted for in matter particles and pre-matter.

If pre-matter experiences gravity, it's because the presence of folds in space waves deforms them.
And it's here that we need to add a second ingredient to our hypothesis: space waves would have a constant surface, at least if we consider the surface they have at the precise moment of their rebounds. So, since their surfaces could not be modified, if folds affect them they have no choice but to contract their overall volume.

to maintain a constant surface when deformed, a spherical shape
must necessarily contract the overall volume it occupies

The presence of pre-matter folds therefore deforms space waves, forcing them to contract, and the greater the quantity of pre-matter in a given zone of space, the greater the deformation of that space, i.e. the greater the hollowing out of space on itself. This hollowing out is nothing other than the effect of gravity, which can be said to deform spacetime if we take into account both the deformation of space waves and their pulsation on the spot in time at the speed of light.

the cause of gravitational acceleration:

The folds of the waves generate a reduction in volume of the same order of magnitude for all the waves, which distances them further apart the smaller their size, since the more this similar reduction in volume is relative to a smaller wave surface the more it consequently implies a thickness important between two successive waves.
During the same duration of time, the same number of beats will therefore cover a space that is greater the closer we are to the cause which generates the gravity effect

Even before matter existed, spacetime was already deformed by the effects of gravity generated by the folds deforming the space waves and, if we admit that there were two times in the universe, a time before the appearance of matter when only the effects of gravity existed, then a time when the appearance of matter generated the electromagnetism according to which matter functions, it's easy to understand that the functioning of gravity has no reason to be calculated mathematically in the same way as the effects of electromagnetism are calculated. And even if gravity and electromagnetism could one day be mathematically unified, this would be no more than a feat of calculation that would shed no light on the functioning of the universe.

In the context of our hypothesis, how can we now envisage the famous “Higgs bosons”? Aren't Higgs fields supposed to cause the gravity effect that characterizes matter, and weren't the Higgs bosons at the origin of these fields recently discovered?
First of all, we need to put an end to the legend that Higgs bosons “give particles their mass” and thus cause them to generate gravity effects since all mass distorts spacetime. This legend is only for the mainstream newspapers, for TV interviews, and for all the conferences designed to justify the staggering investments needed to build particle accelerators: go ahead, applaud, pop the champagne, we've finally found the particle that gives other particles their mass!
As a simple example, here's how an article of the RTBF commented on the recent observation of the Higgs boson at CERN: “After half a century, we have simply validated (with 99.9999% certainty) a theory that makes the BEH boson (for boson Brout-Englert-Higgs) the real missing link, the keystone of the fundamental structure of matter, no more, no less, the particle that gives mass to other elementary particles”.
If you're not a specialist you'll subconsciously understand that, since “the missing link” and “the keystone of the fundamental structure of matter” are mentioned, we're talking about the particle that gives “all the mass” associated with particles, or at least all those that have mass. If you're not a specialist, you'll have to be really suspicious to realize that what's being considered here is only the mass of “elementary particles”, and not the mass of particles that are composed of several elementary particles. Honesty, in this type of article aimed at the general public, would have dictated that, in reality, the Higgs field explanation concerns only 1% of the mass of matter. But, of course, to say in the same sentence that we've found an explanation for 1% of the mass of matter, which in turn applies to only 5% of the universe's content, once we've excluded the 95% of unknown dark matter and dark energy, and to say that we've found nothing less than the missing link and the keystone of the fundamental structure of matter, would be a little shaky, even ridiculous.
Indeed, while Higgs field theory could mathematically account for the masses of the W and Z bosons, quarks, electrons and neutrinos, it would only explain the “inertial mass” of quarks inside the nuclei of atoms, i.e. only around 1% of the mass of atoms. According to the standard theory, most of the mass of atoms, around 99% of it, corresponds to the “kinetic energy” (according to the formula E = mc²) given to them by the interaction of quarks with each other, by their binding force, which, again according to this theory, corresponds to the intervention of “gluons” and not Higgs fields.
Again by way of example, we refer you to this article which provides a clarification that one would look for in vain in most articles or glowing reports extolling the virtues of the discovery of the so-called “God particle”.

