That's a tough one. I haven't been able to find a good stick-to-the-ribs satisfying explanation of how the Higgs field imparts mass. Are all the public-facing science sites interpreting things wrongly, or are they repeating scientific community wisdom?
The Higgs field acts on each elementary particle differently. An electron passes through the field relatively unscathed and is therefore mostly energy. The muon is slowed down and hence has some mass and a lot of energy while the quark is almost all mass and very little energy.
That can't be right. Why would you actually slow down
in a Higgs field... unless the Higgs field was fixed and not relative? Or unless it ends up guided by the things to which it imparts mass, e.g. does it concentrate around planets, does it swirl around black holes, does it fit MOND?
Or perhaps I am (and others are?) missing a way that the Higgs can not alter any velocities, but can seem to in your own frame? Or maybe the "drag" analogy everyone uses is completely inappropiate - something is getting exchanged for momentum without affecting velocity one bit?
Can anything slow down from light speed?
There's one rather interesting tidbit
I came across:
Scientists know that when an electron passes through a positively charged crystal lattice of atoms (a solid), the electron's mass can increase as much as 40 times.
It might be important, or it might not be. Given the QM tying together of position and momentum, if you can monkey with the momentum, maybe there's a better way to explain mass aquisition that start from momentum anomalies. There's a nice document explaining the strength of the effect and some sample materials in which it occurs here
To get back to your point, if folks are indeed thinking of the Higgs field as a "drag" on particles interacting with it, that might indeed make an opening for VMH in the initial stages. Would that actually sustain an m = at2
relationship? Is there an alternative scenario where matter gains mass quickly at first but the gain slows down until they approach more 'universal' values in a time scale during which a quasar evolves into a galaxy?
I've often wondered what the difference could possibly be between the matter created by an AGN versus, say, something from smashing together electrons and positrons. Why, for example, wouldn't particles coming out of an accelerator be going light speed, or near it, instead of demonstrating known adjusted-for-relativity masses. (I know QSSC thinks it has an answer in that annihilations aren't the same as C-field particle creation since the C-field is too dilute to work anywhere outside of huge concentrations of mass.)
Here's another odd thought that comes to mind: what if the drag analogy is true and the Higgs field is
actually static (perhaps concomitant with the microwave background, as we're also moving relative to that)? If so, you might be able to determine an asymmetry in quasar ejection/evolution that depends on the Seyfert's velocity relative to CMBR, or some other fixed metric, and show the existence of a "preferred frame". I don't really have a dog in that race, but it would be mind-blowing.
Apologia for the scattered thoughts; my kids woke me up at 5 am today :)