IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags cern , higgs boson , physics

Reply
Old 9th November 2012, 01:07 PM   #401
xtifr
Graduate Poster
 
xtifr's Avatar
 
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
xtifr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 01:09 PM   #402
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Farsight is comletely incapable of understandIng Higgs' 1964 paper. His pretend physics has been exposed for what it is. Go ahead, Farsight -- prove me wrong. Explain the 1964 Higgs paper and point out the errors.
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 01:22 PM   #403
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
I just wanted to pop in here because I noticed this particular nugget of "wisdom", and while most of this nonsense has been soundly refuted, I didn't see any direct response to it.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
This is, of course, not true. The photon has spin. It has nonzero angular momentum. And it keeps that momentum no matter how close its energy gets to zero.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
So the notion that you could somehow drain the kinetic energy from a photon until none is left, is simply nonsensical. What you can do is absorb the photon. But then you absorb its angular momentum too, not just its kinetic energy.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
I suppose you could amend the claim to say that a photon is made of kinetic energy and angular momentum, but at this point it becomes clear that this amounts to nothing more than saying that those are the properties a photon has.
No, when you remove
the energy-momentum you aren't left with anything. The photon is not a cannonball. It's a wave.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 01:34 PM   #404
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by TubbyThin
The extra energy a book has because of being off the ground isn't kinetic energy.
It's called gravitational potential energy. But it is kinetic energy. You can work this out with a standing wave in a box. The wave motion is simultaneously going this way → and that way ← and there's no apparent motion, but if you whip away one side of the box the wave flies out at c. It can't do that from a standing start. So you know that kinetic energy is in the box. You also know that if the box is on the floor you have to add energy to raise it. You also know that the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. And you know that the energy you add goes into the standing wave. It still has wave motion simultaneously going this way → and that way ←, only now with the greater coordinate speed of light, there's more energy present. And it is kinetic energy. All you have to do to make it obvious is let go of the box.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 01:39 PM   #405
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Please consider this post abusive.
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 01:49 PM   #406
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
You still do not understand where our objections lie. Experimental results are not questioned - your unusual interpretations of them are.
__________________
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
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 01:54 PM   #407
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by xtifr View Post
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.
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 01:58 PM   #408
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
You are not giving a well-supported explanation. This isn't me trolling by the way. This is just me informing you.
Oh yes I am Tubby. This is the best physics lesson you've had for a long while.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
You don't make the rules for this forum. yOu can choose to ignore people as you wish, of course, but the discussion is likely to continue on regardless.
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.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
How about you stop being abusive to everybody 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.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
At what point - after how many experts have told you that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect - would you ever consider the possibility that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect?
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.

Last edited by Farsight; 9th November 2012 at 02:00 PM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 02:11 PM   #409
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
I know I'm late to the discussion, but humor me, folks. Farsight, could you point out to me exactly what part of Einstein's work supports your claim?
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 02:31 PM   #410
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
Farsight, I don't understand a lot of what's being said here. Far from it, in fact. But isn't a lot of you objections based upon the laws of physics as they apply in Newtonian space?
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.

Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
Those laws of physics aren't wrong, and as far as I can tell no one claims that they are wrong. They just don't necessarily apply in Quantum Mechanics, where those same laws start to breaking down due to the uncertainty principle.
They don't break down, and they're derived from symmetries. I really am not kidding about that Mudcat. Look it up.

Originally Posted by Mudcat View Post
So I don't see how your objections are relevant to the subject.
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 02:48 PM   #411
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I'm still not sure how any of this stops photons being a body. I suppose it all depends on definitions.
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.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
The same arguments apply to electrons/muons/tauons/neutrinos.
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.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I'm interested in understanding your definition of it. You seem to be invoking magical existence to it.
I don't do magic Tubby. I do plain vanilla. If you want me to explain it, start a thread.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
So why all this talk about photons ceasing to exist meaning they are made of kinetic energy?
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.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Rest mass energy and kinetic energy went in and the same (combined) amount of rest mass energy and kinetic energy came out. That's the first law of thermodynamics.
Yep. And rest mass is just a measure of energy content. So what's that "Higgs boson" made of?

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
It's as real as momentum/mass/temperature etc...
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.

Last edited by Farsight; 9th November 2012 at 02:50 PM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 02:53 PM   #412
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
You do not have evidence contradicting QED.
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...

Originally Posted by edd View Post
I will not. I am not happy about the possibility of you misleading others, although it does not seem to be happening here.
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.

Last edited by Farsight; 9th November 2012 at 02:58 PM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 02:59 PM   #413
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
I was responding to a point you introduced as if relevant to the subject at hand...
Next.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:00 PM   #414
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
This is not about my understanding or not. You said
Quote:
QED doesn't model it, but it happens.
You say there is a photon/electron* interaction not modelled well by QED? I'm calling your bluff. Spell it out.

*you are permitted to replace all electrons by photons in attempting to do this.
__________________
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
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:09 PM   #415
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist.

