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 7th January 2013, 07:37 AM   #801
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The Higgs field is everywhere according to that article: "The solution hit upon by Higgs and others was a new field that filled space..."

Sounds suspiciously like some aether theory, lol. So the Higgs field is an absolute reference frame... Hmm... Doesn't fit well with Einstein's relativity. Or?
Or the Higgs field is Lorentz invariant.
__________________
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 7th January 2013, 08:20 AM   #802
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Or the Higgs field is Lorentz invariant.
I looked that up:

"The big difference is that the background value of the Higgs field is Lorentz-invariant — it doesn't define any absolute standard of rest. This is difficult to explain to somebody who doesn't know what a Lorentz transformation is, but it must be possible. Even without knowing mathematics, it is at least plausible that there could be a 'substance' which appears exactly the same to any two observers, regardless of their relative velocity. In fact, this applies to empty space, and it is not unreasonable to say that the value of the Higgs field is just a property of empty space. The problem, of course, is that none of this gives people any idea of what the Higgs field has to do with mass (but in my opinion, neither does the molasses analogy)." -- http://x-sections.blogspot.se/2012/0...mechanism.html

Ok, the Higgs field is not an absolute frame of reference.
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 09:50 AM   #803
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
The Higgs field is everywhere according to that article: "The solution hit upon by Higgs and others was a new field that filled space..." Sounds suspiciously like some aether theory, lol. So the Higgs field is an absolute reference frame... Hmm... Doesn't fit well with Einstein's relativity. Or?
It is a bit like some aether theory, particularly since some CERN physicists refer to the Higgs substance. But that doesn't cause an issue for general relativity. Check out Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address where he was talking about the aether of general relativity, and arXiv for papers with aether in the title. Aether isn't the problem. See Einstein's 1905 E=mc˛ paper where he said the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and that the electron is a body. Saying that the inertia of some bodies is down to something else is the problem.
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 7th January 2013, 10:14 AM   #804
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Anders, you probably should not listen to anything that Farsight says on these forums. As you can see from other responses, Farsight has a history of presenting inaccurate, false, and insulting statements about science, scientists, and other members of this forum.

His last post provides a great example of his inability to understand the issue at hand. He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory. However, as you can read from other sources, the Higgs theory is that some of the energy content of some particles is due to this Higgs field. Thus the inertia of some particles is measuring, in part, the energy contributed by the Higgs field. That Farsight continues to miss this point (or that he consciously misrepresents this point) is a mark against trusting him.
Kwalish Kid 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 7th January 2013, 10:30 AM   #805
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
It is a bit like some aether theory, particularly since some CERN physicists refer to the Higgs substance. But that doesn't cause an issue for general relativity. Check out Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address where he was talking about the aether of general relativity, and arXiv for papers with aether in the title. Aether isn't the problem. See Einstein's 1905 E=mc˛ paper where he said the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and that the electron is a body. Saying that the inertia of some bodies is down to something else is the problem.
Since the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, I guess it could explain inertia, IF it could explain all mass. The problem is that the Higgs field can only explain some of the mass for particles.
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 10:35 AM   #806
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid View Post
Anders, you probably should not listen to anything that Farsight says on these forums. As you can see from other responses, Farsight has a history of presenting inaccurate, false, and insulting statements about science, scientists, and other members of this forum.

His last post provides a great example of his inability to understand the issue at hand. He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory. However, as you can read from other sources, the Higgs theory is that some of the energy content of some particles is due to this Higgs field. Thus the inertia of some particles is measuring, in part, the energy contributed by the Higgs field. That Farsight continues to miss this point (or that he consciously misrepresents this point) is a mark against trusting him.
I just posted a reply about that. Yes, the Higgs field could explain inertia I suppose (I'm not an expert), but as you say, it can only explain some of the inertia.
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 12:01 PM   #807
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Since the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, I guess it could explain inertia, IF it could explain all mass. The problem is that the Higgs field can only explain some of the mass for particles.
If the Higgs field explained photon momentum and electron mass it would be more reasonable.

Remember that both the photon and the electron have a wave nature because you can diffract them. Now check out Light is Heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft (not the Nobel prizewinner 't Hooft). Light is "heavy" in that it causes gravity and has an active gravitational mass which is equivalent to inertial mass, but it doesn't have rest mass. However if you trap light as a standing wave in a mirror-box, it adds to the mass to that system, and as a result the box is harder to move. If you were to open the box the photon would come flying out at c, but until you do so, it's effectively at rest so rest mass does apply. The higher the photon frequency the more the mass, and E=hf and m=E/c˛ but the Higgs mechanism is not involved in the slightest.

