About Field Line Removal and Renormalization, Why no huge Mass of the Higgs'?

  Quanta magazine has an article about the Hierarchy Problem; why is gravity so super weak and the other forces so much like each other in relative strength?

This involves the assumption of the Planck energy where the density is so strong the gravity and other forces become unified. If the Planck energy is assumed, huge gravity inside each quanta around us would implode the Higgs' in at that short radius, giving huge mass to the Higgs' and all the quanta around us.

 Here I think in terms of what I call Field Line Removal. FLR has all the forces unified, an important advantage that just assuming no connection has. People are asking, why have we assumed the Planck energy and the other quanta to be unified?  I would ask though. where is the huge gravity of the quanta around us? Yet the electron has large internal mass and charge by the assumption that renormalization is true. Renomalization was the most well proven  numerical method until the improvements with Gravity and the Nobel priize winning work about pulsars and the gravity waves. 

  And deep scattering experiments show also large internal mass for the electron.

So it's been believed that all the other quanta need a way to renormalize with supersymmetry, and each quanta we see has a partner that also would work the same as renormalization for the electron. 

But these are now totally seen to be unseen with the LHC experiments.

An alternative is as in inflation cosmology, quanta called ghosts with negative energy may have accelerated inflation, yet since this would totally upset quanta around us, the ghosts are believed to have a phase change and somehow not interact with quanta around us at all. Below a certain energy, the Higgs' lose mass and I would say they're external to the quanta.

 (Click Here for The Quantum Magazine website or see link at end of page.)

"In common calculations, first you introduce the quanta, and then the gravity, and let them blend together in hopes of viable renormalization." The newer approach involves a complete separation of gravity and the quanta; they both arrive out of nothing in independence. 

 Yet why do the forces all seem to act in such common ways. E.g. why does gravity have some conservation laws, the electric field all of gravity's conservation laws, and some more of its own and likewise for the strong force?

   Like wheels within wheels it seems like gravity needs another way to not reach the Planck energy inside each quanta so Einstein's idea of the unified field still has some basis. 

In my belief gravity as axiomatic in strength (even so once it forms quanta, the quanta are always sources of gravity, here too I believe they unify. ) This seems like a cause and effect loop, gravity is never without quanta, and vice versa. In this sense, we can't say the strength of gravity is axiomatic, rather only it's combination with the quanta. ) In any event the gravity implodes into the black hole where as a phase change at a certain density, it starts to remove the field lines and reradiate. At this point it converts to electric charges, answering Einstein's question about why the electron has the charge and mass it does..

All the mass around us would be created out of the gravity then radiated out of the jets of the supermassave fields of GRB's, black holes, and other super strong sources of gravity.
It seems that Einstein was both partially wrong and right also about the unified field. This seems like the recent heated debate about black holes and the firewall. Einstein believed in complete continuity for gravity, and the quanta seem to have definite edges. Yet if they are derived from the unified field, how can they be distinct? All around us are these types of paradoxes. Once the Field Lines remove the gravity, they contradict, and "don't know" gravity so well. Even though a direct creator controlling all the world as Carl Sagan says in his book Cosmos, a more indirect creator is still possible.

There isn't a huge outside mass and charge of the electron, because our idea of mass is mostly external. There is large mass inside the electron, but by FLR only some of the force reaches us. If we assume there is huge mass and the Higgs' are also inside the heavy quanta, by the unified field if viable there would be huge mass for each quanta. FLR allows unity of the fields, yet it also makes the forces distinct. This distinction makes it so the electric charge doesn't know the gravity inside, and this is just the conservation law that gravity doesn't have that of electric charge.And no Higgs' inside the electron  wouldn't have mass as much.

