|
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. |
15th February 2013, 04:28 PM | #921 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
OK. Let's see what different theories predict about the Higgs-particle spectrum.
CP-odd neutral: 0- Charged: +- 1 MSSM = Minimal SUpersymmetric Standard Model NMSSM = Next to MSSM There's an interesting curiosity about the MSSM Higgs masses. A parameter they depend on is m(A), and if it's greater than about 200 GeV, then the particles "decouple". One of them, a neutral CP-even one, stays around 100 GeV and acts much like the SM Higgs particle, especially if m(A) is large. The others get masses close to m(A). It's that light one that was most likely recently discovered. I can't find any LHC limits on heavy MSSM Higgses, however. Higgs Theory and Phenomenology in the Standard Model and MSSM The NMSSM Higgs sector BTW, First three-year LHC running period reaches a conclusion | CERN press office starting a 2-year shutdown. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
15th February 2013, 07:10 PM | #922 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Here's a nice example of dishonest cherry-picking...
Note the word I've highlighted. For future reference, let's continue the sentence Farsight truncated, and let's quote the following sentence of the article Farsight was quoting, and let's highlight that important word a few more times:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Enjoy the moment as Farsight argues with the Wikipedia article he had just quoted: Yet Farsight's own authority refers to them as fields, for good reason: They're fields. |
15th February 2013, 07:38 PM | #923 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
It's funny that you bring that up, since you brought it up as a way to distract us from the real problem you have in dealing with spin: photon-photon systems cannot have the right spin to match your theory.
Quote:
|
16th February 2013, 12:47 AM | #924 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Seems like Farsight has been extracting Great Meaning out of the 3+1 form of Maxwell's equations, and not the general-covariant form, the one where space and time dimensions are treated alike. The g-mu-nu that he sometimes mentions, that's the metric of space-time in general-covariant form.
Now to what one finds for Grand Unified Theories. It's rather remarkable that one can get all the elementary fermions into a few GUT multiplets without a lot of extra particles. The gauge and Higgs particles do get some additional ones, however, particles that can cause proton and bound-neutron decay. From proton-decay experimental bounds, these additional particles must have GUT-scale masses. First, the gauge symmetries that are already a part of existing theories. Macroscopic: U(1)EM EM = electromagnetic Low-energy Standard Model: SU(3)C * U(1)EM C = quantum chromodynamic (QCD) Hidden by color confinement for length scales greater than about 10^(-15) m Unbroken Standard Model: SU(3)C * SU(2)L * U(1)Y L = weak isospin Y = weak hypercharge Electroweak symmetry breaking: the last two get reduced to U(1)EM The simplest GUT that unifies the gauge fields is Georgi-Glashow SU(5). It does so at the price of adding gauge and Higgs particles that can cause proton decay. However, the elementary fermions do not get additional particles; all the SM ones can fit into 2 multiplets per generation, with right-handed neutrinos being a third one. The next one up is Fritzsch-Minkowski-Georgi SO(10). It adds more gauge particles, but it unifies the Higgs particles into one multiplet with no extra particles relative to SU(5). Likewise, it unifies all the elementary fermions into one multiplet per generation, with only right-handed neutrinos added. SO(10) breaks down into SU(5) * U(1)B-L B-L = (baryon number) - (lepton number) From there, the next one up is E6, which breaks into SO(10) * U(1). It can unify the elementary fermions and the Higgs particles into one multiplet, with an additional Higgs singlet and two of the three sets of Higgs particles being forced up to GUT energies by symmetry breaking. |
17th February 2013, 03:09 PM | #925 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
A field isn't something magical and mysterious that's something separate to space edd. It's a condition of space. Have a read of Einstein' s 1920 Leyden Address and his 1929 talk on the history of field theory. This NASA article on gravitomagnetism is worth reading too. It says spacetime instead of space, but you should nevertheless catch the drift of "Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of Einstein's theory of gravity".
