|
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. |
30th October 2012, 04:11 AM | #241 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
And scientific papers provide summaries of scientific experiments. Since you cvan't actually do the experiments online, papers are the next best thing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
30th October 2012, 04:47 AM | #242 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Steven Hawking for one, Janet Conrad for another. See Higgs boson news leads physicists to settle bets: "It also prompted a worldwide settling of scores as physicists — inveterate gamblers — examine the data to decide whether it is time to pay up on longstanding bets about the existence of the boson, which has been the object of a 40-year manhunt."
There are issues, Tubby.
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
OK so far? I wouldn't want to provide anything other than a careful explanation, supported by robust evidence and papers, that people can actually understand. |
30th October 2012, 04:54 AM | #243 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Please just do it all in one go Farsight? It's going to be painful if you do it like 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 |
|
30th October 2012, 05:04 AM | #244 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I want some confirmation as we proceed, edd. That way Tubby, who bumped this thread deliberately, can't get away with bluster saying I've given no evidence and have explained nothing. Are you happy with what I've said so far?
|
30th October 2012, 05:08 AM | #245 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Here's what Hawking actually said about the bet:
Originally Posted by Hawking
Quote:
Quote:
|
30th October 2012, 05:14 AM | #246 |
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 |
|
30th October 2012, 05:17 AM | #247 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Are you happy with what I've said so far Tubby? Linking to a Monty Python sketch isn't much of an answer. I will presume that the answer is yes, and you're fighting shy of saying so.
The next step is to take the step from radiation in a box to a electromagnetic standing wave in a cavity, such as a Fabry-Perot cavity. Are you happy that this standing wave adds mass to the system, and that this mass is nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism? |
30th October 2012, 05:36 AM | #248 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
This is where that symmetry comes in. We know that before the electromagnetic wave or photon was trapped in the box or cavity it is massless, but it conveys energy-momentum wherein energy E=hf and momentum p=hf/c. We can perform Compton scattering with it to demonstrate this, along with inverse Compton scattering. The photon exhibits a resistance to our attempts to change its state of motion. If it didn't, it wouldn't exhibit the property we call momentum.
Still happy with all this Tubby? Like I said it's all very basic plain-vanilla physics. |
30th October 2012, 06:20 AM | #249 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
OK, when we trap that electromagnetic wave in a box as a standing-wave, it still exhibits resistance to our attempts to change its state of motion. Only we don't call it momentum any more. You've probably guessed already, so I'll come out with iut. In a nutshell that symmetry is this: inertia is the flip side of momentum and the relevant transformation is a switch from its relative motion is c to its net relative motion is zero. Before we trapped it, the wave was moving at c say this way →. After we turned it into a standing wave, it's moving at c this way → and it's moving at c this way ←, both at the same time. It still offers resistance to any change in its state of motion, and thus adds mass to the system. You can still open the box, whereupon the photon zips out at c from a standing start, and you've got a radiating body losing mass. Alternatively you can keep the box closed and throw an electron at it. That would be akin to an Inverse Compton. However instead of accelerating the free photon in the vector sense of changing its direction whilst increasing its frequency, you're now accelerating the box, with the standing wave inside it, in the usual sense. In the reference frame of the box the standing-wave motion doesn't look any different, but in the original rest frame it does. Its frequency has increased.
Any questions? Do I need to clarify anything before we move on? I have to go out I'm afraid. Take a look at the things I mentioned earlier and see if you can work out where we're going. |
30th October 2012, 07:01 AM | #250 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
This is all a bit... vague. Statements like "Alternatively you can keep the box closed and throw an electron at it" could mean almost anything. How about you demonstrate exactly what you mean with the use of relevant momentum/energy/motion/whatever equations? That's how I learnt physics the first time around and it worked pretty well. It should work here.
|
30th October 2012, 07:01 AM | #251 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
You're going to tell us electrons are made of photons, we're going to raise the usual objections and you're going to ignore them again?
|
__________________
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 |
|
30th October 2012, 09:04 AM | #252 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
30th October 2012, 09:10 AM | #253 |
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 |
|
30th October 2012, 09:15 AM | #254 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
It's the one with the toroid with spirally lines around it?