  If the gravity waves radiate in and become quanta and gravity is mostly about the Higgs' and there is no Higgs' much inside the quanta as Wilkczc won the Nobel prize for calculating the masses of the fractional charges in QCD with the Higgs' here giving just 1/5th of the mass to them, if there are no Higgs' inside the quanta much, the same might be true in quanta creation in the black hole. Gravity and the Higgs' only implode to the level of the quanta, at this level if more pressure is used, the electric field converts to the strong force, if more than the weak force to what I call superfusiion, a fifth and sixth force also to solve Einstein's singularity woes he was removing from, and so on. Einstein asked, " If a cluttered desk is a sign of a cluttered mind, what's an empty shelf a sign of? Right, a computer!" Thus, about science, at any rate under pressure gravity may convert to electromagnetic fields, these then convert to the strong and weak force, and more pressure yet would convert these presumably to stronger forces yet to power the jets.

Even so the Higgs may remain external to each quanta no matter the mass. Even while renormalization works, there is no superstrong Planck energy inside the electron or huge mass.  The LHC has found no particles of supersymmetry, this would be because FLR is all that gives mass to the quanta via implosion and reradiance of the gravity, and its derived events.

Gravity and the other forces have different strengths because while gravity could be anything relative to the level of the electric charge mass and charge, once the lines of field are removed, there is much more filled up by the FLR. If the electric field has 70% of the Higgs' removed, there's only 20% more for the strong and weak force to remove and operate in this space.

In this idea renormalization isn't so much subtraction of two infinities, it seems like multiplication away of one by the other. .Supersymmetry isn't needed because all the FLR is done by the forces already there. Even so it would act like renormalization, this is why renormalization has been successful; we see all these tests of supersymmetry passing with flying colors, yet where's the evidence in the LHC? If we assume QM and the Planck energy, even near radius in an empty field would be the Planck energy and huge mass. I believe like Einstein the low energy particle he hoped to resolve the Uncertainty loop (partially around the outside quantum radius, as low energy quantum experiments have shown) is the low energy Higgs' like all the mass around us. in SW Ohio! Beyond this level of the change of phase, the smaller the size, the smaller the mass of the Higgs' like mass around us so the idea of these ghosts could be of value in Quantum Mechanics.
This idea that Einstein was partially right about the low energy Higgs' may also mean that using what I call a Higgs' laser could make quantum cryptography unviable, as Einstein might have agreed. My belief is a finite energy of the quantum bubble holds up the wave function before it collapses. If the low energy Higgs' is lower than this level, the information could be extracted without collapse of the cat! Note that the mass of quanta don't change like a law of cat inertia, unless a mouse zooms by, or cat food is sensed...For this reason, unlike a super complex system of prime number codes the web is based on, the relative simplicity of a quantum system with the Higgs' in orbit may have an important conservation law of number where the Higg's can change radius and be moved in and out by the laser, even so the total number of Higgs' may remain the same, while the unique Higgs' code of each quanta may change (other than the same for entangled quanta), this may defeat quantum cryptography.

For the Quantum Magazine page, about the renormalization of the Higgs' Click Here.. 

What About THE MULTIVERSE?

  "It doesn't Make Predictions or Explain Much.."

I was skeptical of another cosmos! Right from the start!

I'm thinking, like, you know, it seems unusual! The main problem seems to be about connectivity of our cosmos with the other cosmosis, cosmosis is this like an inflammation..Right..

Connectivity... what connects our cosmos with all these others?

Sometimes it may seem e.g. like when I speak of other science, e.g. about overcrowding, it may look like mine is a political idea, but I assure you my goals are completely science based, and comedy based..

Newton said he didn't care as much for the outside world as just his time with math and physics, and I believe reducing the overcrowding peacefully by way of reducing competition for increased resources is far more worthwhile and will have far more influence of value on the world than any level of politics, which seems to be failing often, and like Edison I believe war is a tainted enterprise, and politics seems no more viable than most of our life is life is not living, but living well.

But I'm in favor of what

I know (or most of what I know!) and here I offer evidence against the multiverse.

About connectivity, I'd only heard that Tegmark was the promoter of the Multiverse idea. After I'd read that Hawking, Mercini Haughton, and others were in  promotion and that Feynmann was the original editor, up, up and more! I'm thinking, Feynmann! Cool dude. So there is some science here. Where general science goes I often follow.

.

