|
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. |
8th January 2013, 11:07 AM | #841 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 13,833
|
Then the usual illustration of how particles moving through the Higgs field make them have mass is a bit misleading. The motion through the Higgs field is irrelevant for generating mass.
In this Fermilab video they even compare the Higgs field with water and claim that it is made of Higgs particles, just like how water is made of water molecules: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIg1Vh7uPyw |
8th January 2013, 12:20 PM | #842 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
I've never heard anyone make such a claim. Perhaps you took something too literally. Motion through the Higgs field is ill-defined, since the Higgs field doesn't have a restframe.
Quote:
|
4th February 2013, 06:43 AM | #843 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Some recent news on the Higgs particle.
From: RÉSONAANCES: Twin Peaks in ATLAS:
Quote:
However,
Quote:
From: The first LHC protons run ends with new milestone | CERN press office
Quote:
That will help it get better statistics on Higgs-decay directionality, and also processes like Higgs -> bottom-bottom Higgs -> tau-tau which are expected from the particle's making masses for the other Standard Model particles. Bumping up the LHC's energy and luminosity will also be good for making supersymmetry-partner particles, or else pushing up their masses' lower limits. I can't post links because I don't have enough posts. But it should be easy to find the originals for what I've posted, so I hope I don't seem like I'm guilty of plagiarism. |
4th February 2013, 12:14 PM | #844 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
I've had a lot of experience with Farsight's arguments.
Some of his arguments are a theologian's sorts of arguments, like treating Albert Einstein's work as sacred books that it would be wrong to depart from. Even though Einstein departed from Farsight's beliefs, like believing in a unified space-time and rejecting space-motion. One can easily extend Farsight's "demonstration" of the nonexistence of time to "demonstrate" the nonexistence of space. One can also "demonstrate" that rainbows and clouds are solid objects with it, and also that gravity and electrostatic and magnetostatic fields do not exist. As to Farsight's argument that the Higgs particle does not account for much of the Universe's mass, that's an irrelevant side issue. It makes the rest masses of all the other massive Standard-Model particles. I add that qualification between the photon and gluon stay massless, the state of every Standard-Model particle but the Higgs particle before electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs mechanism. Hadrons are bound states, so their masses don't count as Standard-Model particle masses. Nucleons get most of their masses from color confinement. Their quarks and gluons cannot get more than about 10^(-15) m from each other without those particles' interactions getting superstrong. This means that those particles' wavefunctions cannot extend over a greater size, and thus that their masses should be about a few hundred MeV. Thus, the nucleons' masses. As to the actual mass of the Universe at the present time, from the Lambda-CDM model, it is Baryonic matter: 5% Dark matter: 22% Dark energy: 73% Cosmic Microwave Background: 6*10^(-5) Cosmic Neutrino Background: <~ 0.5% Of the particles made massive by the Higgs particle, the up and down quarks contribute about 1% to the nucleons' masses, and nucleons have nearly all the mass of baryonic matter. Electrons contribute about 0.5% or less. Binding energies are a more difficult problem, though for the most part, those are insignificant. Neutrinos' masses are an oddity, and the best explanation so far is the seesaw model. In it, right-handed neutrinos have "Majorana masses" of about 10^(12) GeV or thereabouts, a mass that makes them their own antiparticles. Flip its spin and it becomes its antiparticle. This mixes with the neutrinos' "Dirac masses", which connect the left-handed and right-handed parts. These are the sort of masses that the charged elementary fermions have, masses that the Higgs mechanism makes. The origin of "dark matter" particles' masses continues to be mysterious, and the origin of the mass of "dark energy" is even more mysterious. |
4th February 2013, 12:51 PM | #845 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'm the one who challenges theological-like woo by pointing to what Einstein/Maxwell/Minkowski etc said, and to the hard scientific evidence. Lpetrich rabbits on about the multiverse and similar speculative junk.
