|
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. |
31st October 2012, 04:39 PM | #281 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
1st November 2012, 03:05 PM | #282 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
RC: don't be so dismissive. This is standard physics, but it is directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.
Ben: sure. See below. Yes, in that Compton scattering only takes a slice off the photon rather than completely absorbing it. But it isn't a problem because as Tubby alluded to, you can absorb the last remnant of the photon with a bound electron.
Originally Posted by TubbyThin
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
All: so, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? Does it depend on something else? If we've got two 511keV standing waves in our box, you know that moving the box is a little bit more difficult because those waves offer resistance to any change in their state of motion. They're standing waves instead of free waves propagating at c, so we call their resistance to change-in-motion inertia instead of momentum. OK, remember we were talking about two-photon physics? Those two waves could interact and result in pair production. Then we've got an electron and a positron in the box. We know they both have a wave nature. We can diffract electrons and positrons, and put them through the two-slit experiment, or use them in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. But now the mass of the body called an electron somehow doesn't depend on its energy-content, but instead on the electron's interaction with the Higgs field? When the only field we know about in that box is the electromagnetic field? And wait, after a nanosecond that electron and that positron annihilate, so now we've got two standing waves again. And the Higgs mechanism has switched off like a light? Remember that QED explanation of pair production, which said a photon fluctuates into an electron-positron pair? Imagine that photon is inside a box. Higgs on, Higgs off, Higgs on, Higgs off. Click, click, click, and all the while the mass of that box-system doesn't change one jot. Anybody smell a rat yet? And anybody: how does the Higgs boson get its mass? |
1st November 2012, 03:23 PM | #283 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
Why not just absorb it from the get go? Why go to the bother of scattering it so much!?
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 |
|
1st November 2012, 03:26 PM | #284 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
By the way ben, you should sit through Susskind's lecture. It isn't great, but he makes it clear that the Higgs field rather than the Higgs boson is said to form a "condensate". And he is emphatic that it's nothing like swimming through a thick liquid. Even Susskind will have no truck with the molasses aka cosmic treacle nonsense.
|
1st November 2012, 03:37 PM | #285 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
1st November 2012, 03:54 PM | #286 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
To get you used to the idea of scattering, to avoid getting into atomic orbitals and standing waves too soon, and to avoid getting sidetracked by things like binding energy and gyrating boxes. It neatly makes it clear that the photon is being sliced away into electron kinetic energy until there's (virtually) nothing left, and then pair production makes it clear that the electron is made of kinetic energy. We come back to standing waves later.
It's good enough, because the photon is a wave with a wavelength, and if you take all the kinetic energy out of the wave, the wave isn't there any more. By the way, the bound electron can absorb all the photon energy instead of just taking a slice because it's bound. It's a inelastic collision rather than an elastic collision. In simple terms, it can't skitter away. No, not at all. I don't know why you thought that. Now, how does the Higgs boson get its mass? |
1st November 2012, 04:14 PM | #287 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
|
1st November 2012, 05:11 PM | #288 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
So, as Edd said, Compton scattering is irrelevant.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
1st November 2012, 05:30 PM | #289 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Oh Tubby. Words like irrelevant and stupid merely make you look like a naysayer troll dismissing the evidence that challenges his conviction. You bumped this thread, and now you can't take the heat, so go sling your hook. The big boys are talking physics.
Ben, edd: no answers yet? So come on, does the Higgs boson get its mass by virtue of E=mc², or by an interaction with the Higgs field? That would be an interaction between an excitation of the Higgs field and the Higgs field. Ben, what sort of interaction might that be? With the exception of Tubby who bit off more than he could chew, is everybody happy so far? Can anybody point out any obvious errors? Can anybody point out any "crackpot" physics? Is everybody happy that the photon-photon interaction has been observed experimentally? And that light light can be "scattered" by any sort of electric charge or electric current? And does everybody know about displacement current along with spherical harmonics and standing waves? If not there's a little reading for you, and meanwhile, I'm off to bed. |
1st November 2012, 05:44 PM | #290 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Your politeness and humility is truly praiseworthy.