Note that you can make an electron (and a positron) out of a photon in pair production, and in atomic orbitals (see wiki) "electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves". When you say an electron exists as a standing wave even when it's not in an orbital, the situation is just like the photon in a box, where the mass depends on how much energy is there. It's like the electron is a photon in a "box" of its own making. Then when you do electron/positron annihilation it's like opening one box with another. Two 511keV photons fly out as per Einstein's a radiating body loses mass, only afterwards there's no boxes left.


Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid
He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory.
That's what Einstein said. See above.

Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid
However, as you can read from other sources, the Higgs theory is that some of the energy content of some particles is due to this Higgs field. Thus the inertia of some particles is measuring, in part, the energy contributed by the Higgs field. That Farsight continues to miss this point (or that he consciously misrepresents this point) is a mark against trusting him.
This is totally wrong. In electron-positron pair production you start with a photon of over 1022keV and "split it" over a nucleus to end up with an electron and a positron of 511keV apiece. Some energy goes into moving the nucleus and on the motion of the electron and the positron, but not that much. None of the energy is contributed by the Higgs field. Absolutely none.
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 7th January 2013, 12:13 PM   #808
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid
He writes that, "the inertia of a body is a measure of its energy-content," and he imagines that this is somehow a problem for the Higgs theory.
That's what Einstein said. See above.
Are you claiming that Einstein wrote about the Higgs field?
Quote:
This is totally wrong. In electron-positron pair production you start with a photon of over 1022keV and "split it" over a nucleus to end up with an electron and a positron of 511keV apiece. Some energy goes into moving the nucleus and on the motion of the electron and the positron, but not that much. None of the energy is contributed by the Higgs field. Absolutely none.
You seem not to realize that energy can be transferred from one form to another. You really should take the time to learn physics before you attempt to correct it.
Kwalish Kid 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 7th January 2013, 12:56 PM   #809
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
This is totally wrong. In electron-positron pair production you start with a photon of over 1022keV and "split it" over a nucleus to end up with an electron and a positron of 511keV apiece. Some energy goes into moving the nucleus and on the motion of the electron and the positron, but not that much. None of the energy is contributed by the Higgs field. Absolutely none.
Why can't I start with a 1022 keV photon and produce a 100 keV electron, and a 100 keV positron, flying apart with 411 keV of kinetic energy?

Why can't I start with a 1022 keV photon and produce a zero-mass electron with 511 keV kinetic energy, and a zero-mass positron with 511 keV kinetic energy?

Heck, why can't I start with a 100 keV photon, and produce zero-mass electrons/positrons with 50 keV kinetic energy?

Because the Higgs field, by interacting with the electron, forces the electron to have a 511 keV rest mass. That's what it does. That's all it does.

The rest mass obeys all of the previously-known energy/momentum conservation laws. The rest mass is determined by the Higgs mechanism. There is no conflict between these two statements.
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 7th January 2013, 01:15 PM   #810
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Light is "heavy" in that it causes gravity and has an active gravitational mass which is equivalent to inertial mass, but it doesn't have rest mass. However if you trap light as a standing wave in a mirror-box, it adds to the mass to that system, and as a result the box is harder to move. If you were to open the box the photon would come flying out at c, but until you do so, it's effectively at rest so rest mass does apply. The higher the photon frequency the more the mass, and E=hf and m=E/c˛ but the Higgs mechanism is not involved in the slightest.
Doesn't the mirror-box experiment prove that photons indeed have rest mass? And that the Higgs field should interact with photons just like the other particles? If a similar experiment was done where an electron is trapped in a magnetic field inside a box, what's the difference between the electron and the photon except how large the rest mass is?

"The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or (in the case of bound systems or objects observed in their center of momentum frame) simply mass, is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 01:49 PM   #811
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Now check out Light is Heavy by van der Mark and 't Hooft (not the Nobel prizewinner 't Hooft).
Even I can tell that the article is wrong. This is what it says:

"In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."