No you can't. I say things like hold your hands up and you can see the gap, the space between them, but you can't see time flowing. And I don't claim that time does not exist, I say it exists like heat exists. No you can't. Drop a pencil. It falls down. Gravitational fields exist. It's not my argument. See A Zeptospace Odyssey by Gian Giudice. He's a CERN physicist. When he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter it's not irrelevant. Giudice also says the Higgs mechanism is the "toilet of the Standard model". Also see Particle headache: Why the Higgs could spell disaster where you can read this: "It's a nice story, but one that some find a little contrived. "The minimal standard model Higgs is like a fairy tale," says Guido Altarelli of CERN near Geneva, Switzerland. "It is a toy model to make the theory match the data, a crutch to allow the standard model to walk a bit further until something better comes along." These are CERN professionals expressing their disatisfaction with the Higgs mechanism. And this is a skeptics forum. By the by, the Fermilab video Anders referred to above features Don Lincoln, and it is patronising schoolboy trash. The electron is a bound state too. It's a body, Einstein referred to it as such when he said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. Whatever the mechanism of confinement, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. See page 174 of Giudice's book, where he says this: "Although the nature of dark matter is still unknown, it is unlikely that its mass originates from the Higgs substance. In summary the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1% of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2% of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass" |
4th February 2013, 05:28 PM | #846 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
That is wrong. You are the one who makes up theological-like woo by misinterpreting what Einstein/Maxwell/Minkowski etc said, and never citing the hard scientific evidence.
The well known fact that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter is not irrelevant. It is however an irrelevant side issue for this thread. Particle headache: Why the Higgs could spell disaster Wrong - that are no CERN professionals expressing their disatisfaction with the Higgs mechanism in the article. There CERN professionals expressing their disatisfaction with the minimal standard model Higgs (the one that has probably been found). And this is a skeptics forum. By the by, the Fermilab video Anders referred to above features Don Lincoln. It is a nice (if simplistic) description of the Higgs boson and does not claim to be anything else.. What is a Higgs Boson?
Quote:
That is nonsense. A free electron is not bound to anything. It is not in a bound state. Fixed your statement . I would speculate that Giudice is wrong. Dark matter is likely to be a new fundemental particle. Thus its mass will originate from the Higgs "substance". If it is a composite particle like a protpn or neutron then ist mass will originate from its fundemental particles (Higgs) and binding between them. I do not know why Giudice is concerned about that 1% number. A proton is made of 2 up quarks and a down quark (8 to 11 Mev) but has a mass of 938 Mev. Protons make up most of the mass of the universe. Thus the Higgs mechanism providing ~1% of the mass is not surprising. The reason is as lpetrich stated:
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
4th February 2013, 05:53 PM | #847 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
You just proved his point, as you are wont to do, that you treat certain texts as holy. Anybody who is not a worshiper of those three people knows that they occasionally said things that were simply wrong. (Even Einstein admitted that some of what he wrote was wrong.) The way to avoid merely parroting a person is to engage in some understanding of what they wrote about. You refuse to do this, since you refuse to learn general relativity.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
4th February 2013, 10:17 PM | #848 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
I can't see space either. Just a lot of perceptions that I unconsciously interpret as an angular distance, and from there, a linear distance. Time is no different.
Quote:
Quote:
Interestingly, the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model requires not the SM's single Higgs doublet but two Higgs doublets before electroweak symmetry breaking. In the SUSY version as in the ordinary version, some of the modes get "eaten" by the W and the Z, but not surprisingly, there are more survivors. Unlike the single neutral Higgs of the SM, the MSSM has 3 neutral Higgses and 1 charged Higgs. However, the MSSM's extra particles can have masses much greater than the observed Higgs particle's mass.
Quote:
In fact, the Dirac hypothesis has been tested in elementary-particle experiments, like at the LHC's predecessor in its tunnels, the LEP. That accelerator smashed electrons and positrons into each other with energies of more than 100 GeV, and the electron still had Dirac structure.