Maxwell said "light consists of transverse undulations in the same medium that is the cause of electric and magnetic phenomena.” And when a light wave interacts with an electron, it makes it move. And as you know, both have a wave nature. They aren't billiard balls. Light waves are transverse waves. Gravitational waves aren't. They're different, but not totally different. The coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame such as a gravitational field, and c=√(1/ε0 μ0). Personally I wonder if this is why LIGO hasn't detected gravitational waves. Like it's trying to measure length-change with a rubber ruler. |
17th February 2013, 03:11 PM | #926 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
You totally evaded and dismissed the Einstein-de Haas effect and magnetic dipole moment in your post #918.
And now you're trying to play the maths card. It's not "quote mining". They said what they actually said. It's nothing to do with "prophets". It's paying attention to what people like Einstein and Maxwell and Minkowski actually said, and to the hard scientific evidence that supports what they said. Sadly there are people in this world who peddle unsupported hypotheses and urge other people to disregard hard scientific evidence and what Einstein etc said. |
17th February 2013, 03:37 PM | #927 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Don't be. Intrinsic spin is intrinsic to something, and makes it what it is. For example, a tornado has intrinsic spin. Try taking the spin out of the tornado. What are you left with? A tornado? Nope.
Snipe snipe snipe, retreat behind mathematics. Now go and look at the Einstein-de Haas effect and magnetic dipole moment. Do you think the electron's spin ˝ is some kind of magic? Presumably so, since here you are advocating the point-particle electron. When godless dave said nobody claimed they were point particles, you kept schtum, didn't you? Seeing as point particles can't spin.
Originally Posted by ben m
|
17th February 2013, 04:00 PM | #928 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Great, it's an argument by etymology! In German the term is Eigendrehimpulse.
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, if you knew I was going to "retreat" there, why didn't you beat me to it? An argument that could find errors in the Dirac equation, or point out dualities which explain why Dirac's predictions work so well, would be a lot less crackpotty than a refusal to engage with it. |
17th February 2013, 04:05 PM | #929 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Where is your none of the above? The big issue is that there's CERN physicists out there saying that the Higgs mechanism is the cuckoo in the nest of the standard model, only they're shouting in the wind whilst Higgs propaganda dooms the HEP community (and possibly the whole of theoretical physics) to a long slow harikiri. The public are unimpressed by billions spent on "the mystery of mass", which Einstein solved a hundred plus years ago, and is irrelevant to modern life in these days of energy issues. I know you root for physics, but I do too. How can I put this? Think about Brookhaven. People like you need the wake-up call before it's too late. Public and government want some results after decades of zilch. You're getting in the way. Bow before you break.
Clinger: I made it clear that the "fields" referred to are E and B, which aren't actually fields, but instead denote the linear and rotational forces resulting from electromagnetic field interactions. Pay attention to Minkowski: "Then in the description of the field produced by the electron we see that the separation of the field into electric and magnetic force is a relative one with regard to the underlying time axis; the most perspicuous way of describing the two forces together is on a certain analogy with the wrench in mechanics, though the analogy is not complete". That's my bolding, and this is from Space and Time which you can find on wikipedia. Scroll down about four-fifths through the article, this paragraph is opposite figures 3 and 4, though this translation says "force screw" instead of "wrench". |
17th February 2013, 04:26 PM | #930 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
I don't see what is supposed to make Einstein's Leyden Address a revealed text.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don't deny either effect for a moment.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
17th February 2013, 04:33 PM | #931 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by lpetrich
I'm a bit surprised you didn't want to talk about mass. Anyway, I'm off to bed. |
17th February 2013, 05:58 PM | #932 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Protons are not observed to decay so thre you are.
Back to your high school sceince textbooks, Farsight. E is an electric field. B is a magnetic field. They are components of an electromagnetic field. Wow - what astounding ignorance, Farsight ! An electron is a fundamental particle. There is nothing inside it to come apart! ETA So the $64,000 dollar question really becomes what basic physics do you understand, Farsight? You do not now what an electric field is. You do not know what a magnetic field is. You do not know what an electron is. You do not know what relativistic means in a relativistic quantum field theory like the Higgs mechanism. You do not know what intrinsic spin means in QM as shown by your use of macroscopic spins as in tornadoes. ETA2 We shold ask ourselves a better question: What will be your next trivial question, derailing the thread? There are no quarks after the annihilation so there is nothing to exert the strong force . Likewise there is no EM force between an electron and a positron after they annihilate . Likewise if the Sun were to magically vanish then there would be no gravitational force from the Sun ! |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
17th February 2013, 06:44 PM | #933 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Once again, it's the Farsight-style argument-by-insinuation.
