|
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. |
14th November 2012, 10:44 AM | #561 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
14th November 2012, 10:57 AM | #562 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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.
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? 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. 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. |
14th November 2012, 10:58 AM | #563 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
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.
|
14th November 2012, 10:59 AM | #564 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
|
14th November 2012, 11:18 AM | #565 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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. |
14th November 2012, 11:38 AM | #566 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
14th November 2012, 11:42 AM | #567 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
14th November 2012, 11:58 AM | #568 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
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:
Without Lorentz invariance there is no SR and no E=mc² |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th November 2012, 12:07 PM | #569 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
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.
|
14th November 2012, 12:54 PM | #570 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
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 :
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. 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:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th November 2012, 01:09 PM | #571 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
14th November 2012, 01:13 PM | #572 |
Master Poster
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 |
|
14th November 2012, 02:37 PM | #573 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
14th November 2012, 02:42 PM | #574 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
Wow. Dude, you've forgotten (or maybe you didn't read) what I clearly outlined here...
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 |
|
14th November 2012, 03:00 PM | #575 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,864
|
|
__________________
Simple probability tells us that we should expect coincidences, and simple psychology tells us that we'll remember the ones we notice... |
|
14th November 2012, 03:17 PM | #576 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
14th November 2012, 03:17 PM | #577 |
Surfing on the relativistic brain wave
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! |
|
14th November 2012, 04:21 PM | #578 |
Masterblazer
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Posts: 6,843
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
14th November 2012, 04:28 PM | #579 |
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 |
|
14th November 2012, 04:34 PM | #580 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
14th November 2012, 06:46 PM | #581 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
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:
|
14th November 2012, 07:03 PM | #582 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
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:
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. |
14th November 2012, 07:14 PM | #583 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
|
15th November 2012, 05:52 AM | #584 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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.
|
15th November 2012, 06:07 AM | #585 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
He didn't say the mass of a body doesn't depend on fairies either.
You're airbrushing over history Stimpson. Yes there is. It either depends on its energy content or on something else. Unless it's a body at rest, which is what Einstein was talking about with those radium salts. 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". 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. 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. |
15th November 2012, 06:10 AM | #586 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
15th November 2012, 06:13 AM | #587 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Light waves are always associated with angular momentum. Go watch Susskind's lecture.
You aren't. You're just chipping in with snide comments. Next. |
15th November 2012, 06:25 AM | #588 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
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:
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? |
15th November 2012, 06:29 AM | #589 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
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 Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
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. |
|
15th November 2012, 06:38 AM | #590 |
Philosopher
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.
In Farsight's own words, written a couple of days later, with my highlighting: So Farsight has confirmed, using his own words, that his interpretation fails at the level of eighth-grade algebra. Before I infer anything about math education in the UK, I should consider the possibility that Farsight is an outlier. |
15th November 2012, 06:43 AM | #591 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
15th November 2012, 06:44 AM | #592 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'm not sure Cuddles is talking to me, but I'll have a look anyway.
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. 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. Again, fair enough. Which ties in with what I've been saying about standing waves, where wave harmonics apply. 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". A photon is massless. A plasmon isn't, because it's like "the system". Not true. And the Higgs mechanism doesn't give photons mass. 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. LOL. Then explain it. 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. No I haven't. See above. Wrong. See his 1920 Leyden Address. They aren't all idiots. A lot of them oppose the Higgs mechanism and remind us of E=mc². 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. But obviously I know plenty. It's four-potential. Light is a wave in it. There is no electromagnetic field filling space because electrons don't all accelerate thataway. 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. 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. |
15th November 2012, 06:46 AM | #593 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
|
15th November 2012, 07:00 AM | #594 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'm going to make an exception to my own rule here, because this is choice:
For an experimentalist, you're amazingly adept at dismissing hard scientific experimental evidence. No comment. We'll turn the Sauron gaze to them one day. 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. No. And you can't explain why the Higgs field gives the electron its mass. And I didn't even mention quarks. All they've seen is a bump on a graph. 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. |
15th November 2012, 07:10 AM | #595 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I answered your question here. That answer was everything to do with your question.
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. 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. |
15th November 2012, 07:18 AM | #596 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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. |
15th November 2012, 07:42 AM | #597 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
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?
Get a grip, RC. You asked me a question, I responded in good faith. Does not parse. Because it contained quotes by CERN physicists that you ought to pay attention to. Oh right, you're going to dismiss reportage of what CERN physicists say because the report isn't a peer reviewed paper. Nice trick! 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. |
15th November 2012, 07:45 AM | #598 |
Merchant of Doom
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
|
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"? |
15th November 2012, 08:43 AM | #599 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
15th November 2012, 12:01 PM | #600 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|