Einstein believed in something like the Multiverse. In one of his last letters to Von Neumann, he said that time doesn't exist. So far so good, more to the point, Einstein believed that before the collapse of the wave function, all futures are possible. This seems to be the cause of the Multiverse idea.

 My original suspicion about the Multiverse, was, what connects us here in our universe with our twin in the other universe? Actually, the multiverses seem like a sort of vast way of rolling the dice, they aren't really connected, just that any possibility exists somewhere out there. Connection really seems a problem since these machines would seem to need infinite hardware to acheive all possibile events, and this would take infinite mass, and this would have infinite gravity, implosion down to 0. Were're here and not here, reductio ad absurdam, doctors could never hold hostages, who could read the ransom note?

About the collapse of the wave function, George Ellis, a physicist from England has the belief that all the possible events are selected out by the collapse of the wave function, like by gravity, the wave function automatically collapses at enough distance, like 2 yards here in our monocosmos..(while I think this idea has problems, i.e. if it's the "edge of time" going up to the Near Earth Orbit has 0 gravity, so time should stop, and e.g. since some radio waves are miles across, it would stop radio astronomy by collapsing the wave function as the wave passes by a strong source of gravity in the distance, and e.g. this would change the spectra of all the stars in ways not seen by astronomy in the lab here with common spectra. Even so I believe just jostling around the quanta would be enough combined with some gravity to give disproof of Einstein's idea about all futures being possible.)

 If this gives us the selecting out of the time that Einstein was unaware of, the events of the quantum wave before the collapse would need connection by something like electric charge ionization or changes in other quantum numbers to have influence. I believe this zone is special, it's lighter than light, so it may compute much faster than light. This is how Schrodinger's cat seem's both alive and dead. The wave function before collapse is a wave, it's non quantum. In subatomic physics Special Relativity has never been seen to be violated in even one experiment. I think of this as due to a change of phase. Make the field low enough energy, and it converts over to faster than light spin. The wave function collapses instantly, and at all points. SR holds so well because at the quantum level or higher, the plus and minus electric charges Maxwell used to predict the speed of light so well based on the forces between them are indeed now quanta. The quanta are constant, so is the speed of light.

Information theory says that information can never be created or destroyed, but higher information is created and destroyed all the time. The same foam  that was used to make your shelf is recycled to make cheeze pizza. In truth information isn't a quanta since you can't know just where the edge is, and waves themselves, like number in math are slippery and not easy to define in a fundamental whey of cheese!

 Selecting out the more amorphus events like Shrodinger's cat involves making them definite. If they aren't definite before the cat-astrophe they have no external influence..

 Thus unlike Einstein Tegmark and others, I believe the possible futures not only aren't many worlds, they have no influence in the sense of relativity, and they only can collapse to limited allowed states, conserving e.g. electric charge, lepton number, baryon number, and so on. The internal events like the EPR and the collapse of the wave function seem to be disproofs of relativity. The EPR is a weak effect, and this isn't strong enough to influence the heavier quantum events much, this is the only sense I believe in the many worlds. I believe in general  Einstein and Feynmann were both wrong. Relative to the quanta, the many worlds idea would only exist in definite, limited ways.

  Ellis was saying, if the future exists in all ways and times, you go to the future and change it, or go to the past and change it..If time is the wisest of all teachers like wealth, the cosmos seems so labor saving..

Black Hole Dynamics, and The Asymmetry of Mass and Energy

 Here I ask what powers supermassive bodies like black holes and why the jets are observed to be mostly symmetrical, and as I say on the posts that follow, the asymmetry of mass and energy may be why black holes only have 50 % of the mass predicted by the implosion of the ghost particles. Here I want to say more "in light of the shade of supermassive fields" as in the post below also, about Mercini Houghton's idea that black holes can't even exist based on her idea that due to Hawking radiation, all the mass is radiant and no black holes are even possible.

  As I say, much the observational evidence about all the mass being dragged around the centers of galaxies with darkness seen at the source (I've been framed by my luxury sweet optician!) tells us that Mercini Houghton is wrong.