|
30th October 2012, 12:31 PM | #255 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by edd
Don't you want a careful explanation, supported by robust evidence and papers, that people can actually understand? I'm giving you crystal-clear plain-vanilla physics fully in line with Einstein's 1905 paper and Leonard Susskind's lecture. Trap an electromagnetic wave in a box so that it's now a standing wave, and the box is harder to move because the wave resists your attempt to change its state of motion. Equations don't demonstrate this I'm afraid, if they did, you'd understand it already. Everybody OK with this symmetry between momentum and inertia? I'll presume the answer is yes and move on. OK, next, let's take a look at the problem that goes back to QED. It concerns two-photon physics, see wikipedia. See this innocuous looking paragraph in the wikipedia article: "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." There's an issue here. And it isn't that we find what happens from experiment rather than theory. People at SLAC did the experiments that proved that photons interact directly, and people in optics have demonstrated that Light bends itself into an arc. Can you see the issue? Look again at the paragraph above. Ask yourself why pair production occurs, and the given answer is because pair production occurs. Spontaneously! Like worms from mud! This breathtaking omission is there because QED doesn't actually cover photon-photon interaction directly, and employs virtual particles instead. This "works" mathematically, but you have to remember that they're virtual particles. They're field quanta rather than real particles. The interaction is a field interaction, ina field theory. If you forget this, you start to create a problem by insisting that photon-photon interaction cannot occur because it isn't in the mathematics, even though it's right there in the experiment. Does everybody understand this? And does everybody understand that it's of crucial importance to be clear about what's actually there and what's interacting with what? In our standing-wave example, the photon interacts with the box, not with the Higgs field. |
30th October 2012, 12:52 PM | #256 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Umm, Farsight - you do realise the Higgs mechanism is not responsible for all mass? So why do you think your photon in a box has anything to say about whether the Higgs mechanism gives an electron a mass?
With the photon-photon interaction mechanism I'm not sure what you're getting at. You seem to be overly concerned with how it is described in words, but the mathematics of QED isn't bothered about what language we use to describe it. And yes I certainly have objections to you claiming electrons are made of photons - namely that you've never given a remotely adequate explanation of how this happens and how the properties of the electron arise from 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 |
|
30th October 2012, 01:03 PM | #257 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
30th October 2012, 04:23 PM | #258 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
Of course I do, I've said it enough times. See A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. On page 173 he says: “The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is 'The God particle'. The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth.” He also says the Higgs mechanism is “the toilet” of the standard model, and is “frightfully ad-hoc”. On page 174 he says: “It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification.” He ends up saying “In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.”
Originally Posted by edd
Originally Posted by edd
Originally Posted by edd
|
30th October 2012, 04:35 PM | #259 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
This is mildly baffling. Are you saying that two photon physics in the lab disagrees with QED?
Because
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
30th October 2012, 04:39 PM | #260 |
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 |
|
30th October 2012, 05:12 PM | #261 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
More pretend physics! Will it never end?
|
__________________
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 |
|
30th October 2012, 05:25 PM | #262 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
I explained to you why your stuff about pair production was wrong using maths and equations and such. If I can do it I'm sure you can. You claim to be much better than everyone else here after all.
Quote:
Quote:
|
30th October 2012, 05:34 PM | #263 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No. I'm describing the interaction in better terms, wherein field quanta are not confused with extant particles/waves/fields. Why are you baffled? You said the mathematics of QED isn't bothered what language we use. I'm merely using language that adheres closely to what the SLAC experiments demonstrate. What those experiments don't demonstrate is that a photon stutters through free space spontaneously changing into an electron and positron, which cannot move at c, and which always annihilate back to a single photon regardless of conservation laws.
There's no bold claim here. It was you who said the mathematics of QED isn't bothered about what language we use to describe it. So what's the problem? Apart from Fermilab being under the cosh and funding being squeezed and physics graduates struggling to get a position whilst the world suffers a rising tide of mystic ignorance? I don't do what I do for nothing, edd. OK, good, symmetry is probably the most important thing there is. It's what underlies the "laws of physics", and this symmetry is crucial for the Standard Model. But anyhow, the next thing to talk about is electron diffraction and atomic orbitals in the context of standing waves. Uhhn, look at the time, I have to go to bed. But follow those links, and meanwhile I'll leave you with this golden nugget: "The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves." Thanks for your sincerity edd. |
30th October 2012, 05:49 PM | #264 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
I would say there are no better terms than the mathematics, but as long as you're not disagreeing with that there's no problem. What you said originally certainly could be read otherwise, but if we've cleared that up then lets move on.
Quote:
|
__________________
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 |
|
30th October 2012, 06:10 PM | #265 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
The laws of QED, and conservation laws, and the whole works---are perfectly consistent with the way a photon moves through free space. When you write down the equations for the propagation of a photon, you do include its turning-into-a-fermion-pair terms (if you don't, you'll never get interactions right). If you follow through the calculation to see whether these loops perturb the photon mass or speed---they don't, because of the Ward Identity. If you follow through the calculation to see whether these loops perturb the magnetic moment of the muon and electron---they do, in a way that matches observations. If you follow through the calculation to see whether the photon can decay (via these loops) into other particles---it can't.
|
30th October 2012, 07:18 PM | #266 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Wow: that sounds like you think that textbooks never describe experiments and their results. And you seem to think that papers on experimental physics do not exist!