Quote:
For the Higgs boson, the basic, static sort of mass term is *not* forced to be zero, so it has some nonzero value---whose value, measured at 125GeV, is *presumably* a reflection of some (as yet inaccessible) higher-energy field theory. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass. (Plus, there are loop corrections.) That's what I was taught. But I'm not a theorist, I'm an experimentalist. If I am wrong, I would welcome correction by someone other than Farsight, because I don't have the patience. |
1st November 2012, 05:44 PM | #291 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
You might have noticed if you'd been paying attention that I preempted your little poser way back in post #30 of this very thread, although I was rather joking when I did so. Anyway, I'll let a proper particle physicist answer that one for you. The rest of your posts this evening have frankly just made me give up on you for now.
|
__________________
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 |
|
1st November 2012, 05:54 PM | #292 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,757
|
|
1st November 2012, 05:56 PM | #293 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
2nd November 2012, 11:48 AM | #294 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
I did edd. You're not the first person to have asked this question, and ben isn't the last person to have given a cop-out non-answer as he attempts to squirm away from an uncomfortable truth. I don't need a "proper" particle physicist to answer that one for me. I already know that the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. That's what E=mc² is all about. And like I said, the Higgs mechanism contradicts it. What you really mean is you give up. Suit yourself. ben: the answer you gave leaks like a seive. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass. Oh come on. Doesn't that remind you of pair production occurs because pair production occurs? But you believe in it because that's what you've been taught. To hell with Einstein, logic, and a rational argument that you can't show to be wrong? Doesn't that kind of thing ever bother you? On a skeptics forum? Anybody else like to have a stab at explaining how the Higgs boson gets its mass? Because if you can't, and if you can't show where my argument is flawed, you're a bit stuck, aren't you? ETA: And can I just mention that a collider like the LHC accelerates particles to close to the speed of light before slamming them together. Those particles have a lot of... kinetic energy. |
2nd November 2012, 12:25 PM | #295 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
|
2nd November 2012, 01:10 PM | #296 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Too right. You implicitly accused CERN of scientific fraud. That requires some bloody good explanation.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
2nd November 2012, 02:31 PM | #297 |
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 |
|
2nd November 2012, 05:31 PM | #298 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
It's a weird objection If Farsight were saying "There must be more to physics than the standard model, because some of the parameters, like the mass of the Higgs boson, seem arbitrary, and I want a physics theory that is more elegant than that", well, I can at least see something in that (though personally I don't know how much that applies in this particular case).
But that's not what he's saying, he seems to be saying that the Higgs mechanism itself must not be correct, because the mass of the Higgs boson seems arbitrary. That's weird. Without the Higgs we've got the masses of all massive fundamental particles to explain, with it, only one. Which is more elegant? That he thinks it's not sufficiently elegant isn't much of an argument, particularly when it is so well tested experimentally, and all he has to offer in return is some vague ideas that don't seem related and don't make any quantitative predictions. It seems to me that most physicists expect that there is something going on beyond the standard model, but at the moment it's the best we've got and if we do find something beyond it, it will be connected to the standard model in so much as it will explain why it is so successful, and will reduce to it in most situations. I'm no expert, and my physics knowledge is relatively minimal, this is simply the perspective of one bystander on this thread. |
__________________
"... 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 |
|
2nd November 2012, 05:50 PM | #299 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
You're assuming Farsight has a coherent objection. I think what he's actually saying is this:
|
2nd November 2012, 06:04 PM | #300 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
2nd November 2012, 08:56 PM | #301 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight: Don't be derailing the thread. It is the wrong standard physics to be directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.
Your posts do not have anything to do with the Standard Model or QFT where the Higgs mechanism is described. All we have is posts on standard physics that has nothing to to with the Higgs mechanism. Starting with you writing this totally ignorant assertion : Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson The fact is that the Higgs mechanism can give electrons mass. That is what the Higgs meachangsm does to all particles ! The fact is that a new boson has been discovered from a bump in data. The fact is that this boson has the mass predicted for the Higss boson. It is very probably the Higgs boson (I forget what else it could be - a light-weight SUSY particle?). More news to come in December:
Quote:
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions? First asked 30 October 2012 |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
3rd November 2012, 01:52 AM | #302 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.
|
3rd November 2012, 02:06 AM | #303 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Don't put words into my mouth Tubby. What's important is that I gave a bloody good explanation, which is why guys like ben and edd are stumped.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I even gave you a bit of Einstein's very simple maths, only there's some kind of problem with the latex. Maybe I should have a word and tell them how to fix it. All you said was Typically (depends on the energy of course) a photon will scatter once or twice and then be absorbed. As ever you've explained nothing, and you try to pretend that you have. Nobody is fooled Tubby.
