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

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags cern , higgs boson , physics

Reply
Old 14th November 2012, 10:44 AM   #561
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
However: now that the LHC has actually seen the Higgs, and in particular since it's seen *both* a fermion-coupling decay (top loops leading to higgs gamma gamma) and a gauge-boson-coupling decay (H->ZZ and H->WW) of what appears to be the same 125 GeV particle ... well, that basically confirms the simple picture above. Seeing Higgs tau tau would nail it down. Building a 250GeV linear collider and measuring the Higgs resonance width would *really* nail it down, eh? Let's do that.
I'm a bit out of the loop. What is the status of the ILC these days?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:57 AM   #562
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
There's nothing circular about it. According to the standard model with Higgs mechanism, it costs 511keV to make an electron only when the Higgs is condensed. If the Higgs is not condensed (i.e. there's no Higgs condensate around), it costs less than 511keV to make an electron. That's because the Higgs condensate interacts with the electron field in a particular way, and that's the sense in which the Higgs field is responsible for the mass of the electron.
According to experiment, it costs 511keV to make an electron, plus that tip for the neutron etc. Since the Higgs condensate is everywhere, making claims about the cost of an electron without it are not scientific.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Maybe you could try asking a question about the part you don't understand, instead of assuming you already know everything?
Sure. What I don't understand is the bit in RC's link that says this:

"But how did the electrons and quarks that make up all the matter in the universe (for technical reasons, perhaps except for neutrinos) get their mass? That we still don’t know. But once we understand how the Ws and the Z gain their mass from their interaction with the Higgs field, we assume that we also know how mass in general is created...

Do "we" know whether the electron gets its mass from interaction with the Higgs field, or is it just an assumption?

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Nope. The Higgs condensate is not an aether, at least not in the 19th century sense.
But this "Higgs substance" is everywhere yeah? Pervading all of space? Walks like a duck. Swims like a duck. Quacks like a duck. But forget it, I don't have such a big issue with aether on account of Einstein's Leyden address.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
It's Lorentz invariant (actually, it's more - it's Poincare invariant). It does not have a rest frame and it does not pick out a direction, so it's very much not like a normal medium. The speed of light is c in all directions in the presence of such a condensate, because it's Lorentz invariant.
The coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. The mass of Robo's book varies too. Same goes for an electron.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:58 AM   #563
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I'm a bit out of the loop. What is the status of the ILC these days?
Half-forgotten as far as I can tell, except for ongoing (and very successful) niobium cavity R&D at Fermilab and DESY. Now that the Higgs mass is known (and because it turns out to be small) interest has picked up. In fact, the Higgs mass is *so* small that you could build a LEP-like circular collider, you don't need the crazy TeV-scale energies associated with the ILC proposals. There's a proposal called "LEP3" in which a new collider is crammed into existing head space in the LHC tunnel; you don't have to dismantle or modify the LHC to do this (except, presumably, to intersect the new beampipe with the existing experiment beam pipes). Exciting stuff.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 10:59 AM   #564
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
Now that I've had the time to get caught up, I feel retroactively silly about my previous question. But, hey. Learning has occured.
Glad to hear it Mister Earl. Hopefully you pick up a fair amount of knowledge from "interesting" discussions like this.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 11:18 AM   #565
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Farsight, saying that you have A-level math skills and then refusing to prove those skills by outlining the math behind your ideas will do you no favors here.
It's not my idea. I'm not some "my-theory" guy. It's Einstein's idea. The maths is already there in Einstein's paper like I was saying in post #409 on page 11.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
As one of my old grad school professors (a theoretical physicist named Ephraim Fischbach) once told me: "There are plenty of physics 'theories' gathering dust because their proponents didn't want to show the math." Please, show your math, as Sol requested.
I can't show my math because it's Einstein's theory. Which seems to be gathering dust despite him showing the math, over a hundred years ago.

Time for tea. Gotta go.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 11:38 AM   #566
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Half-forgotten as far as I can tell, except for ongoing (and very successful) niobium cavity R&D at Fermilab and DESY. Now that the Higgs mass is known (and because it turns out to be small) interest has picked up. In fact, the Higgs mass is *so* small that you could build a LEP-like circular collider, you don't need the crazy TeV-scale energies associated with the ILC proposals. There's a proposal called "LEP3" in which a new collider is crammed into existing head space in the LHC tunnel; you don't have to dismantle or modify the LHC to do this (except, presumably, to intersect the new beampipe with the existing experiment beam pipes). Exciting stuff.
I was told once that the original plan was to leave the LEP where it was and just build LEP around it. But then the LHC just ended up too big.

