|
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. |
18th November 2012, 03:59 PM | #681 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic
A follow up to
Have you even read Higgs paper, Farsight? BROKEN SYMMETRIES AND THE MASSES OF GAUGE BOSONS by Peter W. Higgs (1964) Where the frst paragraph is:
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
18th November 2012, 04:02 PM | #682 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No it isn't. There is no magical mysterious action-at-a-distance. There is no spring connecting the cannonball to the Earth. When you fired the 1kg cannonball upwards at 1000m/s it had its KE=½mv² kinetic energy of 500,000 kg-m²/s² and its p=mv momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. At the top of its trajectory it has retained this energy-momentum in the guise of potential energy. The cannonball has it. It hasn't handed it to the Earth. If we simplify matters by making the Earth airless, then we can launch the cannonball with angled rockets that don't push on the Earth at all. The work done on the cannonball is done on the cannonball, not the Earth.
Yes it does disappear. See this link. The cannonball gets to a height of 51,020 metres whereupon it's momentarily motionless. It hasn't got any momentum any more. Or any kinetic energy. See the bit in the link that says We also know that potential energy (due to altitude) is defined by the equation Ep = mgh. The m is the cannonballs's mass. The h is the cannonball's height. The Earth didn't gain any initial momentum when we fired the cannonball up with rockets. And when the cannonball is at its maximum height, we can't detect any motion of the Earth. We can't detect any spring, or any mechanism whereby the cannonball momentum or kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth. Like I said, you cannot remove kinetic energy from an object without removing the momentum too. There is no lightning-bolt of 500,000 kg-m²/s² whereby the Earth robs the cannonball of its kinetic energy and momentum. Instead it's converted into potential energy in the cannonball. Look it up. Don't be distracted by the vector aspect of momentum. A cannonball going up has momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. When it's at maximum height its momentum is zero. When it's falling down its momentum is not less than that. The cannonball is doing 1000m/s. The negative sign on its -1000 kg-m/s is just a convention for indicating direction. Like I said, a cannonball coming at you from the West at 1000m/s doesn't have zero momentum. They're two different aspects of the same thing called energy-momentum. You cannot take away a cannonball's kinetic energy without taking away its momentum. No it isn't. If you put that cannonball in a box bouncing back and forth at 1000m/s it's still got its kinetic energy and its momentum. The same is true of a light wave, where E=hf and p=hf/c. You can't reduce the p without reducing the E. And if you can't see that E or p you call it potential energy. Divide by c for momentum, but nobody ever calls it potential momentum. Phunk, I'm not denying anything. Now go and do some research. Start with hyperphysics. Note this: Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The object posesses it. The energy is in the object. It's merely that portion of its mass-energy that is converted into kinetic energy when the object falls down. Once the kinetic energy is radiated away, the mass-energy of the object is reduced. You reverse this when you lift the object up. A cannonball way out in space doesn't have any gravitational potential energy, it just has its mass-energy. GPE is just a statement of how much of this can be wrung out of it and turned into kinetic energy when it falls down. I'm not kidding you about all this Phunk. Please go and ask around about it elsewhere, and do your own research. This website looks pretty good. |
18th November 2012, 04:07 PM | #683 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I answered your question here and you totally dismissed my answer.
I've answered your question. If I gave another answer you'd ignore that too and pretend I've ignored you. And meanwhile you dismiss all my explanations and all my references to Einstein, but can't explain the Higgs mechanism at all. Next. |
18th November 2012, 04:16 PM | #684 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
That's a bit of a shift isn't it? You've gone from the Higgs mechanism gives an electron its mass to the Higgs mechanism sets the 511keV level at which an electron can exist. That' wrong too. Apologise for calling me a crackpot and I'll explain why it's h that sets the level, not the Higgs mechanism.
|
18th November 2012, 04:31 PM | #685 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
I dismissed it because you did not show that triggers mechanism violates E=mc^2.