As an example, two photons are sent parallel to each other at the same time in air, so the relative velocity of the photons is slightly less than c. If, as the article claims, the photons have gravitational mass, then that would pull the photons closer together! And relative to the first photon, the second photon is at rest! Hence, the gravitational pull would prove that the photons have rest mass.
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 02:05 PM   #812
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Since the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, I guess it could explain inertia, IF it could explain all mass. The problem is that the Higgs field can only explain some of the mass for particles.
Hi Anders Lindman, Farsight has retained a fantasy that the Higgs mechanism violates SR for some time. That means that Farsight will never accept that the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant.
From 19th November 2012: Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic?
as a follow-up to:
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

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th January 2013 at 02:08 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 7th January 2013, 02:14 PM   #813
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Even I can tell that the article is wrong. This is what it says:

"In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."
Not to mention it's speculations, boldly presented as fact, that "rest mass never applies to a system at complete rest, because such systems do not exist; there will always be internal dynamics" (implying that electrons somehow have stuff whizzing around inside them) and the claim that elementary particles all have non-zero spin (implying that the Higgs observed by CERN cannot be spin-0 like the standard model Higgs).
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 7th January 2013, 02:31 PM   #814
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
Not to mention it's speculations, boldly presented as fact, that "rest mass never applies to a system at complete rest, because such systems do not exist; there will always be internal dynamics" (implying that electrons somehow have stuff whizzing around inside them) and the claim that elementary particles all have non-zero spin (implying that the Higgs observed by CERN cannot be spin-0 like the standard model Higgs).
But here is a curious quote that also claims that photons have gravitational mass:

"Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800

If that is true, then photons must also have rest mass, as I showed with the example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=811
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 03:05 PM   #815
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
But here is a curious quote that also claims that photons have gravitational mass:

"Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800

If that is true, then photons must also have rest mass, as I showed with the example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=811
Firstly, photons are indeed deflected by, and are a source of, gravitational fields. However, like anything that goes at c they have zero rest mass (indeed, they cannot even be brought to rest). Going back to your thought experiment above, and keeping it reasonably simple, bear in mind that the objects involved are not just photons, but photons interacting with gas molecules. If you move to what you're calling the "rest frame" of a photon moving through air, what you'll see is not a bare photon at rest but a photon jiggling around in an extremely high speed wind. As such you can't draw the conclusion that you've observed the photon's rest mass.

(As an aside, here's something that might amuse you: in a vacuum, light beams going in parallel directions do not interact gravitationally, while those going anti-parallel do.)

Going back to the first article, briefly, they say:
Quote:
In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass.
That's not actually inaccurate, given their definitions. Where they head to after that point, i.e. the stuff I objected to earlier, is speculation presented as fact.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 7th January 2013, 03:11 PM   #816
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
If you move to what you're calling the "rest frame" of a photon moving through air, what you'll see is not a bare photon at rest but a photon jiggling around in an extremely high speed wind. As such you can't draw the conclusion that you've observed the photon's rest mass.
There is ALWAYS jiggles at small scales because of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, so I don't see how that would make a difference. With your claim, then, NOTHING can have rest mass.
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 04:25 PM   #817
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
There is ALWAYS jiggles at small scales because of the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, so I don't see how that would make a difference. With your claim, then, NOTHING can have rest mass.
I did a poor job of explaining myself. The point is that you are not observing the behaviour of free photons, you are observing the mean behaviour of a photon+gas system over the course of many, many interactions. So although you might be able to observe an attractive force (perhaps the photons' paths converge in the long term) it would not be due to the gravitation caused by free photons alone. In fact, free photons moving in parallel do not interact gravitationally (as I mentioned earlier).

Let me try a different angle, comparing electrons with photons without the complicating factors of moving through air.

Go into the vacuum of deep space, and you find that you can move to the rest frame of any free electron. You will also find that an electron's energy E at any momentum p follows a simple law,

E = √(m2c4 + p2c2).

where m is a parameter called the rest mass, or often simply the mass.

If you try the same trick with a free photon, you find that you cannot move to its rest frame. Free photons in a vacuum always whiz around at c, as judged by any observers in uniform motion. What's more, the law relating energy to momentum is different:

E = pc.

Note that this can be obtained from the previous one by setting m to zero, and so photons have zero rest mass (and are often just called "massless").

............