   My video is about the asymmetry of mass and energy (Encyclopedia Comp video) this may be about how e.g. mass is much easier to convert to energy, and e.g. about the electron having more mass but less energy, and the positron has more energy but less mass and mass is heavy while energy is light relates to this.  Einstein makes them equivalent but relativity can't make them equal. In my idea GWD, this is why Dirac's attempt to unify relativity failed because mass and energy in relativity are completely equivalent in quantum mechanics theoretically, yet there is more matter or mass than antimatter, like energy in our world.  If the proton is more with union with the plus charge, this is why there is more mass, mass and energy are asymmetric.

   And as I say here, this would resolve why black holes weigh only about half as much as the ghost particle method of inward radiance of the supermassive fields allow. Another reason Mercini Houghton 's idea may be wrong is about my idea that gravity and inertia are distinct as I say below. Like Mach, Einstein believed gravity and inertia were essentially the same thing, so the speed of inertia may be what LIGO has recently found. Or it could be  a goof of the machine like the OPERA or BICEP2. As I say below gravity being hugely lighter than light, may move much much faster, my hopeful generalization of Maxwell's method as I say on my Physics Synopsis page see link upper left of page. Radiant Hawking reradiation at the event horizon may radiate inward because of gravity's super speed especially even just inside the event horizon where the speed might be faster than light, a speed even ghostly particles may not be able to reach.

  You may have heard of the paradox of the firewall, a zone here where there would be radiance due to the tide of the massive stretch even on the quanta by gravity. I explain this by the same contradiction around us all the time. Quanta are discontinuous, gravity seems smooth, as Einstein believed. The resolution would be by what I have called Field Line Removal. The field inside a black hole is implosive to the point where gravity creates the quanta with enough pressure to start to re radiate out, and there is no gravity or huge gravity of the electron around us here. Yet by renormalization or scattering experiments, the electron has large mass inside. It's a sort of antigravity, to lift us up against the gravity. It would flow in the spaces between the quanta, and gravity has no quantum numbers or shielding. So while all the quanta would be derived from gravity, they don't know it, and like the proverbial creator of gravity set the world in motion, the world is often unaware of what the gravity is about.

 So the fields are unified generally yet there is distinction. If gravity creates the quanta, I would hold that the reverse is possible, it could shred the ghost particles as they fall in the event horizon below a certain level of radius here. First the Hawking radiation might convert the virtual quanta to real, and then with the asymmetry of the mass and energy, the heavy positive charge falls in. Hawking believes that a large black hole can only increase in mass and I agree since this is what gravity tends to do. It has more binding energy than the radiant quanta, or we would fall off the Earth.  The event horizon would yank away the plus charge so it falls in by distinction and it being heavier a bit increases the mass.

 Once this particle falls in enough, I believe it may also be shredded to gravity waves and the firewall is also rapidly shredded with the implosion of the mass into the area of the deep event horizon. All the information isn't lost or destroyed. The higher quantum information is shredded up while the more basic momentum is conserved. Higher information is often lost e.g. a wall can be a shelf and even so its basic atoms are much the same. I believe higher information is not always conserved as in information theory, while we are alive and don't live indefinitely, some forms of life, like cities and businesses are theoretically without death. They live slow and live for ages, while our life is fast and we don't live as long..

  All this like Hawking radiation seems to follow from basic physics. Once the implosion of the field reaches the singularity I disagree with Einstein or Hawking. I agree with T'hooft that the energy isn't destroyed into infinite implosion. To save energy conservation as T'hooft says I invoke faster than light spin of a fifth and sixth force to stand counteract the implosion by the superstrong centrifugal force.

 The dynamics of the jets would use Field Line removal also to unify and polarize considerably. Here the magnetic type NS zones of the superfusion wouldn't be as much quantized much like electric charges, so by the squeezing of the force they move upward in the massive gravity.. Gravity is mostly removed inside the jets, even so some of the gravity is there moving in the opposite way and I believe this would be disproof of Relativity.