Given that you seem nearly totally ignorant about the Higgs mechanism, this is not surprising ! The question remains: 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 Just learn about the Higgs mechanism and tell me yes or no Farsight! And then there is: Farsight: What does Peter W. Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic in his original 1964 paper? First asked 19 November 2012 I wonder whether the authors who cite that paper call the Higgs mechanism relativistic or non-relativistic? What about the other authors about the Higgs mechanism? I guess if you continue to refuse to learn about the Higgs mechanism then we will find out ! ETA: See above why all your explanations were dismissed because they do not address the Higgs mechanism at all. And you are wrong: you have never asked for an explanation of the Higgs mechanism from me. My response would be: Higgs mechanism. Asking for that explanasion though is yet another indactor of your ignorance about the Higgs mechanism - you cannot even understand the Wikipedia article! |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
18th November 2012, 04:47 PM | #686 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
Doesn't this, according to you, violate E=mc^2? If a cannonball's rest mass can depend on the interaction between the cannonball and the gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass depend on the interaction between the electron and the Higgs field? If the cannonball's rest mass can be different in a strong gravitational field than it would be if there was no gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there was no Higgs field? Imagine for a moment that the Higgs field only existed in a small area of space. Outside of the region of space the electron has zero rest mass, just like the photon. A 1MeV electron enters the field. It suddenly slows down from c to about 0.8c, and in doing so 0.511MeV of its kinetic energy becomes rest energy. Another electron with only 0.1MeV of energy strikes the field, but does not have enough energy to penetrate the boundary, and reflects off, much as light can reflect off of a metallic conductor. And inside the field, a 1MeV electron (again moving at about 0.8c) exits the field. Its 0.511MeV of rest energy turns back into kinetic energy, and its speed returns to c. And of course inside the field you won't be able to make any new electrons without supplying enough energy to do so (the Higgs field does not provide the energy). So for example, outside of the field any two photons could combine to produce an electron-positron pair (since they have no rest mass). But inside the field the two photons must have at least 1.022MeV of energy between them, so that this kinetic energy can be converted into the rest energy of the electron and positron that the interaction with the field requires them to have. Note, by the way, that all of this is exactly analogous to what happens to photons moving in and out of a superconductor. In fact, it's exactly the same type of phenomenon. If a particle with zero rest mass enters a Boson Condensate that interacts with the particle, then the particle acquires a rest mass that depends on the strength of that interaction. This has been known for decades, and has been repeatedly experimentally verified. |
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
18th November 2012, 04:52 PM | #687 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Why has your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" ben ignored for 107 yrs
And yet more questions come up, Farsight!
According to your fantasy, Einstein explained the origin of mass in his 1905 paper. But sceintists have continued to look for an answer to the origin of mass for 107 years ! Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years? Farsight: Where are the scientific papers expanding on your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"? Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
18th November 2012, 05:01 PM | #688 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Please do. I won't hold my breath, because I happen to know he explained the origin of mass in 1905, and spent years of his life trying to unify electromagnetism and gravity. Would you like to know how that works by the way? Maybe we should have a new thread for that.
Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc² too. It isn't manifest nonsense, you just don't understand spin ½, or that c^½ and c^1½ equates to c², or that everything hangs off the motion of light. Again, that's new-thread territory. I demolished ben's counterargument in post #668. Are you going to step in to help the guy out by pointing out where I got it wrong? No. Are you going to contribute to what he said about the Higgs mechanism setting the mass levels? No. All you're going to do is pretend that nobody has any idea what I'm saying. It's spectacularly unconvincing sol. Especially when you don't have the grace to say to guys like Phunk that Farsight is right about that. You should try it, it improves your credibility. Or should I say this: once people spot that you aren't sincere, your credibility is shot to pot. The total angular momentum is zero. Just as the total angular momentum of two opposite roundabouts is zero. Just as the total momentum of two photons going in opposite directions is zero. Just as the total momentum of two cannonballs going in opposite directions is zero. But momentum is an aspect of energy-momentum, and in all cases the energy-momentum is not zero. Momentum nets to zero because in an interaction I exert a force on you this way whilst you exert a force on me that way. For every action there is a reaction. But that doesn't mean there is no action. And action h is always there in E=hf, action has the same dimensionality as angular momentum, and like Susskind said at 2:50 it's quantized. LOL, sol, we're going round in circles here. And still nobody can explain the Higgs mechanism. Yawn. I'm off to bed. |
18th November 2012, 05:15 PM | #689 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight: Why has your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" been ignored by scientists for 107 yrs?