There was a program on last night that mentioned the Superconducting Supercollider. What could have been...
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 11:42 AM   #567
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It's not my idea. I'm not some "my-theory" guy. It's Einstein's idea. The maths is already there in Einstein's paper like I was saying in post #409 on page 11.

I can't show my math because it's Einstein's theory. Which seems to be gathering dust despite him showing the math, over a hundred years ago.

Time for tea. Gotta go.
It definitely isn't in Einstein's work. Einstein died before Higgs et al. published their work. So either put up or shut up.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 11:58 AM   #568
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes, I addressed it. I answered it, and you totally dismissed my answer.
I totally dismissed it because it was nothing to do with the question.
It was a repeat of you ignoring the Higgs mechanism. Then complaining about putting relativistic in front of QFT!

Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory?
i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2.
First pointed out 1 November 2012

And the answer according to Wikipedia is : Yes!
Higgs mechanism
Quote:
The relativistic model was developed in 1964 by three independent groups: Robert Brout and Francois Englert; Peter Higgs; and Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble.
...
The relativistic model was developed in 1964 by Peter Higgs,[7] and independently by Robert Brout and Francois Englert,;[8] and, finally, Gerald Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and Tom Kibble.[9]
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Besides, Lorentz invariance isn't the issue, the issue is that E=mc² means what it says on the can.
Wow - you really need to learn some physics, Farsight !
Without Lorentz invariance there is no SR and no E=mc²

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:07 PM   #569
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Wow - you really need to learn some physics, Farsight !
Without Lorentz invariance there is no SR and no E=mc²
Have to just add a voice in support of this comment. If you read Einstein's own book about his theory (aptly enough named "Relativity"), this is made clear. The basis of it lies in Lorentz invariance; that's the mathematical expression of his ideas on the constantsy of light speed. Thus, it's that invariance that leads to E=mc2. It's absolutely the issue.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 12:54 PM   #570
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut,
...
Oh dear: The fallacy of argument by authority that even cites an authority talking about somthing unrelated to the Higgs mechanism!

Farsight, to emphasis how bad this is :
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the electron is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the neutrino is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the quarks are something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the Z boson is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe plate tectonics is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the theory of evolution is something like that!
  • etc. etc. etc.
Yes, that is what We (Apparently) Found the Higgs Boson. Now, Where the Heck Did It Come From? says.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Maybe. I've not been saying that, and was surprised to see it in New Scientist. ...
Then why did you cite an opinion piece in a science magazine rather than a scientific paper in a scientific journal. One that talks about black holes and so according to you must be wrong!
You may have switched off the critical analysis part of your brain . Otherwise you would have asked yourself a simple question: Where is Matthew Chalmers' scientific paper that so easily invalidates the Higgs boson?
And an even simpler question: Who is Matthew Chalmers?
My guess - given his ignorance of how the Higgs boson gets its mass, a staff writer for New Scientist.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
That's a junk-science pop-science circular non-answer.
This is where the Higgs gets it mass from in a valid pop-science actual answer:
We (Apparently) Found the Higgs Boson. Now, Where the Heck Did It Come From?
Quote:
The Higgs gives itself mass!

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th November 2012 at 12:59 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:09 PM   #571
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
...
You get a very different impression to the one you get from the CERN press releases.
Oh dear Farsight, now your argument is about how the Higgs boson is portrayed in the media.

Way to do science, Farsight !
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 01:13 PM   #572
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
My understanding was that while part of the Higgs mass comes from a self-interaction, there's a free parameter that gives the Higgs bosons mass even if the Higgs field were zero?

Paging theoreticians. Paging theoreticians.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 02:37 PM   #573
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
By the way, Ephraim Fischbach is practically the personification of the oft-repeated, crackpot-disproving statement: "real physicists are not afraid to look for evidence against the Standard Model"
Yup. It's a shame that I was only able to take one class with him, but what a class it was!

I also got to interview him - I still read the transcript from time to time for little nuggets of wisdom
__________________
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
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 02:42 PM   #574
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The third one, because E=mc² means m=E/c², so if m=0 then E=0 too. Next!
Wow. Dude, you've forgotten (or maybe you didn't read) what I clearly outlined here...

