Hi yquantum, zephir, THEY, darkmatters73 et al,

I have made a few comments about mass previously. I have the view that the property of mass is like a set of Russian Dolls. "Matter" exhibits "mass" as an external property (a mass source). This is as seen from an external relativistic frame of reference (see the paper by de Broglie previously).
particles have Mass, How? Good Elf
A careful reading of the reference paper will explain all. The mere measurement of Mass does not mean that "ponderable" mass is truly there. I have discussed this at length many times, I consider it as a true "optical illusion". Yet this realm of energy does exist and brute force application of "ponderomotive force" must be accounted for.

Within the higher dimensional realm of a particle (in 10 dimensions) the internal properties of the "particles" assume the properties of the photons that are their basic constituents but "encapsulated" within the dimensional "bosonic trap". So internally they appear "massless" as all photons do. This is analogous to photons inside our Universe being "trapped" within the closed Universe and apparently "uncharged" and "free". In the same way the "electronic structure of atoms" are similar structures in which the properties of those convoluted photons (electrons) lose their charge and mass (and magnetic dipole moment) to be "free" and "propagating" photons once more. That mean that from their point of view (as a photon) they are unable to sense the nuclear charge in the nuclei of atoms and visa versa as well). The charges and the mass arise from our external relativistic frame of reference. These appear through the process of the dimensional trapping which externally leads to wrapping of the photon into a topological form that "exposes" charge on the "outside" with a novel twist in the EM waves standing wave pattern. Here is a pair of eigen states in a hydrogen atom that is showing it's dynamic nature in time. The movement in the complex plane owing to phase should be considered as "higher dimensions".
Superposition state of the hydrogen Quicktime required.

Our entire Universe is a "particle" as well so it will have an "external" mass. Internally we see "photons" and other mass particles (bosons and fermions). All the short range "bosons" come from within those small "mass" particles (other than the Higgs). The long range boson in our Universe is the photon and it has infinite range within the Universe. It would be symmetrical to assume that "extracting" a photon from out Universe into the "outer space" will create a "hard" particle as seen externally. If the particle remained a "boson" it must exhibit range since the topology of the "inner space" of our Universe is different to the topology of the "outer space" of our Universe and this "transfer" will act as a "dimensional wrapper" conferring additional mass. For instance this occurs with the electron... the dimensional wrapper is what "wraps" the photon up after extraction from within some dimensional boundary. Presently this process requires this operation to be carried out resulting in enantiomorphic twins... (particle and antiparticle). This is embodied in the simple rules of charge and spin parity. The deeper link between these processes and of the topological nature of charge and the origin of the spin is where the mystery lies. I do not think this is such a "big deal".

Is it possible that this new particle will be seen as a "functional twin" of the more massive bosons of our internal Universe? What I am assuming here is the size of the Universe as seen on the outside is that of a closed dimensional packet which spins in the six higher dimensions at the speed of light on that boundary. The bulk also spins as well (3D + T Space-time) but only in one plane at a time (just that you can choose any plane). Since the geometry of our Universe is "bosonic" in nature and composed of "empty uncharged space" from our point of view the periphery need only spin once every 50 billion years to be spinning on its periphery at the speed of light. That is the three dimensions of space we are so familiar with. The extra six dimension that are responsible for all the quantum phenomena are as close to us as the "surface" of the Universe everywhere... that is only a very tiny distance away since the surface of the Universe in the six higher dimensions are "deflated" and "vestigial" but are tangential to all points to the space-time. A "local" dimensional "bubble" may be blown in that extra six dimensional space with the expenditure of spin energy.

