|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
9th November 2012, 01:07 PM | #401 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
|
Once again, Farsight is attempting to derail a discussion of physics in order to promote his Relativity+. This is getting seriously annoying. No reputable publisher or reviewer has ever passed on Relativity+. It is a theory held by Farsight alone, and properly rejected by every actual physicist that has ever stumbled across it. Furthermore, since Relativity+ has no place for the Higgs, it is pretty much off-topic in this thread (aside from, perhaps, a brief mention of the fact that this particular theory does not include the Higgs).
I, for one, would like to learn more about the Higgs and how it fits into mainstream physics. I don't care about silly arguments about whether mainstream physics has lost its way--the evidence for that is extremely dubious in my opinion, and has been discussed in great length in the threads for Relativity+. Discussions of Relativity+ should be conducted in the thread for Relativity+. They have no place in this thread, except, as I mentioned, for a brief mention. I would like to appeal to the moderators to help get this discussion back on track. |
__________________
"Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it." -- Anonymous Slashdot poster "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore." -- James Nicoll |
|
9th November 2012, 01:09 PM | #402 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No, I challenged you to explain it. You can't. Because you don't understand it at all. But you'd rather put your faith in something you don't understand instead paying attention to what I've said and attempting to understand it, or alternatively attempting to expose some flaw. You can't, because there is no flaw. I'm sorry Perpetual Student, but with that attitude you will never learn anything.
|
9th November 2012, 01:22 PM | #403 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
The nub of what I've said is the energy of a body depends upon its energy content. It hasn't been soundly refuted. If you beg to differ try referring to it or repeating it.
Not true. If you conduct repeated Compton scattering the first electron recoils this way ↗, the next this way →, the next this way ↓, the next this way ↙, and so on. You achieve a "starburst spiral" of electron motion which removes the photon angular momentum. Draw a circle, then draw tangents off it with arrows on the end. You cannot spearate momentum and energy. Take a simple cannonball example. You can't take away the kinetic energy without taking away the momentum. It isn't called energy-momentum for nothing. No, when you remove the energy-momentum you aren't left with anything. The photon is not a cannonball. It's a wave. |
9th November 2012, 01:34 PM | #404 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by TubbyThin
|
9th November 2012, 01:39 PM | #405 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
OK, you're on my ignore list and you're out of this discussion. I have to say that I'm surprised that you say you're an experimentalist, but you dismiss the patent scientific evidence of photon-photon pair production, electron diffraction, Einstein-de Haas, etc, because it doesn't square with what you've been taught. There's a lesson in that somewhere.
|
9th November 2012, 01:49 PM | #406 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
9th November 2012, 01:54 PM | #407 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
I agree. Over the last several weeks, I have been reviewing the Leonard Susskind (Stanford) lectures on quantum field theory. The whole story about the Higgs mechanism has not yet been fully written, so there's a lot of interesting stuff to learn and discuss. For example, even though the coupling to the Higgs field for other particles is understood, the reasons for the Higgs particle itself having mass is not yet established.
For my part, I've had more than enough of Farsight's make-believe physics and antics so he is now on ignore. I'm looking forward to a discussion of some real science on this thread. |
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ |
|
9th November 2012, 01:58 PM | #408 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Oh yes I am Tubby. This is the best physics lesson you've had for a long while.
When moderators don't do their job, I will make the rules. If you don't want to to play by those rules, you're perfectly free to do so, and you are perfectly free to talk to somebody else. I'm not being abusive to everybody else. I'm giving the evidence and the argument and the references. The guys who can't give an adequate response are giving the abuse. I'm just the guy who gets censored and warned for a kicking back. When I find out that Einstein said the inertia of a body depends upon its interaction with the Higgs field instead of the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. |
9th November 2012, 02:11 PM | #409 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
His 1905 E=mc˛ paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? Here's an excerpt from it:
"The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light, and the amount of diminution is independent of the properties of the body. Moreover, the difference K0 − K1, like the kinetic energy of the electron (§ 10), depends on the velocity. Neglecting magnitudes of fourth and higher orders we may place From this equation it directly follows that:— If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c˛. The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 × 10˛°, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes." I bolded the important bit. It's unequivocal. The mass of a body depends upon its energy content, not on its interaction with the Higgs field. The bottom line is that the Higgs boson contradicts Einstein and his E=mc˛. Scarey. Ask around and see if you can find out how the Higgs boson gets its mass. Make sure you mention that the only ingredients in the LHC are protons and the kinetic energy given to them as they were accelerated around the ring. |
9th November 2012, 02:31 PM | #410 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No. My objection is based upon what Einstein said, plus a fairly simple appreciation of the wave nature of matter. In a nutshell, when a wave moving linearly at c resists our attempts to change its state of motion, we call it momentum. When a "standing" wave moving this way → at c and that way ← at the same time resists our attempts to change its state of motion, we call it inertia. Both are resistance to a change in motion. There's a symmetry between them, wherein the transformation is to swap from it's moving to you are. The best bits of the Standard Model are based on symmetry, and replacing the "frightfully adhoc" Higgs mechanism with this symmetry will improve the Standard Model.