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Farsight, if you work through the math behind what Tubbythin is saying, you will find that the more general relationship between relativistic energy and momentum (neglecting the four-vector nature of momentum) comes out to:

E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2

which for massless particles, like photons, comes out to (m = 0)...

E = pc

No offense, but this is a pretty straightforward calculation requiring only a basic understanding of SR and some algebra. For someone claiming to be so well versed in SR, this isn't the kind of mistake you should be making.
Have you even bothered to do this calculation yet? Incidentally, the first person to do this very calculation was... you guessed it... Einstein!

As I said before, these are some pretty elementary mistakes you're making, Farsight. Unless and until you acknowledge these errors and show us some working math to back up your ideas, instead of butchering and misrepresenting Einstein's work, I'm guessing that you will continue to bat zero here.
__________________
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

Last edited by MattusMaximus; 14th November 2012 at 02:50 PM.
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:00 PM   #575
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
... I've been posting to make sure anyone else reading this knows that he's wrong (not that my contribution is particularly necessary in that respect).
On behalf of the lurkers, thanks, it's much appreciated.
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice...
dlorde is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:17 PM   #576
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
On behalf of the lurkers, thanks, it's much appreciated.
Cheers. There are far more knowledgable people than me on this subject on this thread. I've learnt quite a bit from them. Hopefully the things I have said have been largely accurate.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 03:17 PM   #577
ingoa
Surfing on the relativistic brain wave
 
ingoa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 494
Dear colleagues,
I am starting to become depressed. Fine minds waste time that could be used much more productively. Get some nice food or drinks, spend time with your loved ones (always a problem in research). Or work in the lab or at the desk. We have a saying: Do not discuss with silly people. They will drag you down to their level and beat you by experience.

It is impossible to discuss with people who use different definitions of physical entities and ignore scientific (experimentally measured) facts. There are simply no common grounds where you could debate. This happens to me almost every time I give a larger presentation for the public. The self-educated folk too often take Gedanken-Experiments for real. A photon in a box for example makes no sense. Either it is dead in no time (pun intended) or covers the entire universe (being dead at no time either as it has to hit something). This is of course the photon perspective.

For the Higgs: It is found (probably). Which kind of Higgs it is, we do not know. We'll see. The theory will have to catch up, whatever LHC will find out. I can not see any circumstance where Fairsight's theories will play a significant role in that process.
__________________
Suum cuique

I have no prejudices. I hate everbody!
ingoa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 04:21 PM   #578
Almo
Masterblazer
 
Almo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,843
Originally Posted by ingoa View Post
I can not see any circumstance where Fairsight's theories will play a significant role in that process.
Agreed.
__________________
Almo!
My Music Blog
"No society ever collapsed because the poor had too much." — LeftySergeant
"It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia
Almo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 04:28 PM   #579
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by ingoa View Post
I can not see any circumstance where XXXXXXXX theories will play a significant role in that process.
Yes, but I sure learn a lot from these threads!
__________________
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 04:34 PM   #580
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Cheers. There are far more knowledgable people than me on this subject on this thread. I've learnt quite a bit from them. Hopefully the things I have said have been largely accurate.
Ditto
__________________
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
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 06:46 PM   #581
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
According to experiment, it costs 511keV to make an electron, plus that tip for the neutron etc. Since the Higgs condensate is everywhere, making claims about the cost of an electron without it are not scientific.
Experiment says that it costs 511keV to make an electron, yes. But the claim that the Higgs is responsible is anything but "unscientific". What do you think science is? It's coming up with theories to try to explain experiment, and then testing them. And that's precisely what the Higgs mechanism is - it's a theory to explain where that 511keV comes from, and like all good theories, it makes a bunch of other predictions too. One of them is the prediction that the Higgs particles exists, and that it has certain very specific properties and interactions. That prediction looks like it has now been confirmed.

And the theory - correct or not - is 100% consistent with E=mc^2.

Quote:
Do "we" know whether the electron gets its mass from interaction with the Higgs field, or is it just an assumption?
Again, it's not an assumption - it's a theory, one which may or may not be correct, but which is manifestly scientific because it makes testable predictions.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 07:03 PM   #582
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Actually, this is a part that you have completely wrong but that I think Sol has wrong as well.
No, I don't have it wrong. In the standard model, the electron's mass comes from the electron's Yukawa coupling to the Higgs field.