"Look at this! Look at that! Betcha never asked yourself THAT before! Think about it and you'll agree with me on your own in no time." Except---no we won't. You've been posting this for years and you know how unsuccessful it has been. Did you learn anything from those years of posts and responses? A proton-antiproton pair is net neutral under QCD, and so are all the accessible final states. As far as I can tell this adequately answers your question---both philosophically, and intuitively, and (since QCD is a real field theory) testably. If you think there's something wrong here, you're going to have to address these details, not ask the same question again. The proton is a composite particle containing three quarks, and we know what holds these quarks together. The quarks are fundamental. No known theory or experiment requires any substructure "held together" inside a quark. Electrons are also fundamental. No known theory or experiment requires any substructure "held together" inside an electron. That answers the question as far as I'm concerned, until someone points out a problem in these details, which you have (still) not done. |
17th February 2013, 07:41 PM | #934 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
Instead of quote-mining from a NASA press release (and a poor quote mine at that, since it does say "spacetime"), why not spend your time learning this science?
But these theories are mathematical theories. They are specially designed to be tested against very precise measurements. If you cannot do the math, then you cannot use the theory and you certainly can't talk about evidence for or against the theory. |
17th February 2013, 08:12 PM | #935 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
How many times have we seen physics by quotations, pictures and analogy presented by those who do not understand that physics is based on mathematical models that have been validated through experimentation? I guess the math is either too time consuming or beyond their comprehension. In all the threads and in all the posts made by such people, a real scientific argument based on relevant equations is never to be seen. Why don't they see how transparently naive their bluster and pretend physics is to the rest of us?
I guess they must be too busy waggling their fingers in front of their faces trying to see what? Higgs bosons? |
__________________
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 |
|
18th February 2013, 12:11 AM | #936 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Why should I have had it?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
18th February 2013, 01:32 AM | #937 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
So if we cannot observe something with present-day technology, it does not exist?
Protons are not observed to decay, but their decay is predicted by most Grand Unified Theories. Theories including Georgi-Glashow SU(5) and its supersets, like SO(10) and E6. The current experimental lower limit is around 1030 - 1032 years, and it's getting close to what one expects from a GUT energy scale of about 1016 GeV. That's what one finds from the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model extrapolated up to GUT energies. Let's see what one can discover with this argument, looking back to past decades and centuries. The 1970's: the W and Z particles don't exist. The mid to late 1960's: quarks don't exist. The 19th cy. and early 20th cy.: atoms don't exist. Around 1870: the chemical elements eka-boron, eka-aluminum, eka-manganese, and eka-silicon don't exist. They were eventually discovered as scandium, gallium, technetium, and germanium. Around 1700: gravity doesn't exist. Etc.
Quote:
Furthermore, the most likely result of nucleon-antinucleon annihilation is pions, not a pair of photons, and no amount of diagram-thumping can change that.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
18th February 2013, 05:16 AM | #938 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
I recall from elsewhere that Farsight has claimed something like this: math cannot be primary because one must define the terms that one uses in it.
But math can be interpreted as a language, even if it's rather unlike natural languages. Furthermore, let's consider the people that Farsight has treated as prophets of inspired truth, the likes of Newton and Maxwell and Einstein and Minkowski and Feynman. They have used math rather heavily, and their more important results are all rather heavily math-dependent. |
18th February 2013, 05:55 AM | #939 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,299
|
Well, of course. It's important to dismiss something you don't understand if you're afraid it might contradict your elaborately constructed mountains of nonsense.
