Let's look at
the gyroscopic effect.
Take a bicycle wheel, keep it still and set it upright. Drop it, and it will fall.
Then set it in rotation, and it will remain standing.
The same goes for anything that rotates around its axis, such as a spinning top. When it spins, it acquires a perceived weight, i.e. mass, which makes it stay upright. It suddenly gains inertia and becomes difficult to move out of its position.
But the mass of the wheel and the top are always the same. Only the spin, i.e. the kinetic energy, varies – and with it, also the perceived weight varies.
Then there is the Higgs field.
I must honestly admit that I understand neither what it is nor how it can give mass to particles.
I understand that the Higgs field is mathematically necessary for the Standard Model of Physics to be complete, but I do not grasp what is fundamentally going on.
My intuition can't get it.
In our theory of idealistic emergence, no Higgs field is needed.
Everything spins, that's all.
Quarks are the interpretation of accumulations of preons, which are accumulations of something smaller, which are accumulations of something even smaller, etc. There is a chain of emergence in countless generations, with a factor of 1019 down to the very smallest.
That makes for a lot of generations.
If the mechanism is always the same as with the quarks, these microparticles also buzz around with the speed of light inside their concentrated areas. They, too, are «slings» with a counterforce that holds them in position. They, too, have an experienced mass due to kinetic energy and some counterforce.
In an idealistic, mental world, the principles are always the same. Once learned, they cannot be forgotten, and they must be applied to anything that is sufficiently similar, just as the laws of physics are also universal.
The law that «all laws are universal» is the only absolute «law» needed; all others are relative, emergent.
Through all the generations of emergent «particles», the perceived mass accumulates and adds up to two per cent of the mass of the quarks. Then the kinetic energy of the quarks themselves, the gyroscopic effect, if you will, takes care of the rest.
That's how it might be. It's thinkable.
I'm not a physicist but a freethinker.