Quote:
The Higgs mechanism addresses gauge bosons in a gauge theory. In the particular context of the Standard Model, the Higgs mechanism gives an electroweak theory with massive W and Z bosons and a massless photon, where previous attempts could only predict they were all massless. It actually says nothing at all about the mass of the electron, which was already adequately explained by QED around the 1940s.
Sorry, but you're wrong. Yes, in some sense the main role of the Higgs is not to account for fermion masses - it's to spontaneously break electroweak symmetry, and hence provide masses for the W and Z bosons. And it's also true that in general, one can write down masses for fermions without a Higgs.

But, in the standard model the left-handed particles have different gauge transformations than right-handed particles. An ordinary (non-Higgs) mass for the electron requires a coupling between the left and right-handed electron - but that's not gauge invariant, and hence nonsense. Instead, you need the higgs field (which has the opposite gauge transform as the left-handed fermions) to combine them. When the higgs field is non-zero - i.e. when it's condensed - that's a mass. When it's zero, the mass is zero.

Among other things, this means the higgs particle couples to fermions exactly proportionally to their mass, which is a testable prediction (among others). Since the top quark is the heaviest fermion, the higgs couples very strongly to it and like to decay to it.

Last edited by sol invictus; 14th November 2012 at 07:09 PM.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2012, 07:14 PM   #583
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by edd View Post
My understanding was that while part of the Higgs mass comes from a self-interaction, there's a free parameter that gives the Higgs bosons mass even if the Higgs field were zero?

Paging theoreticians. Paging theoreticians.
If the Higgs field were zero, the Higgs "particle" would be a tachyon (a field with negative mass squared). That's why it condenses.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 05:52 AM   #584
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Farsight, if you work through the math behind what Tubbythin is saying, you will find that the more general relationship between relativistic energy and momentum (neglecting the four-vector nature of momentum) comes out to:

E2 = (pc)2 + (mc2)2

which for massless particles, like photons, comes out to (m = 0)...

E = pc

No offense, but this is a pretty straightforward calculation requiring only a basic understanding of SR and some algebra. For someone claiming to be so well versed in SR, this isn't the kind of mistake you should be making.
I didn't make any mistake, I referred to the expression in post 430 on page 11. I also referred to it in post 473 on page 12 where I said this: Take a look at energy-momentum relation on wikipedia. See where it says the equation simplifies to E=mc² for a body in its rest frame. Then a bit lower down it says if the object is massless then the energy momentum relation reduces to E=pc as is the case for a photon.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:07 AM   #585
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Einstein never said that the mass of a body doesn't depend on the Higgs mechanism. You did.
He didn't say the mass of a body doesn't depend on fairies either.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Einstein also never said that the mass of a body cannot depend on how strongly that body interacts with various fields. One reason Einstein never said this is because he never had any evidence to support such a claim. Another reason he never said it is because he knew perfectly well that the energy content (and therefore the mass) of a body can and often does depend on how that body interacts with various other fields.
You're airbrushing over history Stimpson.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Again, there is nothing contradictory about saying that a body's mass is a measure of its energy content and that its mass depends on how it interacts with the Higgs field, as long as it is also the case that the energy content of that body also depends on how it interacts with the Higgs field (which it does).
Yes there is. It either depends on its energy content or on something else.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
The fact remains that the standard model does not claim that the inertia of a particle ever depends on the Higgs mechanism. The rest mass does. And rest mass is not the same thing as inertia.
Unless it's a body at rest, which is what Einstein was talking about with those radium salts.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
And like I said before, if you object to the term "mass" being used to refer to inertial mass, then you need to stop claiming that mass is a measure of energy content, because it quite demonstrably is not.
And there we have it. Einstein said "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content", and Stimpson say "it most demonstrably is not".

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Show me where Einstein ever said that the energy of a particle cannot depend on how strongly that particle interacts with various fields. He never said it, because he knew better.
Oh don't insult our intelligence, Stimpson. You show me where Einstein ever said that the energy of a particle cannot depend on how strongly that particle interacts with fairies.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Put bluntly, you are making a complete fool of yourself. Nobody here is impressed with your feigned expertise. Nobody reading this thread actually believes that you know what you are talking about. And nobody cares if you put them on ignore for being mean to you.
That's a clear insult, from somebody who dismisses Einstein to boot. You know the rules. I'm not talking to you about this any more. Next.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:10 AM   #586
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
You know the rules. I'm not talking to you about this any more. Next.
How long will it be before you talk only to yourself?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:13 AM   #587
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Almo View Post
Completely and utterly false. Wrong. Incorrect. Not what we observe. Cannot be substantiated by experiment.
Light waves are always associated with angular momentum. Go watch Susskind's lecture.

