|
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. |
11th November 2012, 11:33 AM | #481 |
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 |
|
11th November 2012, 11:40 AM | #482 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
You seem to think that the Higgs mechanism says that the mass of an electron is 0.511MeV/c^2 regardless of its energy content. But that is not what it says. It just says that the mass of a non-moving electron is 0.511MeV/c^2, which implies that the energy of a non-moving electron is 0.511MeV. A moving electron has more energy, and as a result, more mass.
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
In the standard model, the Higg's mechanism provides the electron with 0.511MeV/c^2 of rest mass. The standard model also says that the energy of a non-moving electron is 0.511MeV. So how exactly is the electron's mass not a measure of its energy content here? Are you saying that the Higgs mechanism somehow claims that a non-moving electron has 0.511MeV/c^2 of mass, but no energy? Or that it somehow claims that a non-moving electron's energy is less than 0.511MeV?
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
|
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
11th November 2012, 11:57 AM | #483 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
It's really funny to watch Farsight try to argue that the Higgs Mechanism goes, somehow, against Einstein. If you look at the Standard Model Lagrangian---which, by construction, includes Einstein's energy/momentum equations exactly---Farsight is arguing about the difference between this term, which is precisely what Einstein would have called the mass term, of (e.g.) the electron:
\Delta \mathcal{L_e} = -m_e (\psi_L \psi_R + \psi_L \psi_R) versus what Higgs/Englert/etc. proposed for the mass of the electron: \Delta \mathcal{L} = -m_e (1 + \frac{h}{\nu}) (\psi_L \psi_R + \psi_L \psi_R) Break out the smelling salts, folks, because the Higgs-based mass has exactly precisely the same energy/momentum/mass relationship as the old-fashioned "bare" mass. (Obviously, in a sense. No one would have spent five minutes on it if it hadn't. ) ETA: the reason we prefer the Higgs-y version has nothing to do with kinematics---the kinematics are indistiguishable---and everything to do with gauge invariance. |
11th November 2012, 01:28 PM | #484 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
11th November 2012, 01:37 PM | #485 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Stimpson: I'm going to split up my response becuase very long posts deter the casual reader.
Which doesn't square with Einstein's E=mc˛ paper, which states that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. The mass depends on the amount of energy that's there, that's all. And look in section §9 here. See this "If we imagine the electric charges to be invariably coupled to small rigid bodies (ions, electrons)..." It's clear that Einstein considered the electron to be a body. The paper also states that radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies. So when you let two gamma photons escape from two boxes, where the Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with mass, they convey inertia. They don't interact with the Higgs field, but they do interact with each other to form an electron and a positron. These are bodies formed by that interaction, and afterwards those gamma photons are gone. They've been absorbed. Inertia has been conveyed from the emitting to the absorbing bodies. So anybody who asserts that inertia has somehow been switched on via the Higgs mechanism is disregarding Einstein. No I don't. I fully understand that a fast-moving electron comprises more energy than an electron at rest. Only when you say relativistic mass is mass. Look at the relativistic mass section of the wiki mass in special relativity page. Pay attention to this On the other hand, in his first paper on E=mc˛ (1905) he treated m as what would now be called the rest mass.[15] [16] [17] In later years Einstein expressed his dislike of the idea of "relativistic mass [18]." You're disregarding Einstein again. But it's still not what Einstein said. He didn't use the word proportional. Where the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content is replaced by the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field. Where you said An electron has, due to the Higgs mechanism, a rest-mass of 0.511MeV/c^2. It has a rest-mass of 0.511MeV/c^2 because it has an energy content of 0.511MeV. You said The Higgs mechanism just puts a non-zero value on the minimum energy that a particle can have. But when those particles are bound, they have even less energy than "the minimum energy that a particle can have". Spot the problem? |
11th November 2012, 02:03 PM | #486 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,306
|
Surely though, if Higgs' Theory is correct, then this body's energy content would relate directly to its interaction with the "space-pervading field", and therefore its the same thing.... A = B, B = C ∴ A = C
As I stated earlier, Einstein died nearly 10 years before Higgs' Theory was first postulated. Would he have made the same statement had he known about Higgs Theory? |
11th November 2012, 02:05 PM | #487 |
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 |
|
11th November 2012, 02:21 PM | #488 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
See above. The electron got its inertia from the photon that conveyed it from the emitting body. That means it doesn't get it from the Higgs mechanism.