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
I've given a robust explanation backed by references and simple logic that you can't refute. All you've done is make acerbic quips of no value. |
3rd November 2012, 02:31 AM | #304 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'm not saying that. I'm echoing what Giudice said in that the Higgs mechanism is the toilet of the standard model and the Higgs boson is in no way central to it. Only I'm explaining why.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². I'm saying the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said. That's what it depends upon, not on its interaction with the Higgs field. Look at what's happening in the LHC. We give protons huge kinetic energy, them smash them together to create something with a mass of 125GeV. It gets its mass from the kinetic energy. The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer. I've referred to Einstein and I've explained it clearly using a standing wave. There's nothing vague about it. And let's face it, the only experimental evidence is a bump on a graph. It's not a question of finding something beyond it, it's a question of replacing the "frightfully ad-hoc" Higgs sector (Giudice's words) with something better - a symmetry. Go back to post #231 on page 6 where Tubby bumped the thread, and follow the argument closely. You don't need expert physics knowledge to understand what I've been saying. Contrast that with the way you've previously been suckered by Emperor's New Clothes non-explanations that you don't understand. |
3rd November 2012, 02:42 AM | #305 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I've given a coherent explanation, and you can't counter it. All you've ended up saying is that's what I was taught like some Sunday-school kid.
LOL. I haven't even mentioned relativity+, and I've steered clear of electron models. You're just throwing out vapid words-in-my-mouth accusations because you can't counter what I've said here. Ad-hominems are no substitute for a carefully laid-out rationale, ben. Especially when it's based on Einstein and E=mc². It might be an idea if you examined your adherence to what you were taught and your textbook bible and started thinking for yourself.
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
|
3rd November 2012, 03:09 AM | #306 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
What, E=mc² isn't relevant to mass? Which the Higgs mechanism is supposed to account for? Only it only accounts for only 1% of the mass of matter, and the Higgs boson gets its mass from the kinetic energy given to the LHC protons? When the thread title is Higgs boson discovered?. Much as you might wish, that's no derail, RC.
All: have you ever had a conversation with a young-Earth creationist or the like? If you have you will appreciate that they're locked into a psychology that always finds a way to say "that's not evidence" or "that isn't relevant". You might think that that's because they're religious but it isn't. It's because they're convictional, because that's how people are. And here's RC being convictional. I give a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence, and when he can't counter it, he falls back to the "not relevant" gambit. When you're used to this it gets easy to spot it, and it is pathetic. Spoken like an acolyte. All: Oh boy. It's as if I hadn't posted anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and RC repeats his unsupported assertions mantra. I don't if you've ever heard me say this: the shutters are down and there's nobody home. That's exactly what it's like. Honesty, I really do recommend you go find some creationists to talk to, note their convictional traits, and then note the selfsame traits in people who talk about speculative physics. They talk about many-worlds just like some religious guy talks about heaven, and there's no shaking either of 'em. Gotta go. Meanwhile, anybody care to look up the given reason why the Higgs boson gets its mass? Then I can give you the coup-de-grace. |
3rd November 2012, 03:22 AM | #307 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight, what does relativistic mean
Wrong: You have not explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc² - you have asserted that.
And the worst bit of ignorance that you are still displaying, Farsight: the Higgs mechanism is baed on relativistic quantum field theory. Farsight, what does relativistic mean? Hint: It means that it includes special relativity (it includes E=mc² ) and so it is very ignorant to state that the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
3rd November 2012, 03:38 AM | #308 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
What? You do not know that E=mc² isn't relevant to mass.