Quote:
Still, when your maths are limited to about what one might expect of a reasonably competent high-school student, this may not be obvious. Farsight may simply fail to understand just how expressive mathematics can be. But I think it's more likely that he insists on trying to interpret everything through natural language simply as a defense mechanism. "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong." Unfortunately for him, easy comprehensibility does not seem to be a requirement for natural law. |
__________________
"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 |
|
18th February 2013, 08:49 AM | #940 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
F = ma is an easily understood and is an intuitively satisfying mathematical expression. Even Δt' = Δtγ is quite intuitive once one gets the drift of SR. High school algebra is more than adequate to handle these two important concepts and one could use ordinary language to describe them. But when confronted with the Higgs paper discussed at length in this thread, one must have studied quantum field theory, understand Lagrangian densities, gauge transformations and much more in some detail. That's when words, analogies, and pretty pictures fail the physics pretender, the evidence of which has been amply demonstrated here.
|
__________________
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 |
|
18th February 2013, 08:14 PM | #941 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
|
Farsight: I am fully aware that decompositions of the electromagnetic fields into the E and B fields are relativistic, just as decompositions of spacetime into space and time dimensions are relativistic. In other contexts, you have claimed that gravitational fields are real, even though gravitational fields are observer-dependent. (That's Einstein's equivalence principle, BTW, which you have taken such great pains to deny.) The E and B fields are observer-dependent also, but they're just as real as gravitational fields. You understand neither electromagnetism nor relativity. If you did understand those things, you'd know what a field is, and you'd know that E and B are fields...trivially...by the very definition of the word field. I provided that link in my post above. You must not have read the Wikipedia article on fields in physics, because you're still making the same absurd claim. |
19th February 2013, 04:27 AM | #942 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
|
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
19th February 2013, 06:17 AM | #943 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
I'll have to look into that instability. As it's explained in the article, it doesn't make sense, unless the low-energy state that is created is such that a closed spacetime can eventually form within it.
|
19th February 2013, 06:29 AM | #944 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3022 seems to be the original theoretical paper?
|
__________________
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 |
|
19th February 2013, 06:39 AM | #945 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
Could be. Given the abstract, there are no cosmological implications there, of course. I think I'm too busy this week to slog through that paper.
|
19th February 2013, 09:36 AM | #946 | ||||||||||
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
[1112.3022] Higgs mass implications on the stability of the electroweak vacuum - edd's link with the article title in it.
That paper *assumes* no supersymmetry or other effects which might stabilize the Higgs particle -- it only uses the bare Standard Model. Now for Higgs-particle mass estimates. RÉSONAANCES: Twin Peaks in ATLAS gives these values:
Jester, who blogged this, linked to some ATLAS sources, but used some CMS results based on 2011 data. These results will likely get updated in time for the next high-energy-physics conferences this year. I've burrowed through these sites to find their most recent estimates without much success: ATLAS Experiment CMS Public | CMS Experiment So that paper's Higgs-mass estimates include the most recent experimental results. |
||||||||||
19th February 2013, 10:36 AM | #947 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
|
Is this new information about an inherently unstable universe referring to a Quantum Metastability Event?
My favorite "doomsday" scenario. |
19th February 2013, 12:45 PM | #948 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Sorry, my mistake, I should have said aren't the same rather than aren't. They're said to be quadrupole waves where there's a squeeze and stretch. This article gets it across fairly well: "Gravitational waves are transverse waves but they are not dipole transverse waves like most electromagnetic waves, they are quadrupole waves".
The locally measured speed of light in vacuum is always 299,792,458 m/s but we know that the second varies with gravitational potential, and that the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame such as a gravitational field. So we understand that "a curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Don't we?
Originally Posted by lpetrich
|
19th February 2013, 12:59 PM | #949 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
You didn't provide evidence, or argument, or anything. You did a Farsight-standard "look, read this, and you'll come to the same conclusion I did."