Again see above. The Higgs mechanism claims that some bodies have mass because the body interacts with something external to that body. This "violates" what Einstein said, which I will paraphrase as a body at rest has rest-mass because of the energy-momentum internal to that body. Quite simply: by being a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field instead of being a measure of its energy-content. The underlying problem is that the "frightfully ad-hoc" Higgs sector has supplanted a symmetry between momentum and inertia. We know full well that an electron can be diffracted and that in atomic orbitals electrons exist as standing waves. We also know that a photon in a box can exist as a standing wave where it's moving this way → and that way ← at the same time. It appears to be motionless, but if we were to open the box it would shoots out at c, so we know that it only appears to be motionless. And we also know that it resists our attempts to change its state of motion, and the result is what we call mass. This isn't fundamentally different to the way a photon propagating at c resists our attempts to change its state of motion, and the result is what we call momentum. The only difference between the two is a transformation from the photon has no net overall motion relative to us, to the photon has motion relative to us of c. No. I'm saying that the Higgs mechanism is the wrong solution to the Standard-model initial position of massless particles, and the right solution, which is fully in accord with Einstein, has been overlooked and is now actively resisted for no sound reason. You said it, not me, see your post 482. I've just checked back through the last few pages, and I didn't say it. I know full well that a photon is massless. I've spoken repeatedly of a massless photon in a box increasing the mass of that system. |
11th November 2012, 02:24 PM | #489 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Sure. It's true for theories with a Higgs mechanism as well as for those without. It's just that the "energy content of an electron" in the Standard Model of particle physics varies depending on the Higgs condensate.
Of course what this really boils down to is that Einstein formulated everything mathematically, and the Higgs mechanism is 100% consistent with his fundamental equations. Higgs' theory is Lorentz invariant, and the mass (squared) of the electron in his theory is the square of its energy-momentum 4-vector, just as it is in a theory with no Higgs mechanism. |
11th November 2012, 02:48 PM | #490 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Look. If you want to claim that the E=mc^2 where E is the total energy of a body and m is the rest mass, then you are just plain wrong. Is this what you are claiming? Or are you somehow saying that the equation E=mc^2 should only be used when E refers to rest energy and m refers to rest mass? If so, then how does the Higgs mechanism violate E=mc^2? Are you claiming that the Higgs mechanism somehow says that a particle at rest has zero energy? I can't make any sense out of your position. Please give a single example of a condition or reaction where what the Higgs mechanism says will happen violates E=mc^2. Can you do this? And I mean a concrete example. Something like "in situation A the Higgs mechanism claims that the inertia of particle p is x, and that its total energy is y, where y is not equal to x times c^2".
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
2) The fact that the inertial mass of a body is a measure of its energy in no way contradicts the claim that its rest mass is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field. If you think it does, you need to explain why, rather than just asserting over and over again that it somehow does.