It is relevant to the ability to treat energy as mass or to treat mass as energy. It states nothing about the origin of mass. All: have you ever had a conversation with an Internet physics crank or the like? If you have you will appreciate that they're locked into a psychology that always finds a way to say "that's not evidence" or "that isn't relevant". You might think that that's because they're religious but it isn't. It's because they're convictional, because that's how people are. And here's Farsightbeing convictional. He lies about giving a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence, and when he can't support it, he falls back to the "not relevant" derails (like this one about creationists ). When you're used to this it gets easy to spot it, and it is pathetic. Spoken like someone who knows the actual science like
You shoud learn to read the thread Farsight: Or if you want a really simple answer: How does the Higgs Boson gain mass itself?
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
3rd November 2012, 03:47 AM | #309 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You seem to have forgotten the actual questions and a very relevant point in
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions? First asked 30 October 2012. But the answer seems to be: You have no actual scientific evidence except a fantasy that a relativistic theory does not include relativity.That certainly deserves a ! |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
3rd November 2012, 04:13 AM | #310 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
You have? I must have missed that, could you quote the post where you did so?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"... 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 |
|
3rd November 2012, 04:23 AM | #311 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
I've been following the thread since that point (I was following it prior to that as well, but may have forgotten much of the discussion as I was following it as it happened and it's been a while). I honestly don't understand your argument. My post that you responded to here seems evidence of that as I wrote what I thought was your argument and you made it clear that that's not what you were saying.
On the other hand the Susskind lecture that I linked to was quite clear to me. That's why I posted it: because I figured others at my level might find it useful. |
__________________
"... 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 |
|
3rd November 2012, 04:37 AM | #312 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
3rd November 2012, 04:54 AM | #313 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
3rd November 2012, 05:14 AM | #314 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
I'm not putting words into your mouth.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
3rd November 2012, 05:21 AM | #315 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
You haven't given a rock solid argument. You've given a nothing argument. Nobody except you thinks you've given a rock-solid argument. The fact that you think you've given a rock-solid argument is entirely tied to your own convictions that you are right. Alanis Morissette would probably have something to say about that.
Quote:
|
3rd November 2012, 08:32 AM | #316 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
What? I have reviewed your comments still again. Where is this "robust explanation"? Photons imparting energy to electrons? Is that it? Photons are energy in space ? Is that it? Some of us have studied some particle physics and QM; so give us something other than hand waving with more pretense and bluster. You claim above,"I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc²" Huh? Are you hallucinating?
Where is you evidence? Where is your mathematics? Where is your logic? On another thread you said of Sean Carroll(of Caltech): "I think he's a pompous pontificator who employs sophistry and thinks people are too stupid to spot it." What rich irony! |
__________________
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 |
|
3rd November 2012, 04:59 PM | #317 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,039
|
Everything comes down to something you can't explain. At some point the chain of "why" questions has to stop and the answer is simply that that's the way things are That we can get deeper and deeper explanations is wonderful, but that doesn't change the fact that there are necessarily some facts where are simply facts.
To take several different numbers (the masses of the various massive particles) and explain them as the result of a single number makes a theory simpler I honestly can't see how you can disagree with that. There's nothing analogous here to "god did it" explanations, because the nature of god can be arbitrarily tweaked to any number of different facts: god saved that child because he loves him, god gave that one a disease because he is testing him, etc etc Whereas the mass of the Higgs boson has to be consistent with all of the masses of the particles in the standard model. And guess what? The experimental results agree with that predicted value. Show me a similar prediction made by "god did it" models, and perhaps I'll agree with your point |
__________________
"... 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 |
|
4th November 2012, 12:09 PM | #318 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You are wrong - Einstein never said that or you would cite him saying that.
There is no inertia in E=mc2. What E=mc2 (mass-energy equivalance) means is that
This seems to be an argument from incredibility (you cannot understand it ans so it is a "non-answer"). |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th November 2012, 01:15 PM | #319 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
|
|
5th November 2012, 08:46 AM | #320 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
Just in case anyone is interested in actual physics, here is Higgs' 1964 paper which was the first to predict a massive boson as the result of the incorrectly named Higgs mechanism. Any objections that do not directly address this at a similar level of mathematics are simply irrelevant. No amount of wordy analogies and pointless handwaving can compete with an actual theory.
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|