On a technical note: I suppose we don't really know for certain that photons have zero rest mass, though there are very compelling theoretical and empirical reasons to believe they do. According to the standard model, they are indeed exactly massless, while the best experimental upper limit I know of is m < 3 × 10−27 eV/c2, some 2 × 1032 times lighter than the electron.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 7th January 2013, 04:34 PM   #818
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
In fact, free photons moving in parallel do not interact gravitationally (as I mentioned earlier).
Then your claim is different than the article I quoted:

"So light is definitely affected by gravity. Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 04:54 PM   #819
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Then your claim is different than the article I quoted:
No, it's just more detailed.
__________________
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 7th January 2013, 04:55 PM   #820
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Doesn't the mirror-box experiment prove that photons indeed have rest mass?
No. They don't have rest mass in the normal sense because you can't make a photon go faster or slower. Trapping a photon in a box is just a trick way to change its speed from c to an effective speed of zero, even though inside the box it's still going back and forth at c.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman
And that the Higgs field should interact with photons just like the other particles?
No.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman
If a similar experiment was done where an electron is trapped in a magnetic field inside a box, what's the difference between the electron and the photon except how large the rest mass is?
Nothing really. That would be like trapping a photon inside a box, then putting that inside another box.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman
"The invariant mass, rest mass, intrinsic mass, proper mass, or (in the case of bound systems or objects observed in their center of momentum frame) simply mass, is a characteristic of the total energy and momentum of an object or a system of objects that is the same in all frames of reference related by Lorentz transformations." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass
Yep. The system is the box, and mass is a measure of how much energy-momentum is there.

Originally Posted by Ander Lindman
Even I can tell that the article is wrong. This is what it says:

"In the case of light, the rest mass is zero, but the gravitational mass equals the inertial mass, which is identical to the relativistic mass."
It isn't wrong. Active gravitational mass is always identical to inertial mass. The amount of gravity the photon causes depends on how much energy its got, and relativistic mass is just a measure of energy.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman
As an example, two photons are sent parallel to each other at the same time in air, so the relative velocity of the photons is slightly less than c. If, as the article claims, the photons have gravitational mass, then that would pull the photons closer together! And relative to the first photon, the second photon is at rest! Hence, the gravitational pull would prove that the photons have rest mass.
The huge active gravitational mass of the Sun can only manage to pull photons towards it a tiny bit. One photon has such a slight effect on another that we can never hope to measure it. When a photon travels at less than c it has a slight "effective mass", but it's energy that causes gravity, not just mass. The effective mass doesn't change the active gravitational 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 7th January 2013, 04:55 PM   #821
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
That seems inconsistent: that some of the mass is caused by the Higgs field, while other forms of mass don't require any Higgs field.
There's nothing "inconsistent" about it.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Then your claim is different than the article I quoted:

"So light is definitely affected by gravity. Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800
The fact that light is a source of and is affected by gravity does not mean that light gravitationally attracts light under all conceivable circumstances.
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 7th January 2013, 05:23 PM   #822
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
Not to mention it's speculations, boldly presented as fact, that "rest mass never applies to a system at complete rest, because such systems do not exist; there will always be internal dynamics" (implying that electrons somehow have stuff whizzing around inside them)
They aren't called spinors for nothing, and the electron magnetic dipole moment isn't magic. People tend to insist that no motion is involved in intrinsic spin, and say there's no classical equivalent. But they forget about tornados. A tornado has intrinsic spin. Without it, it isn't a tornado any more. They forget about moebius strips too.

Originally Posted by ctamblyn
...and the claim that elementary particles all have non-zero spin (implying that the Higgs observed by CERN cannot be spin-0 like the standard model Higgs).
They only observed decay products. Whatever decayed did so almost instantly. It doesn't last long enough to spin.
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 7th January 2013, 05:45 PM   #823
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Then your claim is different than the article I quoted:

"So light is definitely affected by gravity. Since light has energy, it is also a source of gravitational effects on other objects, although not a very strong one under ordinary circumstances." -- http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19800
I'm not sure whether you caught my link earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnor_beam