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Amend what I said to say that it puts a non-zero minimum energy that a particle can have in the absence of any other potentials. I don't care. The point is that the Higgs interaction results in the particle having a non-zero rest energy. And since the mass of a particle is a measure of the energy content of the particle, this means that it has a non-zero rest mass. The Higgs mechanism does not say that a particle's rest mass will depend on how strongly it interacts with the Higgs field instead of on what its energy content is, as you seem to be claiming. It says that a particle's rest energy depends on how strongly it interacts with the Higgs field, and that because the particle's rest mass is proportional to its rest energy, it's rest mass will thus depend on how strongly it interacts with the Higgs field. At this point you seem to be complaining about semantics more than anything else. If the Higgs mechanism does not claim that a particle's total energy will not be proportional to its inertia with proportionality coefficient c^2, then it does not violate E=mc^2, and it does not violate the principle that inertia is a measure of energy content. End of story. If you think that the Higgs mechanism does make such a claim, then give a specific example. If you don't, then stop claiming that it violates E=mc^2, because it clearly does not. |
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
11th November 2012, 02:59 PM | #491 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
What you disagree with is the claim that the Higgs mechanism is the correct solution. You can't cite any example of it quantitatively giving an answer that disagrees with the empirical evidence. You can't cite any example of it making predictions that are incompatible with other predictions made by the standard model. You can't cite any example of it making predictions that violate Special Relativity. Put simply, you've got nothing other than your own insistence that it must be wrong, and that you think Einstein would agree with you. |
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
11th November 2012, 03:04 PM | #492 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
It can't. Also, forget about photons. The rest mass of an electron is always 0.511MeV/c^2. That is true no matter how much energy the electron has. So, what is the mass of a 10MeV electron? Is it still 0.511MeV/c^2? If so, then clearly its mass is not a measure of its energy content. Like I said, rest mass is not a measure of energy content (unless, of course, the particle is at rest). If you don't like using the term "mass" to refer to inertial mass, then stop saying that mass is a measure of energy content, because it's not. |
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
11th November 2012, 03:14 PM | #493 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I fully realise it, and I'm deadly serious. The sign of the cannonball's momentum is arbitrary. You can assert that a cannonball coming at you from the left exhibits 1000kg m/s of momentum and a cannonball coming at you from the left exhibits -1000kg m/s of momentum. Or you can flip them around. But you don't change the momentum of those cannonballs one jot. Momentum is only a vector because it's an aspect of measure of energy-momentum. It's conserved when that cannonball hits you because it exerts a force on you for a given time, and you exert a force on it in the opposite direction for the same time. Kinetic energy is conserved if you and the cannonball are perfectly elastic because it exerts a force on you for a given distance and you exert a force on it for a given distance. The force is in the opposite direction but we don't care about that when we say energy = force x distance. Only you're not perfectly elastic.
There is. Two photons, each of which conveys energy-momentum, interact as per two-photon physics resulting in electron-positron pair production. You had energy-momentum zipping through space at c, and now you've got mass. Like I said before, kinetic energy is your distance-based measure of energy-momentum, and momentum is your time-based measure of energy-momentum. They're merely two different aspects of the same thing, distinguished by c, a conversion factor between distance and time. You're in the rest frame of the electron and positron, which have moved apart and are momentarily motionless before they draw together. You can't see that energy momentum any more, what you see instead is mass. If you look closely and note the magnetic moment you'll appreciate that it hasn't actually disappeared, it's hidden, like it is in the standing wave. Then the electron and positron annihilate and you've got two photons again and the mass has gone to be replace by energy-momentum. What example? I've spoken of two-photon phyiscs, or pair production where a photon interacts with a nucleon. The only time I've referred to one photon turning into an electron-positron pair is when I've criticized the QED given explanation of pair production. See wiki: "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". You said repeatedly An electron has, due to the Higgs mechanism, a rest-mass of 0.511MeV/c^2. And the wikipedia article says this "According to this theory, particles gain mass by interacting with the Higgs field that permeates all space." For fermions, it says this: "An obvious possibility is some kind of "Yukawa coupling" (see below) between the fermion field ψ and the Higgs field Φ". If you're claiming that this and all those media reports are wrong, let's hear it. I'm serious. And so was Einstein when he said mass is a measure of energy content. It's a different measure of energy-momentum, that's all. It's how you measure it when it isn't going past you, but instead is going back and forth or around and around in front of you. Just like c is a conversion factor between the measure we call energy and the measure we call momentum, c˛ is a conversion factor between the measure we call energy and the measure we call mass. |
11th November 2012, 03:25 PM | #494 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It's a measure of energy-content for a body. A photon is not a body.