 You might wonder of Field Line removal of electrons and the superfusion method needs to be faster than light to outachieve the gravity, and if the FL removal is a sort of antigravity for both, wouldn't this mean the electron also spins at faster than light? It's interesting that Einstein rejected the Kaluza Klein method of higher dimensional spin in his belief about the unified field. It would fit the idea of FL removal if we assume indeed that the electron spins inside at faster than light, my belief is that if mass is spinning energy, if the electron has much internal mass it would also have more spin than relativity allows. Why does the muon weigh?  Relativity says nothing of the cause of rest mass, but the fractional charges of QCD are about a third reduced in electric charge compared to the electron so if they lighten up to go that much higher speed, this is the speed of Chao's experiments. Einstein may have not believed in the Kaluza Klein method for two reasons; it would be based on essentially FL removal and this won't allow a unified field mostly; and if the electron spins at faster than light inside, of course this would disprove relativity.


 As I say on the posts below, two Japanese physicists of the early 90's found that a gyroscope has weight reduced as it spins one way, the other way it weighs the same. This also would be about mass energy asymmetry since it would be also why the black holes have 50% of the mass the ghost particle method would predict.  If mass and energy are not the same then mass and weight are also distinct. So the black hole has about half the weight yet the same mass. Here too, the asymmetry of mass and energy is why the black hole gains mass yet at half the rate. With the Hawking radiation half the mass is imploded, and at the singularity, half the mass has radiance only.

  So far the evidence shows that there are the jets, and to me they seem superluminal since they must out radiate the gravity to remove outside the event horizon at the polar regions of the superstrong gravity. Evidence shows black holes to have a dynamo of electric charge, like a huge Van De Graff machine.

 All this dynamo motion would need some connection between the inside and the outside of the massive body, yet if the escape velocity is c as with LIGO, and gravity is at the speed of light and relativity is the limit, no outward information about the jets or even the gravity if it's only inward would be allowed by the speed of light.

One question Hawking might ask about is if all those particles of one charge mostly fall into the black hole, why it doesn't build up much charge and explode. This would be caused by the fifth and sixth force having more extra negative charge, and the would perhaps combine with the leftover superfusion charges powering the jets. The electromagnetic field favors the negative electric charge the strong force favors the plus charge, the proton, the weak force like electromagnetism favors negative entropy and charge so and the fifth force inside would favor positive charge by the reversal of sign between the layers of field, and the sixth force also might favor the positive entropy.

 The jets are mostly symmetric. As I earlier sought to unify gravity to e.g. other forces before I realized Field Removal would mostly be of value while not absolute as a way to allow Einstein's idea of a unified field (low energy quantum experiments show he was partially right as we would expect with partial FLR methods) I asked why if gravity is much like the other forces and they have an in out N S field we might expect to be on a South Beach diet up in Baffin Island by the N radiation outward with gravity! This seems strong evidence against a unified field. What are we left with, I hold, is with some residual quantum component of gravity, the poles of the supermassive gravity might have some distinction, because Einstein here wasn't all wrong either.

Even so I ask why was he mostly wrong about this? Because gravity isn't mostly a quantum. If gravity creates the other fields and it's a wave then waves are the foundation.  Particles have sides and don't radiate in like a gas. Einstein said it seems impossible to imagine a fundamental particle that could both  emit and absorb waves. So the jets of black holes are symmetrical because gravity is a sphere by the waves around the supermassive zone Einstein was spooked about the infinite implosion.

 If the waves wrap around and there is no beaming for gravity with the supernovas, a roughly equal number of the superfusion particles of both N and S would radiate out with the jets.


  The reason we don't sail away from the Earth's N or S is because gravity waves would be smaller than a neutron so the electromagnetic "thermodynamic" speed of light of Special Relativity would be of value here. A mass of F=ma moves slower if larger, as expected if it had some sort of surface of resistance to the external Higgs' particles, so it moves slower with the same force than the smaller mass. But the particles would have a zone of shielding like gravity if the size of a mass around us and there is no shielding. And as Einstein noted, there seems to be evidence that mass isn't electromagnetic, even with the all powerful speed of light in relativity. So I hope to save this thermodynamic influence for my science afterlife, by the idea that the bubble is the same volume as F=ma but of short enough radius to make it so when you take a + and - to make a heavy charge of mass like a meson or baryon, the mass isn't gone when you combine them to a 0  charge.