Basically, and perhaps intuitively if you imagine graviton exchange as a model for gravity (just a thought, not a statement of fact), two photons both heading off in the +x-direction (say) will not interact gravitationally. On the other hand, if one photon is going in the +x direction while the other is going in the -x direction, then they will interact.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 7th January 2013, 05:45 PM   #824
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
They aren't called spinors for nothing, and the electron magnetic dipole moment isn't magic. People tend to insist that no motion is involved in intrinsic spin, and say there's no classical equivalent. But they forget about tornados. A tornado has intrinsic spin. Without it, it isn't a tornado any more. They forget about moebius strips too.
I'm pretty sure it hasn't escaped even your notice that tornados are not point-like particles.
__________________
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 7th January 2013, 05:47 PM   #825
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by edd View Post
No, it's just more detailed.
So the effect of gravity depends on the photon's relative velocity? I doubt that. The gravity is dependent on the photon's frequency, not its velocity. So two photons traveling side by side parallel to each other will attract each other gravitationally dependent on their energy, i.e. their frequency.
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 05:50 PM   #826
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
One photon has such a slight effect on another that we can never hope to measure it.
The effect of gravity is still there even if our current instruments are unable to measure it. Would you agree that two photons traveling side by side parallel to each other in vacuum will be pulled together by gravity?
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 05:53 PM   #827
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
I'm not sure whether you caught my link earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnor_beam

Basically, and perhaps intuitively if you imagine graviton exchange as a model for gravity (just a thought, not a statement of fact), two photons both heading off in the +x-direction (say) will not interact gravitationally. On the other hand, if one photon is going in the +x direction while the other is going in the -x direction, then they will interact.
Are you claiming that the gravity for a photon is dependent on its relative velocity?
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 05:56 PM   #828
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
They aren't called spinors for nothing, and the electron magnetic dipole moment isn't magic. People tend to insist that no motion is involved in intrinsic spin, and say there's no classical equivalent. But they forget about tornados. A tornado has intrinsic spin. Without it, it isn't a tornado any more. They forget about moebius strips too.
Electron "spin" is a different beast to the rotation of a tornado. There is no evidence that the electron is literally a rotating ball of charge, for example.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
They only observed decay products. Whatever decayed did so almost instantly. It doesn't last long enough to spin.
That's not how it works. The spin of whatever decayed would leave its imprint on the distribution of decay products, regardless of how short-lived it was. It will be hard to detect, but not impossible.

ETA:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there are far shorter-lived particles than the Higgs which have been detected (e.g. the W and Z), and have had their non-zero spins determined. So short life does not force spinlessness.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home

Last edited by ctamblyn; 7th January 2013 at 06:07 PM.
ctamblyn 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 7th January 2013, 06:02 PM   #829
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Are you claiming that the gravity for a photon is dependent on its relative velocity?
To be specific: I'm claiming that, according to an exact solution of GR's field equations, the gravitational interaction of two photons depends on their relative directions.

I linked to the Wikipedia article twice already, but here's Bonnor's original paper:

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf...7%2FBF01645484

It deals with beams rather than individual particles, but the same result holds.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 7th January 2013, 06:09 PM   #830
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
To be specific: I'm claiming that, according to an exact solution of GR's field equations, the gravitational interaction of two photons depends on their relative directions.

I linked to the Wikipedia article twice already, but here's Bonnor's original paper:

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf...7%2FBF01645484

It deals with beams rather than individual particles, but the same result holds.
That's a bit over my head, lol, but it talks about gravity waves. If gravity is caused by gravitons (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), then if the photons are traveling in OPPOSITE directions for example, then how will the gravitons be able catch up with the photons? Faster-than-light gravitons? LMAO.
Anders Lindman 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 7th January 2013, 06:26 PM   #831
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
That's a bit over my head, lol, but it talks about gravity waves. If gravity is caused by gravitons (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument), then if the photons are traveling in OPPOSITE directions for example, then how will the gravitons be able catch up with the photons? Faster-than-light gravitons? LMAO.
The article talks about extended beams, like two infinite parallel rods if you like. In that case the interactions go as I described.

Similarly, if you start off with two point-like photons far apart which then approach each other, you will get an interaction.

In your scenario though, where I picture two individual point particles being emitted at distinct points and moving directly apart, each at the speed of light, they could not interact by any means, gravity or otherwise (excluding space being wrapped up like a cylinder, wormholes etc.). So, that's an interesting exception to what I stated earlier. For some reason I didn't think of that.

Now, In case I got that wrong, perhaps one of the resident physics-gods could chime in.
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 7th January 2013, 07:37 PM   #832
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by edd View Post
I'm pretty sure it hasn't escaped even your notice that tornados are not point-like particles.
lol wut? srsly? no wai!
mijopaalmc 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 7th January 2013, 08:23 PM   #833
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
They aren't called spinors for nothing,...
What are "they"? The context seems to be electrons but they are never called spinors.