Surprisingly, it isn't. It varies with gravitational potential. I'm not kidding you on that Stimpson. You're conflating relativistic mass and rest mass again. We say the body has it's rest mass, and when it's moving fast it has kinetic energy on top of that. We add the two together for relativistic mass. Which Einstein didn't like. take that up with Einstein, who said The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. He also said It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test. So it's pretty obvious he was talking about a body at rest. |
11th November 2012, 03:30 PM | #495 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No, it's a non-sequiteur. The body's energy content depends on how much energy you put in to create it. Like Einstein said, the photon conveys inertia from the emitting body to the absorbing body, so the electron (created via pair production) gets its inertia because the photon delivered it. The emitting body could have been a box of radiation like what Susskind talked about, where the Higgs mechanism is not involved, and E=mc˛ is responsible for mass. A photon has no rest mass, but it does have "inertial mass" which isn't mass in the usual sense of the word. Have a read of Light is heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft. I understand it isn't the Nobel-Laureate 't Hooft, it's some other guy.
Yes. remember that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter. Einstein would have said that that figure was a little bit wrong. Like 1% wrong. |
11th November 2012, 03:56 PM | #496 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
If your answer is "no", then you are not using the word "mass" to refer to rest mass. If your answer is "yes", then it is clearly not true that what you are calling "mass" is a measure of the energy content of the 10MeV electron. You can't have it both ways, regardless of what you think Einstein "liked".
Originally Posted by Farsight
And if so, why go on about whether mass should refer to relativistic or rest mass at all, when for particles at rest they are exactly the same thing? Why are you so obsessed with purely semantic issues like this? What difference does any of this make to anything? The fact remains that the Higgs mechanism does not claim that any particle at rest will have a mass m and an energy E such that E is not equal to mc^2, so you are simply wrong when you say that it violates E=mc^2, or that the Higgs mechanism claims that the mass of a particle does not depend on its energy content or that the Higgs mechanism claims that the mass of a particle is not a measure of its energy content. |
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
11th November 2012, 04:03 PM | #497 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yes. The problem is that the word measure is disregarded. Mass is a measure of energy-momentum, just as kinetic energy is a measure of it, and momentum is a measure of it. Mass is a measure of energy-momentum when it takes the form of a "standing wave" going back and forth or round and round at c as opposed to a wave propagating linearly at c. And from that grew a problem wherein the Standard model includes the "frightfully ad-hoc" Higgs mechanism when it ought to have a symmetry. It's going to change edd. It's only a matter of time, and when it happens you can tell everybody you heard it here first.
Kind of cool, don't you think? All: If anybody wants me to talk to them again, they can apologise for calling me a crackpot. I'm the one who's with Einstein here. Call me a crackpot, and you're calling Einstein a crackpot. It's that simple. Just as this resistance to change-in-motion thing is that simple a child can understand it. And yet here we are on a skeptics forum and people cling to things they don't understand instead. The irony is delicious. It's why I like this place so much. LOL. And so to bed. |
11th November 2012, 04:31 PM | #498 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
11th November 2012, 04:38 PM | #499 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Is there an arroganceometer to go with the ironometer?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
11th November 2012, 04:50 PM | #500 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
The two cases are not on all fours. Einstein was a genius and a red-hot physicist. You are just you. You turn up here and post Mickey Mouse physics, real physicists point out your mistakes to you and instead of taking heed and learning you take umbrage and go home with your ball. Not really the scientific method, is it?
|
11th November 2012, 05:20 PM | #501 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
Thanks for providing the paper, but I do have a criticism...
Just because modern physicists do not yet have the answer to the question I hilighted above doesn't mean that your claims are correct. You seem to be making a combination argument from ignorance and false dilemma with much of what you're posting here. In addition, you seem to be implying that E=mc2 isn't consistent with the theory behind the Higgs boson because... why? What, according to you, specifically makes one inconsistent with the other? If you think that there is something to your ideas, then you must do more than attempt to tear down the Standard Model upon which the whole notion of the Higgs boson is based. You must provide positive evidence for your ideas. So go do that. If there is something to your ideas then I'm sure you can get them published in a reputable physics journal. Better yet, illustrate the superiority of your ideas by conducting an experiment; you know, like the people who built the Standard Model have done. ETA: Also, for all of your fawning over Einstein, you should realize that later in his career he was wrong on a lot of stuff. For example, he never fully accepted quantum physics and kept trying to unify gravitation with electromagnetism, a futile effort which led nowhere. That's just an aside, but a relevant one given your apparent devotion to the man. |
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher "We ****** up the air, the water, we ****** up each other. Why don't we just finish the job by flushing our brains down the toilet?" -- John Trent, In the Mouth of Madness |
|
11th November 2012, 05:27 PM | #502 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight, Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory
That is dumb - gio check out the anoiuncement of the discovery of the Higgs boson from peoloe who know more than this than you and me !