Originally Posted by xtifr View Post
I, for one, would like to learn more about the Higgs and how it fits into mainstream physics.
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
In a recent note it was shown that the Goldstone theorem, that Lorentz-covariant field theories in which spontaneous breakdown of symmetry under an internal Lie group occurs contain zero-mass particles, fails if and only if the conserved currents associated with the internal group are coupled to gauge fields.

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/sym2020609
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/2/2/609/pdf
Before 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.)
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:15 PM   #416
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
 
Stimpson J. Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
Originally Posted by Farsight
It is E=mc˛, it's does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? That's where Einstein said "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Not the measure of how that body interacts with some mysterious field. The measure of its energy content.
Are you really unaware of the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass?

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
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.
I assume you meant "the inertia of a body depends on its energy content" above. The problem is that you appear to be operating under the misconception that this is somehow incompatible with the Higgs mechanism.

Originally Posted by Farsight
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.
No, the photon always has exactly one unit of angular momentum. It is a spin 1 particle. Do you understand what that means? It's angular momentum can change direction, but it can never be zero.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
So the notion that you could somehow drain the kinetic energy from a photon until none is left, is simply nonsensical. What you can do is absorb the photon. But then you absorb its angular momentum too, not just its kinetic energy.
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.
Yes, I know. But I didn't say "momentum". I said "angular momentum".

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
No, when you remove the energy-momentum you aren't left with anything. The photon is not a cannonball. It's a wave.
You can't remove all the energy-momentum without also absorbing that 1 unit of angular momentum. And you can't absorb that 1 unit of angular momentum without also absorbing the photon (that is, you can't have a photon with zero angular momentum). The photon is not a wave (at least, not in the classical sense that you are suggesting). Nor is it a particle in the classical sense of the term. Nor is it both. Nor is it sometimes one and sometimes the other. It is a quantum mechanical object which exhibits some behavior which is very similar to a classical wave under some conditions, some behavior which is very similar to a classical particle under other conditions, and some behavior which is utterly unlike anything classical under all conditions.
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
Stimpson J. Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:18 PM   #417
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
E=mc2 is all about preserving the first law of thermodynamics.
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.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Energy is the quantity that is conserved due to the temporal invariance of the laws of physics. Momentum is the quantity that is conserved due to the spatial invariance of the laws of physics. Einstein showed the correct conservation equations for both these quantities in all inertial reference frames. The idea that one is somehow the very essence of a body while the other is not is just... well... silly.
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.

Last edited by Farsight; 9th November 2012 at 03:21 PM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:30 PM   #418
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
If by inertia you mean "mass" then no. The energy "content" of a body depends on its mass.
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:39 PM   #419
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's called gravitational potential energy. But it is kinetic energy. You can work this out with a standing wave in a box. The wave motion is simultaneously going this way → and that way ← and there's no apparent motion, but if you whip away one side of the box the wave flies out at c. It can't do that from a standing start. So you know that kinetic energy is in the box. You also know that if the box is on the floor you have to add energy to raise it. You also know that the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. And you know that the energy you add goes into the standing wave. It still has wave motion simultaneously going this way → and that way ←, only now with the greater coordinate speed of light, there's more energy present. And it is kinetic energy. All you have to do to make it obvious is let go of the box.
Pardon.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:43 PM   #420
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Energy and momentum aren't two different things.

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.

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 9th November 2012 at 03:47 PM.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:46 PM   #421
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
It's not back to front. It's entirely the right way around. As you might see if you were to answer my questions about sweets.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:53 PM   #422
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
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.

Last edited by smartcooky; 9th November 2012 at 04:14 PM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 03:54 PM   #423
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
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:
Energy and momentum aren't two different things. They're just two different aspects of the same thing.
They are two different, related, things.

Quote:
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.
KE=˝mv˛ comes from the low energy approximation 0f E=γmc2.

Quote:
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.
They most very definitely are two measures of different quantities conserved by the laws of physics. Einstein was very explicit about this. He called the discoverer of this fact: "the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began".
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:01 PM   #424
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
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 it into energy into mass - E=mc2
The Higgs field determines the mass of the fundamental particles. The mass of the particles determines how much kinetic energy needs to be taken out of a system to create that particle.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:03 PM   #425
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
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
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:11 PM   #426
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
A photon is a quantum of light. It is the particle part of the wave-particle duality of light.

Quote:
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.
So?

Quote:
I don't do magic Tubby. I do plain vanilla. If you want me to explain it, start a thread.
You do a great line pompousness.

Quote:
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.
I know they cease to exist. That doesn't mean they are made of energy any more than they are made of momentum, spin or helicity.

Quote:
Yep. And rest mass is just a measure of energy content. So what's that "Higgs boson" made of?
The Higgs boson isn't made of anything (to the best of our knowledge). It is a fundamental particle, just like the electron, muon, tauon, three corresponding types of neutrino, antiparticles of all the preceding, gluon, photon, Z0, W+ and W-.

Quote:
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.
Momentum is certainly not just energy divided by c. The rest is just a wild claim with no basis in reality.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:16 PM   #427
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,303
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
The Higgs field determines the mass of the fundamental particles. The mass of the particles determines how much kinetic energy needs to be taken out of a system to create that particle.
Originally Posted by edd View Post
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.