Spinors are mathematical objects that are used to describe quantum spin which has nothing to do with classical spin, e.g. electrons do not actually spin around an axis like your silly example of a tornado.
Quote:
In mathematics and physics, in particular in the theory of the orthogonal groups (such as the rotation or the Lorentz groups), spinors are elements of a complex vector space introduced to expand the notion of spatial vector. Unlike tensors, the space of spinors cannot be built up in a unique and natural way from spatial vectors. However, spinors transform well under the infinitesimal orthogonal transformations (like infinitesimal rotations or infinitesimal Lorentz transformations).
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 7th January 2013, 11:51 PM   #834
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by ctamblyn View Post
The article talks about extended beams, like two infinite parallel rods if you like. In that case the interactions go as I described.

Similarly, if you start off with two point-like photons far apart which then approach each other, you will get an interaction.

In your scenario though, where I picture two individual point particles being emitted at distinct points and moving directly apart, each at the speed of light, they could not interact by any means, gravity or otherwise (excluding space being wrapped up like a cylinder, wormholes etc.). So, that's an interesting exception to what I stated earlier. For some reason I didn't think of that.

Now, In case I got that wrong, perhaps one of the resident physics-gods could chime in.
So, the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, while gravity is not? As for the special case, how can black holes hold the photons back via gravitons unless they travel faster than the speed of light, which would violate Einstein's relativity?
Anders Lindman 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 8th January 2013, 12:31 AM   #835
Anders Lindman
Penultimate Amazing
 
Anders Lindman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
Ok, if the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, then it can ONLY give rest mass to particles. Otherwise the mass would be dependent on the particles' velocity relative to the Higgs field as an absolute frame of reference.
Anders Lindman 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 8th January 2013, 05:32 AM   #836
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
They aren't called spinors for nothing, and the electron magnetic dipole moment isn't magic. People tend to insist that no motion is involved in intrinsic spin, and say there's no classical equivalent. But they forget about tornados. A tornado has intrinsic spin. Without it, it isn't a tornado any more. They forget about moebius strips too.
A tornado has a diameter of several metres. An electron does not.

Quote:
They only observed decay products. Whatever decayed did so almost instantly. It doesn't last long enough to spin.
How long do you think it takes a point particle to complete a single revolution?
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 8th January 2013, 07:56 AM   #837
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post


How long do you think it takes a point particle to complete a single revolution?
ε2π seconds?⚡
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student 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 8th January 2013, 08:28 AM   #838
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
How long do you think it takes a point particle to complete a single revolution?
"How long can you tread water?"
Kwalish Kid 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 8th January 2013, 08:47 AM   #839
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Are you claiming that the gravity for a photon is dependent on its relative velocity?
The gravitational attraction between any two objects or particles is dependent on their relative velocity - or more precisely, the dot-product of their 4-momenta. That's a Lorentz invariant quantity.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
So, the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, while gravity is not? As for the special case, how can black holes hold the photons back via gravitons unless they travel faster than the speed of light, which would violate Einstein's relativity?
Gravity is more than just Lorentz invariant. Lorentz invariance is the set of symmetries of flat spacetime. Gravity determines the spacetime, which (away from singularities) is locally flat... so gravity is locally Lorentz invariant, but globally can have other symmetries.

Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
Ok, if the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, then it can ONLY give rest mass to particles. Otherwise the mass would be dependent on the particles' velocity relative to the Higgs field as an absolute frame of reference.
That's correct.
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 8th January 2013, 10:54 AM   #840
ctamblyn
Data Ghost
 
ctamblyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: The Library
Posts: 2,898
Originally Posted by Anders Lindman View Post
So, the Higgs field is Lorenz invariant, while gravity is not? As for the special case, how can black holes hold the photons back via gravitons unless they travel faster than the speed of light, which would violate Einstein's relativity?
Sol already answered, so I'll just add that I came across this page on John Baez's site that you might find interesting (I think it answers your question, in a roundabout way):

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...k_gravity.html

(It's worth remembering, though, that no-one has observed a graviton; they are hypothetical particles, for the time being at least. GR itself already describes in classical terms how light is affected by gravity and why it can't escape from inside the event horizon of a black hole.)
__________________
Join Team 13232 - Folding@Home
ctamblyn 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 12:29 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.