They don't break down, and they're derived from symmetries. I really am not kidding about that Mudcat. Look it up. I'm saying the Higgs mechanism contradicts Einstein and a patent symmetry or "law of physics". It's an Emperor's New Clothes. A lot of people take real umbrage at that, but when you ask them to explain it, they start ducking and diving and getting all evasive. They can't explain it, and they can't explain why the inertia of a body does not depend upon its energy content. If you think I'm wrong about this, try it for yourself. When you struggle, hopefully you'll appreciate my point. |
9th November 2012, 02:48 PM | #411 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
A photon is a wave that travels linearly through space at c. But when that wave goes round and round at c, we don't call it a photon any more.
Yes it does. You can diffract these things. They're all waves. But they aren't all waves that travel linearly through space at c. I don't do magic Tubby. I do plain vanilla. If you want me to explain it, start a thread. Because they do cease to exist. And instead an electron moves, either linearly through space, or up to the next orbital. And in an orbital, electrons "exist as standing waves". Don't you get it yet? Electrons exist as standing waves full stop. Yep. And rest mass is just a measure of energy content. So what's that "Higgs boson" made of? No Tubby. Mass is just a measure of energy content. Temperature is just a measure of average kinetic energy. Momentum is just energy divided by c. It's real. And it's the only thing that is. |
9th November 2012, 02:53 PM | #412 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
There is clear evidence that contradicts your misunderstanding of QED. But nevermind, forget it. Go despair somewhere else and don't waste any more of my time. Oh, and...
No, it isn't happening here, and it never has. I'm not misleading anybody. Others are, and I oppose it. Go and despair about it. I've got more important things to do. |
9th November 2012, 02:59 PM | #413 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
|
9th November 2012, 03:00 PM | #414 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
9th November 2012, 03:09 PM | #415 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.
Me too. Toward that end, I suggest we go through the Higgs paper sentence by sentence and equation by equation, asking for help as needed from our resident physicists. First sentence:
Originally Posted by Peter W Higgs
I'm sure that's clear enough for the physicists, but I had to go looking for some background information on Goldstone's theorem and spontaneous symmetry breaking. I found this: Tomáš Brauner. Spontaneous symmetry breaking and Nambu-Goldstone Bosons in quantum many-body systems. Symmetry 2010, 2, pages 609-657. doi:10.3390/sym2020609Before I study that paper in more detail, here's a question for the physicists: Would that relatively non-technical 49-page tutorial help me to understand the first sentence of the Higgs paper? (Note: I'm not asking whether it would help Farsight. I'm asking whether it would help me.) |
9th November 2012, 03:15 PM | #416 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
The inertia of a body depends on its relativistic mass, not its rest mass. The interaction with the Higgs field gives particles non-zero rest mass, which means they have non-zero inertia even when they are not moving. They then have more inertia when they are moving, because their relativistic mass (the m in E=mc˛) is greater. Likewise they have non-zero energy even when they are not moving, which of course is why nuclear reactions can convert rest mass to kinetic energy. There is no conflict here between E=mc˛ and the Higgs mechanism. Your claim that there is appears to amount to the misconception that the m in E=mc˛ refers to the rest mass of a particle, rather than the relativistic mass.
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Now, classically angular momentum is also associated with rotational kinetic energy. But that isn't the case for a photon. The photon's total energy is proportional to its linear momentum. The angular momentum is the same regardless of its total energy. Taking energy away doesn't reduce its angular momentum. A photon with incredibly tiny total energy still has just as much angular momentum as a super high-energy gamma photon.
Originally Posted by Farsight
|
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
9th November 2012, 03:18 PM | #417 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Not so. It's all about converting matter into energy and vice versa. If you don't believe me, go ask the question somewhere else. Nobody will even mention the first law of thermodynamics.