Originally Posted by Almo View Post
You can't have a reasonable discussion about physics with someone who believes that waves are always associated with angular momentum. My evidence? This thread.
You aren't. You're just chipping in with snide comments. Next.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:25 AM   #588
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by Almo
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
...waves are always associated with angular momentum.
Completely and utterly false. Wrong. Incorrect. Not what we observe. Cannot be substantiated by experiment.
Light waves are always associated with angular momentum.
We see what you did there, Farsight. Yes, light waves often carry angular momentum, and individual photons always do. But waves in general are not always associated with angular momentum. Sound waves, for example, do not have intrinsic angular momentum. And you weren't only talking about light. Here's the full quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Don't put words in my mouth. Photons are waves, waves are always associated with angular momentum. Look at wind waves. See the pictures on the right. A wave makes things go round.
Saying "A wave makes things go round" makes as much sense as saying "A horse makes things go round".

Admit your mistake and move on. Can you do that?

Last edited by sol invictus; 15th November 2012 at 06:32 AM.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:29 AM   #589
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
 
Stimpson J. Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
Originally Posted by Farsight
He didn't say the mass of a body doesn't depend on fairies either.
Well, if somebody was claiming that fairies were responsible for electrons having a non-zero rest mass, and you argued that Einstein said "the mass of a body depends on its energy content, not the fairy mechanism", then your argument would be wrong. Einstein never said that. Likewise he never said that the mass of a body does not depend on the Higgs mechanism. So again, you are wrong for saying that he did.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Einstein also never said that the mass of a body cannot depend on how strongly that body interacts with various fields. One reason Einstein never said this is because he never had any evidence to support such a claim. Another reason he never said it is because he knew perfectly well that the energy content (and therefore the mass) of a body can and often does depend on how that body interacts with various other fields.
You're airbrushing over history Stimpson.
No, I am not. Einstein died before the Higgs mechanism was proposed, but as has already been explained to you, this is not the only mechanism by which interactions with fields are known to contribute to the mass of particles. This was known well before Einstein's death.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Yes there is. It either depends on its energy content or on something else.
Does my net pay depend on my gross salary? Of course it does.
Does my net pay depend on my tax rate? Of course it does.

You're just being silly here. I don't think you even believe the ridiculous arguments you are presenting anymore. I think you just can't bring yourself to admit that any of the arguments you have made are flawed.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
And like I said before, if you object to the term "mass" being used to refer to inertial mass, then you need to stop claiming that mass is a measure of energy content, because it quite demonstrably is not.
And there we have it. Einstein said "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content", and Stimpson say "it most demonstrably is not".
Nice try, but I serious doubt anybody reading this thread is stupid enough to fall for such a blatant misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Oh don't insult our intelligence, Stimpson. You show me where Einstein ever said that the energy of a particle cannot depend on how strongly that particle interacts with fairies.
What's this "our" crap about? I doubt very seriously that you can find a single person involved in this discussion who actually agrees with you on any of this.

Originally Posted by Farsight
hat's a clear insult, from somebody who dismisses Einstein to boot. You know the rules. I'm not talking to you about this any more. Next.
Oh no! Farsight says he won't talk to me anymore.

Wait, that's right. I don't care. Seriously, Farsight, if you think anything I have posted on this thread is for your benefit, or that I ever thought there was any chance of convincing you of anything, you are even more deluded than I thought. I could not possibly care less whether you choose to talk to me or not. I am still going to point out why what you are saying is incorrect.

In fact, since even when you do respond to my posts you don't actually address my points in any kind of coherent way, it doesn't actually matter whether you respond to me or not. If anything we are all better off if you don't. That just means less noise.

Of course the best scenario would be if you just stopped posting your nonsense altogether. But until that happens, you will just have to put up with Physicists like me pointing out that you are don't actually know what you are talking about and that you your claims and theories are complete nonsense. You see, you don't actually make the rules here. You can ignore me, but you can't make me go away any more than I can make you go away.
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
Stimpson J. Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:38 AM   #590
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
This has been entertaining...in "the smartest man in the world just jumped out of the plane wearing my book pack" sort of way.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Maybe you were trying to argue that energy is the same as scalar momentum multiplied by the speed of light. If so, we can repeat the above calculation to get this:
E2 = m2c4 + E2
Unless you want to argue that every cannonball has zero mass, that interpretation doesn't work either.
Don't put words in my mouth.