Originally Posted by Farsight;8758547It is E=mc˛, it's [URL="http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/"
It is not trivia, Farsight: It is pointing out the stupidity of stating that a relativistic quantum field theory is not consistent with relativity (i.e. E=mc˛). So you do now what relativistic (sort of) means. In this context it means a theory that is based on special relativity. It includes E=mc˛ and thus can bever contradict E=mc˛ . But maybe you are ignorant about the Higgs mechanism being a relativistic quantum field theory so: Farsight, Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory? First pointed out 1 November 2012 |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
11th November 2012, 05:38 PM | #504 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Farsight doesn't know enough math to balance a checkbook, let alone understand "advanced" concepts like vectors.
Farsight: If I'm wrong, prove it. Write an equation showing how the Higgs mechanism in a Lorentz invariant field theory like the standard model is inconsistent with E=mc2, an equation that is true by definition in Lorentz invariant theories. |
13th November 2012, 01:16 AM | #505 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Sorry I couldn't talk yesterday guys, I was tied up.
Have a look at the New Scientist article Particle headache: Why the Higgs could spell disaster. You have to be able to login to read it I'm afraid, but here's a fair-use excerpt: It's a nice story, but one that some find a little contrived. "The minimal standard model Higgs is like a fairy tale," says Guido Altarelli of CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. "It is a toy model to make the theory match the data, a crutch to allow the standard model to walk a bit further until something better comes along." His problem is that the standard model is manifestly incomplete. It predicts the outcome of experiments involving normal particles to accuracies of several decimal places, but is frustratingly mute on gravity, dark matter and other components of the cosmos we know or suspect to exist. What we need, say Altarelli and others, is not a standard Higgs at all, but something subtly or radically different - a key to a deeper theory. Here's another one. The only way to do that while retaining a semblance of theoretical dignity, says Altarelli, is to invoke a conspiracy brought about by a suitable new symmetry of nature. |
13th November 2012, 02:10 AM | #506 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
LOL, I've got maths A level, I did more maths at university when I did a Computer Science degree, and I've done maths tutoring up to A-level.
No, I'm not wasting my time boring everybody to death pandering to your attempt to distract attention away from the evidence and the logic.
Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid
|
13th November 2012, 02:26 AM | #507 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
13th November 2012, 02:31 AM | #508 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Yes it is. It says the inertia of a body depends on the Higgs mechanism when that body is a "fundamental particle" such as an electron.
Yes and no. The answer is yes when you separate the total energy into kinetic energy and rest mass and say "mass is rest mass". The answer is no when you say "mass is relativistic mass which is the total energy". I can have it both ways when I point out the ambiguity surrounding the word mass. Don't try this sort of thing on me Stimpson, I'm way too smart for it. Wake up Stimpson, go and read Einstein's paper. He said "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Those are his exact words. It isn't my claim you're trying to shoot down, it's Einstein's. I'm not going on about relativistic mass or rest mass, nor am I obsessed with purely semantic issues, I'm telling you what Einstien said and how the Higgs mechanism contradicts it. But even though you cannot explain the Higgs mechanism, you will not accept what Einstein said. You call it my claim instead. I'm not "simply wrong". Einstein said radiation conveys inertia. So after pair production the electron has obtained its inertia from the photon that made it, not from the Higgs mechanism. It's that simple Stimpson. Now go and read that Einstein paper. |
13th November 2012, 02:43 AM | #509 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
13th November 2012, 02:52 AM | #510 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
There is no inconsistency.