So, I'm treating this too simplistically?
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:22 PM   #428
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Quote:
The bottom line is that the Higgs boson contradicts Einstein and his E=mc˛.
Nope. That is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that we have a crackpot, who is struggling with the first law of thermodynamics, telling us that entirety of the particle physics community is wrong because he and he alone understands the true words of Einstein whilst simultaneously dismissing the work of the person Einstein explicitly described as "the most significant creative mathematical genius thus far produced since the higher education of women began".
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:48 PM   #429
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
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:




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/sym2020609
http://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/2/2/609/pdf
Before 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.)
I found this little essay helpful: LINK
__________________
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
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 04:56 PM   #430
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Lightbulb

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Are you really unaware of the difference between relativistic mass and rest mass?
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
The inertia of a body depends on its relativistic mass, not its rest mass.
The inertia of body depends upon its energy content. How many times do I have to say it?

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
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.
It refers to rest mass, and I await other posters here to back me up on that. Meanwhile go ask elsewhere about it.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
I assume you meant "the inertia of a body depends on its energy content" above. The problem is that you appear to be operating under the misconception that this is somehow incompatible with the Higgs mechanism.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
No, the photon always has exactly one unit of angular momentum.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
It is a spin 1 particle. Do you understand what that means?
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?

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
It's angular momentum can change direction, but it can never be zero.
When that photon energy has gone, the angular momentum has gone, and the photon has gone too.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Yes, I know. But I didn't say "momentum". I said "angular momentum".
So? Angular momentum has the same dimensionality as action. Action has the dimensionality of momentum x distance.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
You can't remove all the energy-momentum without also absorbing that 1 unit of angular momentum.
Like I said, the scattered electrons form a spiral starburst pattern, draw a circle with tangents with arrowheads.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
You can't absorb that 1 unit of angular momentum without also absorbing the photon (that is, you can't have a photon with zero angular momentum). The photon is not a wave (at least, not in the classical sense that you are suggesting).
Yes it is. It's a transverse wave in space. Waves are sinusoidal. Sine waves are always associated with circular motion. Look it up.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Nor is it a particle in the classical sense of the term. Nor is it both. Nor is it sometimes one and sometimes the other. It is a quantum mechanical object which exhibits some behavior which is very similar to a classical wave under some conditions, some behavior which is very similar to a classical particle under other conditions, and some behavior which is utterly unlike anything classical under all conditions.
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 05:28 PM   #431
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes. It isn't obvious, and it's called gravitational potential energy. But when you knock the book off the shelf the book falls down, and now that kinetic energy is obvious. When you lift the book back up to the shelf you do work on it, and add energy to it, and as a result its mass increases. Only a little. But conservation of energy ought to tell you that it does increase. It's a little like heating an object. If you could annihilate the book on the shelf with an anti-book and carefully measure the kinetic energy releases in all the gamma photons, you would find that more kinetic energy was released than a similar gedankenexperiment at floor level. I'm not kidding you about this. If you'd like to start a thread on it I'll go into it in more detail.
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
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 05:36 PM   #432
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
Nope. Momentum is conserved. That is why pair production does not happen at 2mec2. There is no "flip-flop" between mass and momentum.

Quote:
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.
The mass of a fundamental particle is determined by the interaction with the Higgs field. The amount of energy it takes to make that particle is equal to its mass times c2. There is no conflict there whatsoever.

Quote:
When that photon energy has gone, the angular momentum has gone, and the photon has gone too.
When the photon has gone, its energy and angular momentum have been transferred to other objects.

Quote:
Yes it is. It's a transverse wave in space. Waves are sinusoidal. Sine waves are always associated with circular motion.
No they're not. I hang a weight from a spring, stretch the spring and let go and the displacement from the equilibrium position is sinusoidal (at least to first approximation). That is a sine wave associated with linear motion.

Last edited by Tubbythin; 9th November 2012 at 05:38 PM.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 05:39 PM   #433
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
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:
E=hf doesn't say that.
Of course not. It patently says absolutely diddly about angular momentum.

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
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 07:49 PM   #434
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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

http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?K...ac{L}{C^2} v^2

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.
Yep, it's unequivocal. Is a measure of. Not Is made of. Just as the length of a body is a measure of its extent in that dimension.
TjW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2012, 08:31 PM   #435
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
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*
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 01:17 AM   #436
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
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
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 03:08 AM   #437
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by xtifr View Post
Once again, Farsight is attempting to derail a discussion of physics in order to promote his Relativity+. This is getting seriously annoying...

...I would like to appeal to the moderators to help get this discussion back on track.
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 03:26 AM   #438
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
You say there is a photon/electron* interaction not modelled well by QED? I'm calling your bluff. Spell it out.

*you are permitted to replace all electrons by photons in attempting to do this.
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.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 03:44 AM   #439
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.
Erm. You do realise it is you that is claiming that the most precisely tested theory in the history of science is wrong?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2012, 05:20 AM   #440
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,303
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
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*
Originally Posted by edd View Post
No Mister Earl. Basically the Higgs itself is allowed to just have a mass with no help.

Probably why it sometimes gets called the "God particle"
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:25 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.