In Farsight's own words, written a couple of days later, with my highlighting:

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
And like space and time, energy and momentum are merely two aspects of the same thing called energy-momentum. You always divide by c to go from one to the other, for example for a photon energy E = hf whilst momentum p = hf/c. Hence momentum p=E/c.

So Farsight has confirmed, using his own words, that his interpretation fails at the level of eighth-grade algebra.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
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.

Before I infer anything about math education in the UK, I should consider the possibility that Farsight is an outlier.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
My physics knowledge far exceeds that of other posters here.


Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
When citing Wikipedia articles that refute your argument is the best you can do, your argument is laughable.

As everyone who knows anything about physics has been trying to tell you: Energy and momentum are related, but they aren't the same thing.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:43 AM   #591
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I didn't make any mistake, I referred to the expression in post 430 on page 11. I also referred to it in post 473 on page 12 where I said this: Take a look at energy-momentum relation on wikipedia. See where it says the equation simplifies to E=mc² for a body in its rest frame. Then a bit lower down it says if the object is massless then the energy momentum relation reduces to E=pc as is the case for a photon.
You explicitly said, when discussing the energy of an electron:
Quote:
The third one, because E=mc² means m=E/c², so if m=0 then E=0 too. Next!
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:44 AM   #592
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
I'm not sure Cuddles is talking to me, but I'll have a look anyway.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
In fact, this is beautiful demonstration of just how little Farsight understands.
No, he isn't talking to me. I wonder, does Cuddles fight shy of talking to me because he's afraid I'll embarrass him with my understanding? OK, let's see what he's saying.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
The Higgs field effectively is an aether just, as you say, not quite in the way the term was originally used.
Fair enough. The only people who have a bad attitude to aether are people who don't know much physics. There's loads of aether papers on arXiv.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
In fact, the path leading up to the work of Higgs and others was partly based on the early work of plasma physicist Anderson (check the references in the paper I linked earlier). Anderson wasn't actually particularly interested in that area of particle physics. What he was thinking about was how the universe might look to a hypothetical being that lived inside a plasma, and in particular what laws of physics such a being might deduce from observations.
Again, fair enough.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Photons have zero rest mass, and as a consequence can have any energy. Massive particles cannot have any possible energy, since they have a minimum energy due to their mass. In a plasma, there is a phenomenon known as the plasma frequency.
Which ties in with what I've been saying about standing waves, where wave harmonics apply.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Above this frequency photons can penetrate the plasma, but below it they can't. This is how radio waves can bounce off the ionosphere, for example. That means the hypothetical being inside a plasma would observe photons to have a minimum energy, and would therefore deduce that they have mass.
No they wouldn't. They say that those massless photons add mass to the system when they trapped inside a box made out of "ionosphere" plasma".

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
There is also another related phenomenon that light consists of transverse waves with no longitudinal component, while in a plasma they excite longitudinal oscillations called plasmons, and this also implies a massive particle.
A photon is massless. A plasmon isn't, because it's like "the system".

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
So what Anderson had done was show that given a particular kind of background, a particle which would normally be expected to be massless could actually behave in every way as though they had mass. In a universe filled with a uniform plasma, photons would have mass due to their interaction with this all-pervading condensate.
Not true. And the Higgs mechanism doesn't give photons mass.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
In effect, we're the being in Anderson's plasma. Without knowing about the Higgs field, we observe certain particles to have mass that we wouldn't expect.
Not true. We expect a particle at rest to have mass because it's a body, and the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Interaction with the plasma/Higgs condensate simply explains why that happens.
LOL. Then explain it.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Of course, the plasma in that case is non-relativistic and effectively matches early ideas of the aether - a plasma gives you a preferred frame of reference and we know there isn't one. As Farsight says, we've already disproved that this kind of aether exists.
But Einstein did talk about the aether of general relativity in his 1920 Leyden Address. And I said if the Higgs mechanism was responsible for both photon momentum and electron mass that would be OK. Only then it's just four-potential. So it isn't.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
What Farsight completely misses is that we've only disproved this specific kind of aether.
No I haven't. See above.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
The Michelson-Morley experiment says absolutely nothing about a relativistic aether, and neither does Einstein
Wrong. See his 1920 Leyden Address.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
...relativity, or anything else. Far from the Higgs mechanism ignoring this, the fundamental basis of the whole thing is the discovery of a way to generalise Anderson's work to what is essentially a relativistic aether. The entire reason this work was important is not because physicists are all idiots who just ignored Einstein's work
They aren't all idiots. A lot of them oppose the Higgs mechanism and remind us of E=mc².