Quote:
The Higgs mechanism does not have anything to do with angular momentum (quantized ot not). So what is so important about the trivial facts that
No one here is likely to try to dumb it down enough so that you would understand it because you have shown no signs of understanding either Higgs mechanism or Susskind's lectrure. You would probably just continue to deny basic facts about it like it is a relativistic QFT. And then there is your history of not being able to understand SR in other threads. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
18th November 2012, 05:19 PM | #690 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Nope. It was you Farsight, and you alone, that chose to present an equation which on one side had no units and on the other side had units of (ms-1)1/2. These two quantities can never ever ever ever ever ever ever be considered equal. This betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics - I don't mean the basics of quantum mechanics or the basics of relativistic quantum field theory, I mean the fundamentals of high-school level physics - that it beggars belief.
|
18th November 2012, 05:35 PM | #691 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
You're really going out of your way to find new things to misunderstand.
I am baffled as to why you'd even pretend to think this is "a shift". In the absence of the Higgs field, you can write a relativistic quantum field theory (notice "relativistic"?) including an electron-like object with zero mass. In this theory, the electron obeys all of the zero-mass equations of motion; it obeys the zero-mass equations of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.; it obeys E^2 = 0 + p^2 c^2; the electron-positron pair production threshhold is E_CM = 0; etc. In the presence of the Higgs field, you can write a relativistic quantum field theory (notice "relativistic"? There it is again!) including an electron-like object which interacts with the Higgs vev. In this theory, the electron obeys all of the massive-particle equations of motion. It obeys the massive-particle equations for conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc; it obeys E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2; the electron-positron pair production threshhold is E_CM = 2mc^2; etc. There are eighteen different ways to phrase this in English. You have now misunderstood approximately ten of them, claiming that each one contradicts the previous one. You know where there's only one way to phrase it? Equations. Write down the Standard Model Lagrangian and show me which term is Lorentz violating. You'll have to invent something else to misunderstand. Go back to misunderstanding vectors and scalars, at least that one was funny. |
18th November 2012, 05:36 PM | #692 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
18th November 2012, 05:41 PM | #693 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
18th November 2012, 06:10 PM | #694 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
|
18th November 2012, 06:21 PM | #695 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
Why do you think this is useful? You either have a system of earth/cannonball with total momentum of 0, or you have a system of earth/cannonball/rocket exhaust of total momentum 0 It's still the case that in order to change the momentum of the cannonball something else's momentum has to change: that's what it means for momentum to be conserved
Here's a simple example of momentum and kinetic energy being different things: a bomb at t=0 the bomb is sitting somewhere out in space with nothing else around, at rest in our reference frame both it's kinetic energy and it's momentum =0 At t=1 it explodes, and pieces going flying off in various different directions The total momentum is still zero, but the total kinetic energy is certainly not zero How is it possible that those two values are different? |
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
18th November 2012, 06:37 PM | #696 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,127
|
How does the cannonball convert kinetic energy to potential energy? Via the force of gravity acting on the ball in the opposite direction of its motion. And what's on the other end of that force? Earth. How much does earth's momentum change when the cannonball slows down? By the exact amount the cannonball lost. It all adds up to 0 (well, to whatever the initial total was), always. Momentum is conserved.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As long as it isn't the only thing in the universe, a cannonball way out in space has gravitational potential energy relative to every other thing in space. Gravity doesn't have a distance limit. |
19th November 2012, 03:56 AM | #697 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
No, it would not.
It's quite clear that you don't understand units, at all. Units are the first thing you study in an introductory course in any physical science.