Quote:
|
13th November 2012, 02:58 AM | #511 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It isn't some argument from ignorance and false dilemma. My physics knowledge far exceeds that of other posters here. The ignorance is theirs, not mine. And see my post 505 above the reality of the dilemma.
It's the other way around. The Higgs mechanism isn't consistent with E=mc˛ because it ignores the symmetry between momentum and inertia. Both are resistance-to-change-in-motion, one for a wave propapagating linearly at c, one for a standing wave which whilst still propagating at c, is going this → way and that ← way at c and so appears to have no relative motion with respect to you. And see atomic orbitals on wiki. Note the line that reads "The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves." Electrons exist as standing waves even when they aren't in an orbital. The wave motion isn't as simple as going this → way and that ← way at c, but the same principle applies. I'm not trying to tear down the standard model, I'm trying to get it out of a hole. Again see post 505 above. I'm not some "my theory" guy. I'll talk to people instead. Don't dismiss Einstein with an allegation that I'm fawning. I'm pointing out what the guy said. Face up to it. And he did accept quantum physics. He was in on the ground floor of quantum physics. What he didn't accept was the "mystic" Copenhagen interpretation, which is now a busted flush. |
13th November 2012, 03:21 AM | #512 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
No it doesn't. You don't understand the difference between a vector and a scalar. I think that probably puts you at the bottom of the pile of people commenting on this thread.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
13th November 2012, 03:53 AM | #513 |
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 |
|
13th November 2012, 04:01 AM | #514 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
13th November 2012, 04:26 AM | #515 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 7,259
|
Some times in this thread it has been said that all that has been found is a "bump" at about 125 GeV/c, but it really is much more than that: the "bump" is associated with a number of different predictions for the Higg's which is why it is so certain that it is the Higg's that has been found.
|
__________________
Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none! |
|
13th November 2012, 05:07 AM | #516 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I wasn't called out at all. The momentum of a 1kg cannonball coming at your face at 1000m/s doesn't change just because you turned your back on it. Ouch. Now please stick to what we're discussing and resist the urge to make a disparaging comment because you can't find fault with what I've said. Which is what Einstein said.
Originally Posted by steenkh
"So we are left with a particle that looks like the standard Higgs, but we can't quite prove it. And that leaves us facing an elephant in the accelerator tunnel: if it is the standard Higgs, how can it even be there in the first place? The problem lies in the prediction of quantum theory, confirmed by experiments at CERN's previous mega-accelerator, the Large Electron Positron collider, that particles spontaneously absorb and emit "virtual" particles by borrowing energy from the vacuum. Because the Higgs boson itself gathers mass from everything it touches, these processes should make its mass balloon from the region of 100 GeV to 10^19 GeV. At this point, dubbed the Planck scale, the fundamental forces go berserk and gravity - the comparative weakling of them all - becomes as strong as all the others. The consequence is a high-stress universe filled with black holes and oddly warped space-time." The article carries comments by Gian Guidice of CERN, who I've referred to previously on this thread. I'm afraid you've been paying too much attention to the ill-advised rah-rah publicity material, when what you should be doing is looking at what the CERN physicists are saying. |
13th November 2012, 05:24 AM | #517 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
I certainly find fault with
Quote:
(edit: Oh and of course it doesn't physically change when I turn my back. We have perfectly sensible ways to handle the coordinate transformation I might choose to apply when I face the other way - it doesn't change the fact that momentum is a vector whose components can quite validly be declared to be negative in a given coordinate system) I'm still baffled that you think we have a problem with relativity and the Higgs together. You say your photon in a box has acquired a mass. Yes - by virtue of the confinement of the box, the interaction of the photon with the box, the combined system has done that. The Higgs field when interacting with the massless particles that will ultimately be observed as an electron does something at least partially analogous, and we get a massive electron as the particle we see. Of course it isn't a self-interacting photon. It's a massless electron interacting with the Higgs field. I simply don't see why you have a problem with it and think it disagrees with relativity. |
__________________
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 |
|
13th November 2012, 05:40 AM | #518 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
13th November 2012, 06:23 AM | #519 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
A 1MeV photon and a 1MeV electron both have exactly the same inertia. So clearly the inertia of a particle does not depend on the Higgs mechanism. Again, this amounts to you conflating rest mass with inertial mass. The rest mass of a particle is not proportional to its inertia unless that particle is at rest. At best, you could say that the inertia of a particle at rest depends on the Higgs mechanism. But that doesn't contradict the fact that it depends on the energy of the particle, because of course the energy of a particle at rest depends on the Higgs mechanism. If A depends on B, and B depends on C, then A may depend on C. Claiming that "A depends on C" contradicts "A depends on B" in such cases simply makes no sense.