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
it's because they found a way to describe an aether that is entirely consistent with Einstein's work.
Apart from that E=mc². And like I pointed out to sol, it's an assumption that the Higgs mechanism gives the electron its mass.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
It's generally not referred to as an aether because that term is associated with the long discredited non-relativistic aether. Farsight nicely demonstrates the sort of confusion that can cause in people who don't know anything about the field.
But obviously I know plenty.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Now, the idea of some weird substance filling the whole universe might sound a bit crazy, but it's not actually a new or unusual idea at all. OK, the Higgs field is present everywhere in the universe. Well so is the gravitational field. So is the electromagnetic field.
It's four-potential. Light is a wave in it. There is no electromagnetic field filling space because electrons don't all accelerate thataway.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
And we've long accepted that empty vacuum is actually filled with particles constantly popping in and out of existence.
No we haven't. It doesn't happen. We have no experimental evidence to support this notion. Vacuum fluctuations are not the same as particles popping in and out of existence.

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
The behaviour of all particles is already governed by their interaction with these background fields of the universe. Adding in another one isn't really such a big step, especially if it explains a bunch of stuff that no-one's managed to explain in any other way.
I've explained it any other way. The explanation I gave is just a rehash of Einstein's explanation. But neither you nor anybody else has explained the Higgs mechanism.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 06:46 AM   #593
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Actually, this is a part that you have completely wrong but that I think Sol has wrong as well. The Higgs mechanism addresses gauge bosons in a gauge theory. In the particular context of the Standard Model, the Higgs mechanism gives an electroweak theory with massive W and Z bosons and a massless photon, where previous attempts could only predict they were all massless. It actually says nothing at all about the mass of the electron, which was already adequately explained by QED around the 1940s.
Like I pointed out to sol, the Higgs mechanism is assumed to be responsible for electron mass. And sorry to use bolding, but this is important: please give a reference for the QED explanation of electron mass.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 07:00 AM   #594
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
I'm going to make an exception to my own rule here, because this is choice:

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Not a theorist...
For an experimentalist, you're amazingly adept at dismissing hard scientific experimental evidence.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
...so a bit out of my depth
No comment.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
My understanding is that there *is* a gauge-invariance problem with any (non-Higgs-based) fermion masses in the Standard Model. My understanding is, further, that since you really need to posit a Higgs field to explain the gauge boson masses...
We'll turn the Sauron gaze to them one day.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
...you might as well (but aren't strictly forced to) reuse it to give you nice gauge-invariant fermion masses, too.
Not if you understand E=mc² and electron diffraction and atomic orbitals where "electrons exist as standing waves". Then you look at h and harmonics.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
If there's a necessary connection between these two, no one has ever explained it to me.
No. And you can't explain why the Higgs field gives the electron its mass. And I didn't even mention quarks.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
However: now that the LHC has actually seen the Higgs, and in particular since it's seen *both* a fermion-coupling decay (top loops leading to higgs gamma gamma) and a gauge-boson-coupling decay (H->ZZ and H->WW) of what appears to be the same 125 GeV particle ... well, that basically confirms the simple picture above.
All they've seen is a bump on a graph.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Seeing Higgs tau tau would nail it down. Building a 250GeV linear collider and measuring the Higgs resonance width would *really* nail it down, eh? Let's do that.
And let's cut your funding to do it? When you're flipping burgers for a living, you can remind yourself that it's all worthwhile, because whilst the ILC still can't find any evidence for SUSY, they do have a bump on a graph.

Gotta go.