Citations to textbooks are relevant evidence when the experiment is not easily accessible, e.g. Galileo's incline experiments. Citations to experimental scientific papers are always relevant evidence. ETA: Citations to theoretical scientific papers can be relevant "evidence". If you make an assertion that GR does something then a reference to a paper (or textbook!) that states that GR does do that thing is relevant. Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions? First asked 30 October 2012 For example, which experiment shows that the Higgs particle (which has only been discovered!) violates E=mc2? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
30th October 2012, 07:30 PM | #267 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
30th October 2012, 07:31 PM | #268 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
30th October 2012, 07:33 PM | #269 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
30th October 2012, 07:36 PM | #270 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
30th October 2012, 07:39 PM | #271 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Unfortunately that would lead to your fifth post that has nothing to do with the the Higgs mechanism !
I will take a wild guess at what your argument is: The Standard Model is wrong because everything is "standing waves"? Thus the Higgs mecahnism does not work and the Higgs boson does not exist? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
30th October 2012, 07:46 PM | #272 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
None of the geniuses who have washed up here, and who were going to overturn the world of physics with their brilliant new theories have ever won a Nobel prize. I wonder why that is?
|
30th October 2012, 07:55 PM | #273 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
The laws of physics state that a photon moving through free space never spontaneously change into an electron and positron.
Pair production
Quote:
The SLAC experiments showed that that photons interact directly just as expected (though a reference to the actual experiments would have been nice!) |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
31st October 2012, 12:10 PM | #274 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
RC: the points I've been making will comprise the support for the assertion.
To recap, posters generally concur with what I've said about the symmetry between momentum and inertia. A electromagnetic wave propagating at c exhibits a resistance to change-in-motion that we call momentum. An electromagnetic standing wave confined in a box exhibits a resistance to change-in-motion that we call inertia. You can easily see that opening the box lets the wave out, and the system is a radiating body that loses mass. For reference, here's a part of Einstein's E=mc˛ paper Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?. Einstein uses L instead of E.
Originally Posted by Einstein
Edit: is there something wrong with the latex? |
31st October 2012, 01:08 PM | #275 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Take a look at Rod Nave's hyperphysics for Compton scattering. You start off with the incident photon and the target electron at rest. The interaction occurs, and you end up with a photon that has been decelerated in the vector sense, and which has lost energy to the electron. The electron "recoils" or more simply, moves. It has gained kinetic energy from the photon. All plain-vanilla stuff. But if you now conduct another Compton scatter with that scattered photon and another electron, then perform another, and another, and another repeating ad-infinitum, you're left with no detectable photon at all. All of its energy has been converted to electron kinetic energy, and the photon has gone. That's because it's a wave rather than a billiard-ball particle. When you take away all the wave energy, you take away the wave itself. In this sense the photon is little more than kinetic energy in space.
Everybody happy with that? Again we can use different words and make refinements, but the general picture remains that the wave energy has gone into electron kinetic energy by virtue of conservation of energy. OK, now look at pair production. Again see hyperphysics. This time the incident photon interacts with a nucleus, and is typically converted into an electron and a positron. Pair production can also be performed in two-photon physics, and can be used to create more than just an electron and a positron, but let's not go into that. A little of the wave energy is expended on the nucleus, but not much. In addition some of it goes into the motion of the electron and the positron, but that isn't particularly important. What is important, is that the photon, which is little more than kinetic energy in space, has been used to create an electron and a positron. So in a very literal sense the electron was made from kinetic energy. Without saying anything about what the electron is, we can be confident that the wave energy has gone into creating that electron by virtue of conservation of energy. We can be utterly confident that this "body" has an energy content. Any objections? Speak now or forever hold your peace. |
31st October 2012, 01:35 PM | #276 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
To recap: This is the fifth post that has no relevance to the Higgs mechanism even as support for some assertion.
If you mean that the Higgs mechanism violates E=mc2 then you are wrong. The Higgs mechanism is a relativistic quantum field theory. It includes E=mc2. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
31st October 2012, 01:37 PM | #277 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Compton scattering.
Pair production. Stanard physics that has no relevance to the Higgs mechanism. So: This is the sixth post that has no relevance to the Higgs mechanism. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
31st October 2012, 01:37 PM | #278 |
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 |
|
31st October 2012, 01:37 PM | #279 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Typically (depends on the energy of course) a photon will scatter once or twice and then be absorbed. A photon is a lot more than kinetic energy in space.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
31st October 2012, 04:28 PM | #280 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|