Quote:
|
6th February 2013, 10:55 AM | #849 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
Indeed. I addressed some of the issues with the Standard Model several months ago in this very thread. In fact, the article Farsight linked to uses almost the same words:
Quote:
Quote:
It also seems a little odd that Farsight keeps bringing up people having concerns about the standard model as if it's some kind of important dissent that no-one's aware of. Yes, there are lots of things in physics we don't currently understand. Trying to get a better understanding is the entire reason we built the LHC in the first place. The fact that the particle we've found appears so far to be exactly what we weren't expecting - a Higgs boson consistent with the existing standard model - simply means that things are likely to get even more interesting since none of the explanations we've come up with so far are likely to be correct. Finding out new things isn't a problem, it's the whole point of doing science. |
6th February 2013, 11:26 AM | #850 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
More on the Higgs particle in general.
The Standard Model has a rather baroque structure, and I don't know if any of you people might want to see any of the details. Before electroweak symmetry breaking the SM Higgs particle is a multiplet with two neutral particles and one charged particle with charges +- 1 * elementary charge. In electroweak symmetry breaking, the W and the Z become massive, and they "eat" some of the Higgs particles, turning them into additional polarization modes. The W's consume the charged Higgses and the Z one of the neutral ones, leaving only one neutral one. That's the Higgs particle that's likely being observed. This particle is rather badly behave theoretically when one tries to extrapolate its behavior up to Grand Unified Theory energies. But if it has a close relative with spin 1/2, it can be tamed. There is a theory that specifies such particles: supersymmetry. It relates particles with different spins, and supersymmetry partners must share masses and their other quantum numbers. But is supersymmetry is broken, then we can account for the lack of observations of known particles' superpartners: those superpartners are too massive to observe. The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model, as it's called, features not one but two Higgs multiplets before electroweak symmetry breaking. After it, one charged and one neutral Higgs particle disappear into the W and Z, as with the plain SM, but that leaves three neutral Higgses and one charged Higgs. One of the neutral Higgses is much like the SM Higgs, and the others can be much more massive. In fact, if they are, then the light Higgs is very close to the SM Higgs in its behavior. |
6th February 2013, 11:45 AM | #851 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
I once wrote in more detail about Standard-Model problems, noting a blog entry by Lubos Motl on that subject. The problems can be divided into two types: empirical and theoretical.
Empirical: observed effects that do not fit the Standard Model
Theoretical: self-consistency problems, complexities, features that suggest underlying theories
Proton decay fits neither, it must be said, but if it's ever observed, it will become an empirical problem for the Standard Model. I once identified a cycle of discovery in the fundamental constituents of the Universe:
|
7th February 2013, 01:34 AM | #852 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
Welcome, lpetrich, and thanks for the very informative posts.
|
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
7th February 2013, 05:42 AM | #853 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
It isn't dissent, it's physicists telling it how it is. The issue is the Higgs sector of the standard model, not the standard model itself.
And it's important to understand that the Higgs mechanism is the weakest link of the standard model, that it's thought to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter whilst the rest is down to E=mc², and like Susskind said, is absolutely nothing to do with "cosmic treacle". Dismissing things like this because they're at odds with CERN publicity material for gullible saps does not advance understanding, it clouds it. Is this a skeptics forum or what? What's been found is a statistical bump on a graph, a "resonance" that lasts no time flat. It could be anything. |
7th February 2013, 06:34 AM | #854 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I point to what they said and I'm forever referring to hard scientific evidence, you dismiss it because you believe in nonsense. Have a read of mass-energy equivalence on wikipedia. It isn't theological-like woo:
"In physics, in particular special and general relativity, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. In this concept, mass is a property of all energy; energy is a property of all mass; and the two properties are connected by a constant." No it isn't, it's of crucial importance. As is the issue of how the Higgs boson gets its mass. See above - it's from the kinetic energy supplied to the protons. You're clutching at straws and engaging in wishful thinking. It's pathetic junk that explains nothing at all. The Barracuda v Eddie-no-stranger-to-donuts is risible garbage. People have speculated along these lines for decades, but no actual evidence for a new fundamental particle has shown up. Like me Giudice likes relativity. I imagine that he knows that the energy of a gravitational field, which acts gravitatively like any other form of energy, has a mass equivalence. He's just being honest. What's noticeable is that it doesn't feature in the CERN publicity material. I imagine there's some tensions between the physicists and the management. You don't understand what lpetrich said, you just latch onto it because of wishful thinking. Gluons are virtual particles, we've never seen a free quark, and like Einstein said, mass is a measure of energy content. Given that some amount of energy is confined by some mechanism, the mass of the resultant system is a measure of how much energy is confined. This applies globally, even when the resultant system is a particle. |
7th February 2013, 07:17 AM | #855 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
|
7th February 2013, 07:20 AM | #856 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
7th February 2013, 07:28 AM | #857 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
You can literally see the gap between your hands. You know they're not together. And you can waggle those hands and see them move. So space and motion have an empirical foundation which "the flow of time" does not. Plus you cannot move through time like you can move through space, so time is patently different.