Last edited by Farsight; 15th November 2012 at 07:01 AM.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 07:10 AM   #595
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I totally dismissed it because it was nothing to do with the question.
I answered your question here. That answer was everything to do with your question.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
It was a repeat of you ignoring the Higgs mechanism. Then complaining about putting relativistic in front of QFT!
I didn't ignore your question. But you did totally dismiss my answer. I just missed your question because it was overtaken by events. It's been a busy thread.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory?
i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2.
First pointed out 1 November 2012

And the answer according to Wikipedia is : Yes!
Higgs mechanism

Wow - you really need to learn some physics, Farsight !
Without Lorentz invariance there is no SR and no E=mc²
Again, read my answer instead of dismissing it. Einstein said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Hence mass is another aspect of energy-momentum. The Higgs mechanism is at odds with that.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 07:18 AM   #596
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Have to just add a voice in support of this comment. If you read Einstein's own book about his theory (aptly enough named "Relativity"), this is made clear. The basis of it lies in Lorentz invariance; that's the mathematical expression of his ideas on the constantsy of light speed. Thus, it's that invariance that leads to E=mc2. It's absolutely the issue.
Note however that GR subsumes SR, and during the development of GR Einstein said this:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates cₒ, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = cₒ(1 + Φ/c²)
1912 : On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.
1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.
1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned.
1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).


Note that he said all this in German, and he didn't use the word velocity. The word he used was geschwindigkeit. That's speed. And c is a speed, not a velocity. The principle was the constant speed of light, not the vector-quantity. And we all know that the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. Such as in a gravitational field. The local speed of light is measured to be constant because the speed of clocks varies too. This is particularly noticeable for optical clocks.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 07:42 AM   #597
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Oh dear: The fallacy of argument by authority that even cites an authority talking about somthing unrelated to the Higgs mechanism!
You asked me the question. I said I don't know, and offered a parallel. I'm not just arguing from Einstein's authority, I've explained the standing wave which adds mass to the system due to the symmetry between momentum and inertia. Did you miss it? Or did you dismiss that too?

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
to emphasis how bad this is :
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the electron is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the neutrino is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the quarks are something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the Z boson is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe plate tectonics is something like that!
  • But see Woit's blog where he talks about SUSY as an unstoppable juggernaut, maybe the theory of evolution is something like that!
  • etc. etc. etc.
Get a grip, RC. You asked me a question, I responded in good faith.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Does not parse.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Re: maybe. I've not been saying that, and was surprised to see it in New Scientist. Then why did you cite an opinion piece in a science magazine rather than a scientific paper in a scientific journal. One that talks about black holes and so according to you must be wrong!
Because it contained quotes by CERN physicists that you ought to pay attention to.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You may have switched off the critical analysis part of your brain . Otherwise you would have asked yourself a simple question: Where is Matthew Chalmers' scientific paper that so easily invalidates the Higgs boson? And an even simpler question: Who is Matthew Chalmers? My guess - given his ignorance of how the Higgs boson gets its mass, a staff writer for New Scientist.
Oh right, you're going to dismiss reportage of what CERN physicists say because the report isn't a peer reviewed paper. Nice trick!

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
This is where the Higgs gets it mass from in a valid pop-science actual answer:
We (Apparently) Found the Higgs Boson. Now, Where the Heck Did It Come From?
And what's the answer? Let's have another look:

The answer may surprise you: The Higgs gives itself mass!

Why did physicists think up such a weird particle decades before they saw any evidence of it? Where did all these ideas come from? The answer is: pure mathematics!


Well whoopeedoo! That's all right then! Let's just suck that right up! And if anybody quotes Einstein at us and gives a careful explanation backed with hard scientific evidence, we can dismiss it as argument from authority and totally irrelevant!

Sigh. Gotta go.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 07:45 AM   #598
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Note however that GR subsumes SR, and during the development of GR Einstein said this:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates cₒ, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c = cₒ(1 + Φ/c²)
1912 : On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential.
1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.
1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is to be abandoned.
1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).

Note that he said all this in German, and he didn't use the word velocity. The word he used was geschwindigkeit. That's speed. And c is a speed, not a velocity. The principle was the constant speed of light, not the vector-quantity. And we all know that the coordinate speed of light varies in a non-inertial reference frame. Such as in a gravitational field. The local speed of light is measured to be constant because the speed of clocks varies too. This is particularly noticeable for optical clocks.
I'm sorry, can you explain what that has to do with my comment? I didn't mention velocity, I was discussing speed.

And just for fun, can you describe any actual, testible, functional difference between "the speed of light is measured to be constant" and "the speed of light is constant"?
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 08:43 AM   #599
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No, he isn't talking to me. I wonder, does Cuddles fight shy of talking to me because he's afraid I'll embarrass him with my understanding? OK, let's see what he's saying.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2012, 12:01 PM   #600
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ingoa View Post
...I can not see any circumstance where Fairsight's theories will play a significant role in that process.
I'm telling you about Einstein's theory, not mine. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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