Friends, I am aware that harsh accusations will be thrown at me for this article that I am exposing, but I understand that the seriousness of the problem requires the criticism that I make of it.
If I am correct, these Higgs concepts would be misleading and keeping millions of scientists wrong, and therefore I think he deserves a warning from me, and not to keep me quiet about it.
-------
Higgs fields and Higgs bosons are supposed theoretical cosmic elements necessary to explain the mass of particles within the Standard Model.
However, similar elements and parameters already exist in the Cosmos, but much better, they explain all these physical concepts in a simpler and clearer way: You just have to take them and introduce them in the Standard Model.
But above all, we have always observed those already existing parameters in physics, and we have verified their existence, connection, interdependence, interaction, etc.
Such elements or physical parameters are: cosmic energy, gravity and its fields, matter and its mass, and finally the formation of particles from these.
Let's see some comparison between the Higgs parameters (H) and the traditional observation (T) that we have:
------
H): Higgs Fields: Not measured or observed in any case.
T): Gravity fields that permeate the entire Cosmos, and observed daily and extensively.
---------
H): Higgs bosons (particles): that only exist an infinitesimal time and only in particle accelerators.
Therefore, impossible to give mass to all the matter in the Universe
T): Particles of matter of all kinds and dimensions, with gravitational and magnetic fields around them according to their nuclear size, continuously observed, and components of all material elements existing in the Cosmos.
In this case, both the particles (and their gravitational fields) measure each other's mass by mutual attraction.
-------
So why duplicate already known elements if this duplication is not existent in the cosmos, nor does it serve to explain its foundations.
Or is it just a disdain for previous and more classic investigations and observations.
And that is one of my criticisms, that it seems that in the last century, attempts have been made to undervalue and eliminate the classic, to impose new ideas (very bad, of course), but destroying the old ones.
I don't think that is the way, but to improve what is established.
No to the revolution! Let's walking to the evolution!