Quote:
Quote:
Light waves are composed of an enormous number of photons, the total angular momentum of which can be zero - as you have just admitted. |
19th November 2012, 03:58 AM | #698 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No. It depends on its energy content. When you raise a cannonball you do work on it. You exert a force for a distance. Force times distance equals energy. That energy is now in the cannonball. Its energy content is higher, so its mass has increased.
No. E is greater and so is m. What's the problem? Because the cannonball's rest mass depends on its energy content. The gravitational field merely provides a way to increase it. You could take that cannonball way out in space where there's no detectable gravitational field. It isn't interacting with a gravitational field. But when you try to push it, it still resists your attempt to move it. It hasn't gone featherlight and massless. Because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It isn't a measure of its interaction with a field. All a field does is give you a mechanism by which to vary that energy content. Electrons can't travel at the speed of light. And the cannonball's rest mass is greater when its out in free space where there's no detectable gravitational field. You're clutching at straws Stimpson. It's called effective mass, and it backs up what I've been saying. When you slow down a photon to below c you say it has an slight effective mass, the ratio of effective mass to energy-momentum depending on how much you've slowed it down. When you slow it down to zero by trapping it in a box as a standing wave, 100% of the energy-momentum is effective mass. And it is indeed effective. The box is now harder to move. That's why the mass of a body is a measure of energy-content. But note that the photon is interacting with the box, not with some Higgs field. The electron is similar but it's like a photon in a box of its own making. Ditto for the positron. You made them both in two-photon physics, where light interacted with light. Go and look at light bends itself into an arc. Imagine what would happen if it was a tight arc, that went all the way round in a circle. You'd have a standing wave, wouldn't you? And in atomic orbitals, "electrons exist as standing waves". The electron is like the standing wave in a box, minus the box. It still offers to resistance to change-in-motion, only now you call it inertia instead of momentum. Annihilation is like opening one box with another, only afterwards there's no boxes left. Because there weren't any boxes in the first place. Just the standing waves. |
19th November 2012, 04:07 AM | #699 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
19th November 2012, 04:27 AM | #700 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
No they haven't. They've known about E=mc² for 107 years. They've know that mass is a measure of system energy content for all that time. You however have only recently learned that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter.
As above. They haven't. E=mc² isn't on the T-shirts for nothing. There's loads of them. Go find them. Do your own research, think for yourself. Here's one I've plucked out of arXiv for you: On the Origin of Elementary Particle Masses by Johan Hansson. Here's an excerpt: "A more promising way could be to assume that the stable elementary particles of the first generation are exact soliton solutions to the relevant quantum field theory, or its dual [15], whereas unstable higher generation elementary particles would be solitary wave (particle-like, but not stable) solutions to the said quantum field theory." Buried under an avalanche of popscience woo. |
19th November 2012, 04:32 AM | #701 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
19th November 2012, 04:42 AM | #702 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Doubtless you will dismiss my answer above and continue to pretend that I haven't answered your question.
Go look it up. Take your pick of various sources, such as wikipedia. "The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics". No, but this thread is starting to feel like wading through cosmic treacle. You're now dismissing the obvious simple stuff because you're so desperate to cling to something you can't explain and don't understand. I'm not lying. Prove me wrong by explaining the Higgs mechanism. Emperor's New Clothes. You can't explain it. Susskind didn't do too good a job either. His heart wasn't in it. Hence the "zilch". LOL. That's enough RC. I'm the one doing the explaining here, you're continuing to deny basic facts about it. And now you're even denying the simple stuff that's on record and beyond doubt. Plus you're making ad-hominem accusatations to try to bolster your position. That's insulting. You know the rules. You're out. |
19th November 2012, 05:08 AM | #703 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'm going to make an exception to my own rule to respond to an accusation:
Not when you understand that you use the motion of light to define the metre and the second, and that harmonics and mass ratios are dimensionless. It's a variant on natural units where you can find things like this: "The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc² can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The rest-energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the rest-mass of a particle, measured in Planck units of mass." Had I said E=m, Tubby would say it betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics and beggars belief. Without understanding what I'm talking about, because he just doesn't want to. I'm sorry guys, but I'm beginning to thing that this thread has run its course. |
19th November 2012, 05:33 AM | #704 |
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 |
|
19th November 2012, 05:40 AM | #705 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
It's reasonable to drop factors of c especially in particle physics of course, and quote masses in GeV or whatever. You however wrote Let's use natural units then... c^½ = 1 3π = 9.424778 c^½ / 3π = 1 / 9.424778 r = 0.106 Actual = 1836.15267245 Do you see the problem now? You wrote a completely nonsensical formula down. |
__________________
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 November 2012, 06:38 AM | #706 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,949
|
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Can you answer the question I actually asked?