Originally Posted by Farsight
Yes, the combined inertia of the electron positron pair is exactly equal to the combined inertia of the two photons that produced them. This is clear from conservation of energy and the fact that the total inertial of a system is proportional to the total energy of the system. But since the Higgs mechanism does not claim that the total inertia of the electron positron pair won't be equal to the total inertia of the two photons, you are dead wrong in claiming that the Higgs mechanism somehow contradicts this. Your specific wording is interesting, though. The electron does not "obtain its inertia from the Higgs mechanism". The Higgs mechanism does not give any particle inertia. A particle with 1MeV of total energy will always have 1MeV/c^2 of inertial mass regardless of how strongly it interacts with the Higgs field. So the inertia of a 1MeV particle is the same regardless of how strongly it interacts with the Higgs field. All the Higgs mechanism does is determine how much of a particle's total energy will be in the form of rest energy, and thus how much of its total inertial mass will be in the form of rest mass. It would be like if I gave my Niece $100, and her mother made her put $80 in her savings acount and keep $20 as cash. I, not her mother, gave her the $100. The fact that her mother determined how much of that is in her savings account does not change that. The total money she has is still $100, just as the total energy (and thus the total inertia) of the electron and positron is the full energy/inertia "given" to them by the two photons. Her mother just determined how that money would be distributed between her savings and checking accounts, just as the Higgs mechanism determines how the energy/inertia will be distributed between rest-energy and kinetic-energy. You can argue that it is incorrect to say that her mother determined that she would have $100, and you would be absolutely correct. Likewise, you can claim that the Higgs mechanism is not what gives the electron-positron pair their inertia in pair production. And again you would be absolutely correct. What is incorrect is the assertion that anybody is actually claiming that the Higgs mechanism does give particles their inertia. It does not. The Higgs mechanism does not provide inertia to particles. It just influences the rest mass of certain particles. But as you have been forced to acknowledge, rest mass is not the same as inertia. A 10MeV electron has 10MeV/c^2 of inertia, but only 0.511MeV/c^2 of rest mass. Also, the Higgs mechanism does not provide the rest energy (which the rest mass is a measure of). That energy still has to come from somewhere else. The Higgs mechanism just determines how much of the particle's energy will be allocated to rest energy. If you think that Higgs theory claims that the Higgs mechanism somehow provides the rest energy of particles, or that it results in the total inertia of a particle not being proportional to its total energy, then you have simply misunderstood what the Higgs theory actually says. That said, I doubt very much that you actually know anything about the Higgs theory beyond various qualitative descriptions you have read about it on the web. If you had actually read (and understood) any of the actual science behind it, you would not be making such obvious misstatements about it. |
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
13th November 2012, 07:27 AM | #520 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
I didn't suggest that it appeared by some kind of spring mechanism: the book gets kinetic energy due to it's interaction with the gravitational field of the earth
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, regarding a book on a shelf, I've got two books, A and B, each weighing one kg, one (A) is on the floor, the other (B) is on a shelf one meter above the floor Both are stationary with respect to the floor Here's what I get for the kinetic energy of both of them: Ekinetic = mv2/2 = (1kg)(0m/s)2/2 = 0 Joules Here's what I get for their respective potential energy relative to the floor: E(A)potential= mgh =(1kg)(10m/s2)(0 m) = 0 joules E(B)potential= mgh =(1kg)(10m/s2)(1 m) = 10 joules Perhaps you could show me the calculation where B's kinetic energy is 10 joules, or something else other than 0? |
__________________
"... 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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|