See my posts below about how the superfluidity of this field may allow solution to the problem about the Higgs' slowing all motion to stop with friction and other problems this idea of mine Modified La Sage Gravity MLSG.


As I say, the anomalous spectra of the jets tells us of new science unseen by common methods.

 The superfusion particles are the source of cosmic rays and they may be stable only with super massive force of pressure, they radiate out to the common metabolites around us. For some reason the quanta themselves don't fizzle to the level of the gravity waves. Since all forces radiate or gravitate to electromagnetism, evidence for the great influence of "thermodynamic" relativity, the stability of the electron or photon seems to relate to the tendency for the gravity to implode and the balance of the gravity with the quanta with both radiance and inward reradiance seems to me to be a deep impression of symmetry theory.

  The gravity is imbalanced mostly and the quanta are balanced charges, so gravity balances the electromagnetism, answering Einstein's question about why the electron has the charge and mass it does and why it's stable. There must be stability somewhere for us to exist. I believe the anthropic idea is silly since all the constants we are supposed to be so awed by just reaching where we are are always a balance of two opposites, and life would be at any level, all we need is balance for computation. If the constants were changed somewhat, other constants that would also be balanced by the action reaction pairs of energy conservation and Noether's theorem says nothing about the way each pair has it's aspect, merely that they balance in a cosmic center of moderation..

Why I Disagree With Laura Mercini-Houton's idea about Hawking Radiation

Here I want to add that to the idea of a superluminal speed for gravity is not to be discounted yet by LIGO. This is only one experiment, it could have been a goof like OPERA or BICEP2 and as I say since Einstein like Mach believed gravity and inertia are the same thing, if the LIGO is valid, the speed of inertia at the speed of light may not be the speed of gravity. Inertia and gravity may not be equivalent as I say below.

On the physics.org site, Laura Mercini-Haughton uses Hawking's idea that Hawking radiation is so reradiant in the events that, the black hole can't be created-the black hole can't be created!

My idea of gravity as faster than light explains the problem. If black holes are nonexistant, there seem to be a lot, billions of galaxies with small sources of huge gravity at the center with mass spinning around at high speeds. Mercini Houghton's idea doesn't solve this well. The idea that gravity if faster than light allows this result if the gravity is so fast it outdistances the Hawking radiation and implodes it in before it radiates. Thus, and for the numerous other ideas I list below and on other pages, Mercin-Houghton's idea may be wrong, the black holes are at the center of mass of huge bodies in the cosmos as observed, and the idea that gravity is faster than light seems also in evidence here. 

 You may say that speed has no direct connection to force exerted by the gravity. If the Hawking radiation just barely makes it out then just a little more inside the event horizon, the escape velocity is not just c but faster exerting more force than in Mercini's calculation. A black hole of radius a if with escape velocity c would seem to have at radius 2a the velocity at 2 c or greater, just as Jupiter's gravity reaches further than the Earth's and it's escape velocity is more.

physics.org and Laura's idea

My physics Synopsis GWD/General Wave Dynamics

Why Do Black Holes Have Only 50% of The Mass Predicted By Simple La Sage Gravity?

The ghost particle method shows by simple calculations the rate at which black holes would increase in mass.Yet observations show they are gaining mass at just half the rate. 

 I was much puzzled by this and I had thought of a fifth and sixth force of the singularity to solve the infinite gravity problem that Einstein was much concerned about. Einstein wasn't confident in this and it was why he removed black holes from his beliefs about physics for awhile, like 100 years!  