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Farsight
|
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
19th November 2012, 07:34 AM | #707 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Oh good.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
19th November 2012, 09:30 AM | #708 |
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 |
|
19th November 2012, 09:38 AM | #709 |
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 |
|
19th November 2012, 09:44 AM | #710 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
The formula is even more crazy when you realise he could have just gone for good clean numerological woo by announcing the proton to electron mass ratio is 6π5... much closer to the true value too!
|
__________________
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 November 2012, 09:55 AM | #711 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
19th November 2012, 10:01 AM | #712 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
I believe it's a frequently rediscovered 'classic', Tubbythin. I can't make any claim to it!
|
__________________
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 November 2012, 10:10 AM | #713 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
19th November 2012, 10:35 AM | #714 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
c^1/2 = 8.41529061292597326e+05 inches^1/2 minutes^-1/2
3π = 9.424778 Therefore the proton-electron mass ratio is 89000. This works great! |
19th November 2012, 11:18 AM | #715 |
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 |
|
19th November 2012, 11:20 AM | #716 |
Intellectual Gladiator
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,948
|
Btw, I think we now see why Farsight is so reluctant to show us the math behind his "theory"
|
__________________
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 |
|
19th November 2012, 12:18 PM | #717 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
19th November 2012, 01:06 PM | #718 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
You are just reinforcing my point, Farsight!
No scientist in the past 107 years has stated that E=mc2 is an explanation for the origin of mass. That is your own very strange idea. E=mc2 is the mass-energy equivalence equation. Thinking that it explains the origin of mass is ridiculous because you then have to explain the origin of energy and you are stuck in an infinite loop. And that would be a lie based on the delusion that you can read my mind Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years? Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"? The answer is obviously that this is your fantasy, not science.. That is a lie - you have only cited one and it has nothing to do with your fantasy.
Quote:
My guess - you have the delusion that every paper that tries to explain the origin of mass is about E=mc2. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
19th November 2012, 01:25 PM | #719 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates SR
No doubt you will understand that you are wrong (not!) .
You answered my question: No scientist in the past 107 years has stated that E=mc2 is an explanation for the origin of mass. That is your own very strange idea.
Quote:
That is easy: Higgs mechanism. You are thus wrong. If you think that someone is going to explain the Higgs mechanism in baby talk to you then you are even more wrong. There are plenty of sources explaining the Higgs mechanism. If you cannot understand them then that is your problem, not ours. There is Susskind's lecture where he does try to make the explanation as simple as possible (QM = things like angular momentum are quantized + uncertainty principle) But there is little evidence that you understand what he says. You may think that the Mexican hat potential is an actual Mexican hat ! It looks like I will have to make this explicit: Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates special relativity, e.g. contradicts E=mc2. Higgs mechanism states that it is a relativistic QFT. Peter Higgs states that it is a relativistic QFT: Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic ? The answer is easy: obeys SR, e.g. E=mc2 . This basic fact about the Higgs mechanism was pointed out on 1 November 2012 and you still cannot understand that this means that the Higgs mechanism obeys SR. One day could just be laziness - you could not be bothered to actually read the Higgs mechanism article. One week and it is a bit of denial. 20 days and we are into the territory of delusions. You should have red the article. You should have read the paper. But you are still are ignoring or in denial of the science. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
19th November 2012, 05:53 PM | #720 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
|
Isn't it E2 = (mc2)2+(pc)2?
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|