According to our hypothesis, how can we explain the emergence of Higgs bosons during high-speed collisions in a particle accelerator?
The usual scientific view is that matter is made up of elementary particles and that, to find out what these elementary particles are made of, all we have to do is break them into pieces, each of which is then considered to be part of the particle that has disintegrated.
In our hypothesis, however, said elementary particles would not be elementary particles. Not because they would be divisible into two, three or a few other even smaller entities, but because they would each be the dynamic grouping of billions of billions of units infinitely smaller than themselves, units which would therefore correspond to the folds we've said affect space waves, and which have organized themselves to spin in circles at the speed of light to generate particles of matter.
If we want to give a comparison, we can give, for example, that of an airstream. Even if it's not possible to give the precise limits of an air current, to say where it begins, where it ends and how wide it is, we can nevertheless locate it roughly and measure its strength and speed. What is an air current made of? We could say that it's made up of billions of billions of atoms or gas molecules, but that wouldn't be enough, because in fact it's only the more or less coordinated movement of these molecules that generates the existence of an air current that we can recognize and locate as such. To come back to atoms, what we need to consider is that each of the quarks that make up their nucleus would be something like an airstream, i.e. it would itself be generated by the dynamic grouping of billions of billions of realities infinitely smaller than itself, which would correspond to the folds affecting space waves, forcing them to contract their volume and thus provoke what we call gravity.
Let's imagine, now, that we force two air currents to collide. What will we observe? Are we going to see broken pieces of air currents to explain what they were made of? No, because pieces of air currents don't exist. What we will observe is turbulence, i.e. the vortices resulting from the conflict generated between the two dynamics that make up each of the two air currents. And if we make the air currents collide several times in a row at the same speed, we can expect to get the same kind of vortices every time. Not because such vortices are part of the usual constituents of air currents and therefore reveal their internal structure, but simply because the dynamics of their encounter generates the same type of turbulence every time, just as every time a river current meets a bridge pier with the same speed and power, it generates the same type of vortices behind the pier.

von Karman” vortices, which systematically occur downstream of bridge piers
when the power of the current is adapted to their formation

If we admit that the “elementary” particles that make up matter are made up of the dynamic assembly of billions of billions of realities on an infinitesimal scale, and if we make several of these dynamics collide, it's perfectly normal that, at certain shock powers, the same dynamic vortices can be spotted. If you like, you can call such vortices “bosons”, depending on the power of the shock some of them “W bosons”, others “Z bosons”, and still others “Higgs bosons”, but you won't have found anything that could explain the structure of matter or the functioning of a so-called “transport of forces”, nothing that pre-existed, even virtually, in the particles you made collide. We've only obtained the dynamic vortices characteristic of their collision, vortices that only exist because we force the particles of matter to smash against each other. There's nothing to explain how matter particles work outside these collisions, in the same way that the creases in the crumpled metal sheets of two wrecked cars were not present before they collided and do nothing to explain how a car works.
According to our hypothesis, a Higgs boson is nothing more than the creases in the crumpled metal sheets of elementary particles, creases which are characteristic for the same reason that cars thrown against each other at a given speed will each time deform in a very similar way. Not enough to make them “the real missing link and keystone of the fundamental structure of matter”.
Instead of vainly searching for a “new physics” in ever more powerful and expensive particle accelerators, perhaps it would be better to consider a new way of thinking about physics, realizing that the “elementary” nature of elementary particles is only a hypothesis, not an inescapable certainty, and simply imagining that there could be something infinitely smaller than the elementary particles usually equated with the infinitely small. Then, instead of lamenting the fact that we've only understood 5% of what the universe is made of, we'd realize that we have indeed understood 100% of its composition, but that all we need to do is consider what we already know on an infinitely finer scale.

Last update: April 11, 2017 - Translation last updated: June 05, 2024

home

Science

haut

Waiting for the Higgs boson: the full text in French - or a summary in English

auteur