Time isn't, the worse inference is the flow of time and moving through time. See this and other reports describing how the LHC results are "not consistent with many of the most likely models of Susy". Aslo see what Woit has to say. In short, SUSY is a busted flush. Note the word "structure", and that in pair production we can construct electrons and positrons from gamma photons. Also note that low-energy annihilation typically results in gamma photons. And see LEP on wiki. With sufficient energy you can create other structures. Google it. Some of those structures are definitely bound. And see atomic orbital and note this: The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. Electrons exist as standing waves full stop, we can diffract them. They're self-bound structures. It's what Einstein said in his E=mc² paper. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. And he referred to the electron as a body. The Higgs mechanism contradicts this, and asserts that the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field. I know that you and others seek to support the standard model, but by backing the Higgs mechanism whilst playing dumb about E=mc² you’re threatening the standard model. Remember what Giudice said: it’s the toilet of the standard model. It needs to be replaced, lpetrich. By a symmetry. |
7th February 2013, 07:46 AM | #858 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I bring up physicists having concerns about the Higgs sector of the standard model. People are generally not aware that it's the cuckoo in the nest.
Originally Posted by edd
|
7th February 2013, 07:56 AM | #859 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
LOL at this Wikipedia-thumping.
Quote:
Quote:
It's not the "energy" that's confined, it's the quark and gluon fields. |
7th February 2013, 08:27 AM | #860 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
|
But you haven't read about it in a physics textbook and you have never done any problems, done any experiments, or developed any applications that use the actual science of this equivalence. Yet you claim, on the basis of your wikipedia knowledge, to criticize almost every scientist working in the field on their knowledge of physics.
Please explain how waggling your hands is evidence of motion. Your reasoning on this point is not clear. Your earlier responses to requests for clarification on this issue were insults and refusals. |
7th February 2013, 08:30 AM | #861 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
Right.
The Higgs boson is (probably) responsible for 1% of the mass of matter in the universe. The mass of any kind of matter, whether or not it is explained by the Higgs boson, can be expressed as m in E=mc². My car gets 22 miles per gallon of fuel. 5% of the fuel in my car is ethanol. Do those two statements contradict each other? |
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
7th February 2013, 09:01 AM | #862 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
We've been through this a dozen times, but I have to say it again I suppose.
The electron has a rest mass m = 511 keV. It has this mass, rather than zero mass, because of the Higgs mechanism. The electron's rest energy is E = mc^2, and which figures into all electron conservation-of-energy issues. Just like Einstein said. You are making up a conflict between these two statements. You're pulling it out of thin air and out of your own misunderstanding. Please stop. |
7th February 2013, 09:06 AM | #863 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
You dismiss Einstein, and you dismiss factually correct articles. Is there anything you won't dismiss?
What does? It's not as if Higgs or anybody else predicted a boson with a mass of 125GeV years ago. There's been postdiction on that, but not prediction.
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
"In general, a proton encountering an antiproton will turn into a number of mesons, mostly pions and kaons, which will fly away from the annihilation point. The newly created mesons are unstable, and will decay in a series of reactions that ultimately produce nothing but gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos." I'm not criticizing almost every scientist. I told you what CERN physicists think about this. Their views are at odds with the publicity pap that you lap up. I haven't responded with insults and refusals. You simply waggle your hands and you see that they don't stay in the same place. When that happens, we call it motion. It's that simple. |
7th February 2013, 09:53 AM | #864 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Arguing like a theologian again, Farsight, with your implication that I'm somehow denying some great prophet.