 Even while Special Relativity predicted potential infinities, the singularity would have the same problem. (Also I may ask about Einstein, why are infinities allowed in Special Relativity, yet not in General Relativity?  Actually that there should be no infinities in either Special Relativity SR or General relativity I would say if either both are true or untrue, if for General Relativity, so should SR also not be with the infinite. I don't believe in them more than Einstein and my more general idea would be that SR is an extension of gravity, all the quanta around us are frozen gravity converted to quanta by the gravity force  of the implosion of the field here and neither gravity or SR has infinities. This is my idea of GWD or general wave Dynamics, a more non relativistic idea about all the forces, not just the "thermodynamic" speed of light of relativity, which Einstein hopes to awkwardly fit into gravity.) See my Physics Synopsis link upper left, Click Here or see link at the end of the page. 

In a way, not allowing the infinities solves the singularity problem of  gravity while allowing the possibility of faster than light non infinities with Special Relativity, as I say on my youtube, "metv," video (Click Here or see link at end of post)  about using a Higgs' laser or hopes of using a particle spin method to hope to achieve faster than light motion in what I call the Relativistic Wind Tunnel RWT, see post below about my thoughts about the RWT or click here.. By using a quantum spin conveyer belt moving the Higgs' out from a zone of few Higgs' might allow a small mass in the RWT to move with reduced inertia by pumping away the Higg's. This might reduce the infinities of SR. I would say if Einstein tries to stop some of the infinite problem of General Relativity, he might have also realized that Special Relativity also has this to solve, or this seems so to me. 

As I say here on my OTHER youtube Video! I believe if each quanta is with a history of EPR codes, yet by entanglement the codes are caused, the two quanta find just that code, yet the Higgs' allows a large number of Higgs codes around each quanta to find just that quanta, this may be the cause of gravity also by the codes of each quantum causing acceleration as it drags around the Higg's on the outside. This may set the code with each event possibly storing huge amounts of data about history of events. And this might allow huge amounts of data storage by using a Higgs' laser to read and write, as well as a super high resolution microscope or telescope to mine the data, it may be seen otherwise not seen in the quanta of light. Click Here for Video, or See link below.

Of course Einstein believed faster than light was possible, and he said if one of his ideas go they all go. The infinities of relativity seem so inefficient in the sense that they aren't efficient. If you want to go faster than light, or faster than sound, there may be machines for this eventually.

NASA is doing research about Faster Than Light travel, so perhaps this idea about the Higgs' or some other machine method may be viable.

 If the singularity is with a fifth and sixth force that are spinning faster than light if mass is spinning energy, the spin with more centrifugal force wouldn't collapse to infinity. This might solve Einstein's insomnia about the singularity, and as T'hooft has noted though not by the method of faster than light by GWD, this saves energy conservation, a major problem otherwise with an infinite singularity. And the faster than light radiance outward of the jet also allows the anomalous spectra of the jets, which are not explained by the standard model.

  About The LIGO experiment that seems to prove gravity is at the speed of light, see my posts below. Einstein believed gravity and inertia are the same thing, so if the results of LIGO are not an error, I believe the LIGO is only a measure of the speed of inertia at the speed of light and not gravity.


  You may be aware that Japanese physicists in the early 90's made the discovery that a gyroscope spinning in one direction at high speed weights slightly less than one spinning in the other direction, which weighs the same.

 One thing I wondered about was why the jets of supermassive stars or radio sources have almost as much mass seen moving out one  jet as the other. If the source is ionizing it would seem to separate plus and minus charges and by Newton's second law one jet should move faster than the other. While black holes are seen to be super ionizing, I think if the fifth force involves heavy particles and antiparticles, if one spins in the opposite sense it would radiate out the ghost particles while the antiparticle here (of what I call superfusion) would attract as usual by gravity and so indeed the massive source of the gravity would increase at only half the rate, and the jets are indeed mostly symmetrical as seen by the astronomy. The outflow from only the superfusion particle and not the antiparticle would make the outflow of both jets of the same type of mass and energy. Another  explanation is that gravity is mostly nonquantum and so it wraps around in a sphere.


Black holes increase in mass with time. The massive black holes at the center of galaxies have 1000 times more mass than they should by the visible matter seen falling in. This is easily solved by the  ghost particle method, and so too the problem of dark matter itself, like what you  press on as you jog around the room, or what the starship accelerates against, and so on.