Energy and momentum aren't two different things. They're just two different aspects of the same thing. Think of a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s. Try stopping it in a second. You exert a constant opposing force. In the first tenth of a second it pushes you back a long way. In the next tenth it pushes you back a lesser distance, and so on. After 0.5 seconds the distance you've gone is less than the distance you're going to go. That's where the KE=˝mv˛ comes from. There's an integral in it, and it's a way of describing the stopping distance for a given force applied to a given "mass" moving at a given speed. Momentum however is a force x time measure. After 0.5 seconds you're halfway through the stopping time, so it's a linear p=mv. They're two different measures of something very real, not two different abstract quantities conserved by the invariant laws of physics. And like I said, it's called energy-momentum for a reason. |
9th November 2012, 03:30 PM | #418 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Uhhhhn. Tubby. You know what makes me laugh at JREF? A guy like you makes a mistake that a physicist would spot immediately. But nobody points it out. Nobody says sorry Tubby, that's back to front. When your physics knowledge improves, you'll start to notice this kind of thing, and then you'll come to appreciate that people here aren't being straight with you.
|
9th November 2012, 03:39 PM | #419 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
9th November 2012, 03:43 PM | #420 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
When one is measured in joules (or newton-metres, or kilogram-metres2 per second2) and the other is measured in rather different units (kilogram-metres per second, or newton-seconds), they're unlikely to be exactly the same thing. ETA: Come to think of it, scalar quantities are seldom the same as vector quantities. |
9th November 2012, 03:46 PM | #421 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
9th November 2012, 03:53 PM | #422 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,303
|
Just a complete, possibly ignorant, layman's perspective here. Now I might be understanding the theory of how a Higgs Field is supposed to work completely incorrectly here, but AIUI, it goes something like this....
Shortly after the Big Bang, all particles in the universe had zero mass (and presumably, huge amounts of kinetic energy), and they whizzed around the universe at c. Then the Higgs Field came along (somehow?) impeded their motion to something less than c, and in so doing gave the particles mass. According to the history I have read, Albert Einstein died in 1955, and Peter Higgs did not develop the Higgs Field Theory until 1964. Is it remotely possible that Einstein didn't say "the inertia of a body depends upon its interaction with the Higgs field" simply because he had no concept of a Higgs Field Theory in the first place, and that he made the statement the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content" because it was the best fit to the observations available in his time? It does not seem to me that Einstein's statement is incompatible with the idea of a Higgs Field giving particles mass, since the action of the Higgs Field in impeding the movement of particles surely must diminish their kinetic energy, and turn some of its energy into mass - E=mc2 I liken it to Kepler... who worked out that the planets moved in ellipses, but couldn't understand why, because Isaac Newton hadn't arrived yet to discover gravity. |
9th November 2012, 03:54 PM | #423 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Nobody will ever mention the first law of thermodynamics because iit is implictly obvious. I take it you've never done any particle physics courses where you have to calculate the kinetic energy of an outgoing particle in a reaction?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
9th November 2012, 04:01 PM | #424 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
9th November 2012, 04:03 PM | #425 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
I don't think it's quite how you think early on smartcookie, plus Einstein even if he'd been aware of the Highs mechanism wouldn't say what you suggest as most mass is not derived from it.
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
9th November 2012, 04:11 PM | #426 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
A photon is a quantum of light. It is the particle part of the wave-particle duality of light.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
9th November 2012, 04:16 PM | #427 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,303
|
|
9th November 2012, 04:22 PM | #428 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Quote:
|
9th November 2012, 04:56 PM | #430 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No. I understand mass like the back of my hand. Rest mass, relativistic mass, active gravitational mass, passive gravitational mass, inertial mass, invariant mass, you name it.
The inertia of body depends upon its energy content. How many times do I have to say it? Wrong. The given expression is . That doesn't quite get to the bottom of things, but no matter, the important point is that the m in E=mc˛ is rest mass, not relativistic mass. And vice versa, wherein kinetic energy in the guise of a photon is given as E=hf, the momentum being p=hf/c. In pair production we start with a photon which has no mass term m, and we end up with an electron and a positron which do. If we say they aren't moving there's no momentum term p. After annihilation there is but there's no mass term m. There's a flipflop between mass and momentum. It refers to rest mass, and I await other posters here to back me up on that. Meanwhile go ask elsewhere about it. It's no misconception. Either the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, or it doesn't. It either depends upon the energy content of that body, or on something else, such as interaction with a field that pervades all of space. If you plump for the latter, you've just said Einstein was wrong. E=hf doesn't say that. It says the photon energy is always a constant of action multiplied by frequency. It's like I call out "Lights camera action!" and you start winding the handle on an old-style movie camera. There's a pen sticking out of the handle drawing a sine wave on a moving scroll of paper. Regardless of how fast you wind the handle, regardless of your frequency, the pen always draws a sine wave the same height. Go look at some pictures of the