Nope. The Einstein-de Haas experiment proves that intrinsic angular momentum is a type of angular momentum, and goes into the same conservation law. In the real world, Dirac (among others) was able to describe this momentum without assuming anything "going round", and that's perfectly consistent with all known facts about these particles. Your mental picture already contained "something going round", and you read about de Haas and thought it agreed with your picture. That's all the argumentation you have here, and indeed it's fairly typical of you. If "something going round" is so important, why can't you find an error (or a failred prediction) in Dirac's treatment? |
19th February 2013, 01:00 PM | #950 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Which means those theories that predict it are wrong. Have a google on that.
No! There’s an online copy of John David Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics here. Use the read online-option and put double quotes around a phrase to search for it. See section 1.2 where he says Although the thing that eventually gets measured is a force and At the moment the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point. Then see see section 11.10 where he says one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately. The field concerned is the electromagnetic field. E and B aren't really fields, they're just ciphers for linear and rotational forces resulting from electromagnetic field interactions.
Originally Posted by Reality Check
|
19th February 2013, 01:09 PM | #951 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
One problem is that in proton-antiproton annihilation we never see quarks. Another is that the lack of electron substructure does not account for the Einstein-de Haas effect or magnetic dipole moment. Another problem is that we can create so-called fundamental" particles via say pair production, but what you call "known theory" does not explain the mechanism involved. The overriding problem is that people like you are essentially fundamentalists.
|
19th February 2013, 01:28 PM | #952 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Exactly. I'm telling it how it is. And the true picture is very different to the cosmic-treacle nonsense which many people take as a given.
Yes he did. In his 1905 paper Does the Inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?. It depends upon its energy content, not something else. You'll be dismissing E=mc˛ as cherry-picking text-thumping next. No they don't. Everybody in the business who knows anything about electromagnetism knows that the field concerned is the electromagnetic field.
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
|
19th February 2013, 01:39 PM | #954 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
19th February 2013, 01:52 PM | #955 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger
|
19th February 2013, 01:58 PM | #956 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I think it's sensationalist headline-grabbing speculation myself, and potentially dangerous talk:
"What happens is you get just a quantum fluctuation that makes a tiny bubble of the vacuum the Universe really wants to be in. And because it's a lower-energy state, this bubble will then expand, basically at the speed of light, and sweep everything before it," the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory theoretician told BBC News. This is the sort of thing that will have the public demanding that high-energy physics experiments be curtailed forthwith. |
19th February 2013, 01:58 PM | #957 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
There are multiple electromagnetic fields, so I'm not sure why you're concentrating on the singular/plural distinction.
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
19th February 2013, 01:58 PM | #958 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Proton-proton annihilation is in complete agreement with QCD. QCD predicts that quarks are confined at low energy and free at high energy. In low-energy p-pbar annihilation, this predicts mesons; in high-energy annihilation, it predicts jets. Both of these are seen.
Quote:
And so on. |
19th February 2013, 03:13 PM | #959 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Oh here we go again. I refer to the evidence and bona-fide papers and articles, and I give explanations you can understand, and you just take the that's not evidence line, you've provided nothing. Reminds me of when I was telling a bunch of YECs about fossils and strata and carbon dating. All they ever said was that's not evidence, you've provided nothing.
In the real world the ferromagnetic material rotates. In the real world a Dirac spinor isn't called a spinor for nothing. Not so. I've referred to electron models which have received scant publicity and which people like you dismiss. Because it doesn't fit in with your textbook bible which tells you the electron is a fundamental particle, don't worry about pair production or magnetic dipole moment, it's all just intrinsic point-particle magic. I haven't tried. And I'm not minded to. See above. We can't get past first base on E=mc˛ or the electromagnetic field, so I don't think we'd get anywhere on what sort of a wave equation we have or what kind of current we're talking about or what a spinor is and how the hard scientific evidence tells us what we're dealing with. Besides, if I did come up something that Dirac said to support my case, lpetrich will dismiss it as text-thumping. There's no point, I'd be knocking myself out on what would turn out to have been a deliberate distraction with no sincerity behind it.
Originally Posted by ben m
|
19th February 2013, 03:30 PM | #960 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
"Fundamental particle" is not synonymous with "point particle"
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|