 Remember the Higgs is believed to exist at lower and lower energy states, at the lowest state it's stable, so the low energy and superfast way to both store and send force by the fast speed of the waves may be how dark matter or what I call DGE dark gravitational energy have remained unseen yet by experiment yet they change our life definitely with force as you go around in the road machine.
 
  But the black holes aren't gaining mass at exactly half the rate. The actual rate gives us a way to calculate by way of how much force is moving the jets outward and also since we know how much more the gyroscope at the given rate weighs less,  we can then find the actual rate the black hole gains mass with time if also allowing the amount of common matter falling in to find the ghost particle mass contribution.. 

 You might wonder if the superfusion antiparticles weigh less, this would seem to change the mass of the black hole and so it would weigh about half the observed value and thus not weigh any more or gain mass at any other rate than half the mass at any rate. But weight isn't the same as mass as I say on my posts below. The mass may be internal to quanta like the superfusion particles, while weight may move in the spaces between the quanta, so gravity doesn't shield or have quantum numbers like quanta and so on. I would think the superfusion antiparticle may have the same gravity yet fling out more of the ghost particles by short range centrifugal force. Relativity doesn't say how there's no mass induction around the outside of a centrifuge, unlike the equivalent massive gravitational source.


 As I say elsewhere, two of the the main problems with Lasage method for gravity or indeed the Higgs' method of mass with ghost particles are about friction with the particles slowing masses as they move, and also e.g. about how particles radiate outward like a gas if they have sides yet gravity is implosive. My answer here is that below a certain energy, the external weight field between the quanta changes phase to a superfluid and has negative entropy, as superfluids often flow from cold to hot. The superfast superlight speed of gravity may wrap around the quanta of visible matter and unify so fast the slow speed of light motion of the particles as all quanta is not enough to overpower the thermodynamic common radiant form of entropy. Another problem with Lasage Gravity that Feynman considered was about the Earth gaining much mass per second by the implosion of the ghost particles. I believe in almost wavelike ghost particles so they might radiate into the Earth between the quanta without friction, and then change phase to the outward moving waves in cycles and go in loops to mostly conserve energy for gravity. 

   A good reason to believe neither the inertial or the gravity events aren't quantum mostly is in Maxwell's belief that the low energy field can't be "molecular" (atomic or quantum) because you do things like heat it and it would boil away and have other problems with discontinuity. Even so the inertial particles if they are indeed (at any rate!) at the speed of light by LIGO would be quantum by way of Einstein's idea that light in relativity is constant uninfluenced from the source to the observer. Uninfluenced seem like quantum, and quantum like relativity is balanced where the in and out waves are equal, so I believed all quanta are limited at the speed of light via relativity. If the gravity particles however with enough outside force are faster than light for supermassive sources like black holes they might move inward at faster than light. Even so for most of the low energy physics around us unlike black holes or like the fractional charge in Chou's shelftop experiments, the speed of light would limit quanta. There has never been any disproof of relativity in quanta that have unified electric charge at more radius. (I believe this may not be coincidence and indeed the cause or symmetry of confinement in QCD. The electric field quantum numbers and the other quantum numbers all are just so and would fit due to a strong influence by Einstein. The exceptions to this may be inside the heavy quanta (via QCD) or other areas of super high  mass density. The extra ways to move inside the heavy quanta like baryons indeed would only be allowable if relativity was disproven and yet they must always add up to the nonfractional speed of light. Even so there are no quantum numbers for relativity other than the speed of light and the electric charges. In my belief, the only way the muon could suddenly have more mass as you add more above the electron level of energy is by faster than light spin inside the muon if mass is spinning energy and the other extra quantum numbers for heavy quanta have no comment in relativity.)

My Physics Synopsis GWD

Higgs' Gradients and The Speed of Light? RWT My Youtube VIDEO

My Youtube Video, Click Here For How the Higgs May Light Up History, and Other Uses of the Higgs' Laser

For my ideas about why gravity and inertia aren't the same thing, see the following post.