electromagnetic spectrum. See how the waves are the same height? That's no accidedent. Of course I do. It's an aspect of symmetry. To keep it simple, a spin ˝ particle looks the same when you rotate it 720 degrees, a spin 1 particle looks the same when you rotate it 360 degrees, a spin 2 particle looks the same when you rotate it 180 degrees. Would you like me to talk further about this to you vis-a-vis electrons, virtual photons, and gravitons? When that photon energy has gone, the angular momentum has gone, and the photon has gone too. So? Angular momentum has the same dimensionality as action. Action has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. No it doesn't. Go look at wind waves. See the circular motion in the pictures on the right? Now think back to that old-style movie camera. You wind that handle and a sine wave is drawn on the moving scroll. If you wind that handle a billion times a second the angular momentum isn't the same as when you wind it once a second. Like I said, the scattered electrons form a spiral starburst pattern, draw a circle with tangents with arrowheads. Yes it is. It's a transverse wave in space. Waves are sinusoidal. Sine waves are always associated with circular motion. Look it up. It's a wave. Not magic. Take a look at Jeff Lundeen's web page and Aphraim Steinberg's web page. These guys (plus teams) have used weak measurement to plot the photon wavefunction. That's wave function, not billiard-ball function. And it's something real, right there in the lab, not just some abstract thing associated with the probability of finding a point particle. The days of quantum mysticism are in the past. And so to bed. |
9th November 2012, 05:28 PM | #431 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Farsight, I'm aware of all that: a book on a shelf has more energy than one on the floor
That doesn't mean that it has more kinetic energy than one on the floor The fact that it's possible to convert energy from one form to another doesn't mean that it had "hidden kinetic energy" all along, it simply means that energy is conserved |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
9th November 2012, 05:36 PM | #432 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Nope. Momentum is conserved. That is why pair production does not happen at 2mec2. There is no "flip-flop" between mass and momentum.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
9th November 2012, 05:39 PM | #433 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
I'd agree that this is the usual way to take that formula.
And vice versa, wherein kinetic energy in the guise of a photon is given as E=hf, the momentum being p=hf/c. In pair production we start with a photon which has no mass term m, and we end up with an electron and a positron which do. If we say they aren't moving there's no momentum term p. After annihilation there is but there's no mass term m. There's a flipflop between mass and momentum.
Quote:
You appear to continue to be mistaken about waves generally and angular motion and circular motion. Plenty of waves exhibit neither. |
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
9th November 2012, 07:49 PM | #434 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
|
9th November 2012, 08:31 PM | #435 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
Pardon my arm-chair-science intrusion, but I'm confused. The Higgs is the particle that gives other particles mass by interacting with the Higgs field. Correct? And the Higgs particle has mass. ... So the Higgs has a Higgs? Does that sub-Higgs have a sub-sub Higgs? How far down does the stack of turtles go?
*brain asplodes* |
10th November 2012, 01:17 AM | #436 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
No Mister Earl. Basically the Higgs itself is allowed to just have a mass with no help.
|
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz |
|
10th November 2012, 03:08 AM | #437 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'm only promoting the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, and this is no derail. The thread was dead, Tubby bumped it in post 231 on page 6, I asked if he wanted me to explain why the Higgs mechanism contradicted Einstein's E=mc˛, he said yes, and here we are. I've given a solid argument backed by empirical scientific evidence referring back to Einstein's 1905 paper. You've offered no counterargument, and calling for censorship instead doesn't go down too well. This is a skeptics forum where we discuss things rationally, we don't just accept what we're told. When we challenge what we're told and make a robust case against it, we don't expect to be shut up. Especially when we're talking about physics. If that's how you like to operate, you might find the Catholic church more to your liking.
|
10th November 2012, 03:26 AM | #438 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I've already made this clear enough, but I'll reiterate it. The photon/photon interaction is not modelled well in QED. In the wikipedia two-photon physics article you can read this:
"From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple." If ben were to get a laser beam and put it through a magnetic field to deflect any spontaneously-created electrons and positrons into say cloud chambers, he will not find any. He will thus deduce that this aspect of the model is offering a calculation method rather than a true reflection of reality. Then when he arranges two laser beams as per SLAC and does detect electrons and positrons, he knows that they're the result of a photon-photon interaction. He will then hopefully realise that his former understanding, wherein pair production occurs because a photon spontaneously magically morphs into an electron-positron pair, which the other photon interacts with, was wrong. He will hopefully then understand that pair production occurs because pair production occurs is circular reasoning and bad science. The moral of the tale is that in physics, experiment trumps mathematics. You believe what the experiments tell you, you don't disbelieve what the experiments tell you because you believe in the maths instead. Especially when you're an experimentalist. The whole point of it is to advance scientific knowledge, not dismiss evidence that doesn't square with what you were taught as a kid. |
10th November 2012, 03:44 AM | #439 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
10th November 2012, 05:20 AM | #440 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,303
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|