A sub-atomic particle (because in 6 dimensions it is at the "edge" of that part of it's universe) will spin with the appropriate radius... it's own external radius in all 10 dimensions, six in higher dimensions (deflated dimensions) and three with the period of the three "inflated" dimensions of space-time. This will coincide with the "surface" in 3D + T space-time... at the speed of light on the periphery in both cases. The only difference is the relative radii that these represent. The connection with the three dimensional space-time is that it connects seamlessly with the "bulk" and it is spinning at light speed at the radius of the Universe ® with a period of about 50 billion years, this is not noticeable at our scale of the Universe. The difference in the relative frequency of this large scale spin and the "same universal particle spin" cannot be underestimated. This latter property gives rise to the de Broglie wave particle duality. The bigger the particle the slower the phase "spin" of the particle and thus the higher the internal particle group "spin" according to that paper previously mentioned by de Broglie. We already recognize that de Broglie understood this and represents the relationship between the particles mass and its de Broglie wavelength (of frequency) to the particle velocity.

....v would need to be the group velocity of the particle and it's linear speed. Wherever a particle exists it will "inherit" the spin in the higher six dimensions of our Universe (a sort of "Machs Principle" for sub-atomic particles). This endows sub-atomic matter with the property of "intrinsic" spin and leads to quantum properties along with the principal quantum number "n" which comes from the topological property of the external frame of reference as described in de Broglie's paper and the "Bohr Orbit".

We also know (without any fear of contradiction... check your science history books on this ) that this principle is the sole motivation for the Theory of Quantum Mechanics (de Broglie's Postulate)... not as it has been assumed recently due to some tiny infinitesimal and unprovable granularity of "space-time" at the Planck's length. Please note that the simpler "dumb" formulation of this concept cannot lead to any deeper illumination of nature (as stated in the original reference supporting narrative) without the expression of special relativity, which is the real underlying cause of this quantum phenomenon (see the equation above). A description of "nature" that ignores this or hides this fact will surely fail.

Actually there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any such property (Planck granularity) exists at all. It is also very unreasonable to believe that it will ever be within man's ability to show that this relationship exists either... given the potential energy available from our Universe and accessible to man for all time... and I say with some confidence... for millions of years into the future, if man should survive as long. A LHC a billion times larger in size and energy than that planned would not begin to probe those levels of the Universe (the Planck scale). That is why I have personally rejected these "speculative" theories in favor of "operational physics". All would be wise to think carefully on physics based on pipe dreams and misdirections. They are "doomed" as an explanation in a Theory of Everything.

So here we have the source of Quantum Mechanics and it is in the quantum of impulse which is the Planck Constant (not Planck's Length...). This principle of encapsulation dimensionally leads to the property of mass through Einsteins General Relativity... not in "Space-time" but in the "Uberspace" of those six extra dimensions. Curvature of space-time affects particles of all kinds leading to them traveling along geodesics. This is especially true of massless particles as it is of massive particles. Both fall along equivalent geodesics because they both respond only to space-time curvature. Now from the point of view of these particles falling along space-time geodesics, they see space-time as "particularly flat" being in inertial frames of reference. External observers in non-inertial frames of reference see the space-time curvature of these particles but these are "fictitious" forces since they are not experienced by the particle being observed but by the observer frame of reference.

This is easily shown by standing on the surface of the earth and throwing a ball to a friend and seeing the curve of the ball in flight. The curve is a geodesic but freely falling observers see this "geodesic" as a straight line (at least over local areas of space-time). This proves that the observed "force" is fictitious and this is the same analogy when we see "forces" from other non-inertial frames. A further extension of this principle of equivalence is that the mass of a "particle" is internal acceleration observed by an external observer. We know that the internal topological photon is massless and is in free fall in an internal closed space. Therefore no matter how massive it appears it is simply a fiction created by the external non-inertial frame of reference. Taking this one step more... the LHC is not seeing a tremendous mass in a Higgs Particle but the most "extreme fiction" created by special relativity as seen from an most extreme non-inertial frame of reference. Thus "mass" is a pseudo-property of the frame of reference. This comes about because we are providing particles "relativistic boosts" from the laboratory frame of reference with high energy photons. By the use of the transference properties of the comparison between the two frames of reference using Special Theory of Relativity... the photons are unable to boost the velocity of the particle being accelerated because from the particle frame of reference the photons are red shifted to almost radio frequencies and they are no longer able to "scatter" those photons anymore.

I quote from the Wikipedia lesson on the Higgs Mechanism...