And what justifies adding Wikipedia to the Canon of Sacred Books of Science?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The transience of pions and muons is totally irrelevant. Strictly speaking, what we observe as elementary particles are field excitations, just as light and other electromagnetic waves are electromagnetic-field excitations. There's no "energy stuff" anywhere. I'm trying to describe a basic feature of quantum field theory in nonmathematical language. I remember a physics professor who described photons as "blobs of light". That seems reasonably close to what QFT says a photon is.
Quote:
We have an internal time sense, and we use that and our memories to deduce motion: change between one time and another. |
7th February 2013, 09:56 AM | #865 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
And you've said nothing a dozen times, apart from repeat a mantra because you still don't understand E=mc².
No it doesn't. It has this mass because that's how much energy is present in the system or structure that we call an electron. And as for what's interacting with what to create this structure, see two-photon physics and note this: "From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes. A photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion-antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple". That's saying pair production occurs because pair production occurs. It's wrong. We do not see photons spontaneously fluctuating into electrons and positrons which then magically transform back into a single photon, which all the while has been propagating at c. It has to be wrong because electrons and positrons do not propagate at c, any fluctuating photon must be travelling at less than c. So it's a photon-photon interaction that created our electron, and you don't have to be the brain of Britain to work out that a photon-photon interaction, or an electromagnetic self-interaction if you prefer, sustains the existence of that electron. And just like Einstein said, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. And from that you know that if you trapped a 511keV photon as a standing wave in a box, you will add mass m = 511keV to that system. You know that the Higgs mechanism has absolutely nothing to do with this. Now go and look at atomic orbitals and pay attention: The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. So a standing wave inside a box adds mass to that system by virtue of E=mc², but a standing wave that isn't inside a box doesn't? Come on ben, think. I'm not making it up a conflict. Einstein also said If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c². Now go and look at electron-positron annihilation. You've got two radiating bodies whose mass diminishes to zero, and then they're not there any more. Not some fabulous Higgs mechanism that magically switches off because fat Eddie turned into a barracuda. |
7th February 2013, 10:00 AM | #866 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
7th February 2013, 10:12 AM | #867 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Such a strange way of arguing.
a) Contradict a bunch of physicists. b) Say, "No, my view is obvious" c) Post an unrelated (but true in context) snippet from a popular or secondary source d) Say, "See?! See?!" as though your bizarre reading-between-the-lines process results in a truth so obvious you don't have to explain it. Above: your own words are muddled contrarian gibberish. You leap from one phase suggesting QCD is wrong, to a random quote of experimental facts perfectly consistent with QCD (p pbar -> mesons), a false (or very poorly phrased) non-fact (p pbar -> pure direct photons? Never.), and generic muddleheaded contrarianism ("where are the quark and gluon fields?"). The text you quote from Wikipedia is correct, and indeed this sort of thing is a prediction of the quark/gluon theory of hadrons and more generally of the Standard Model, and it disagrees with you. |
7th February 2013, 10:21 AM | #868 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
7th February 2013, 10:24 AM | #869 |
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
|
Argument by Pinball.
If you can bounce from side to side often enough, eventually you'll confuse your opponent and can slip between his arguments into the rabbit hole |
7th February 2013, 10:32 AM | #870 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,774
|
If there's a rabbit in your pinball machine, something has gone very wrong.
Although I actually quite like that as a metaphor. What turns up where completely unwanted, constantly gets in the way, and just plain doesn't make any sense? Farsight's claims - the rabbit in the pinball machine. |
7th February 2013, 10:42 AM | #871 |
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
|
|
7th February 2013, 10:44 AM | #872 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Geddoutofit lpetrich. I give references to back up my case, you're attempting to dismiss them, and everybody can see it. You'd be better off giving your own references to counter mine.
No I don't. We've got enough plain-vanilla physics issues with the Higgs boson without wandering off into the decades-old lah-lah land of gluinos and squarks and Higgsinos. But here's a little literature, on wikipedia: ...This lower limit is significantly above where the MSSM would typically predict it to be, and while it does not rule out the MSSM, the discovery of the Higgs with a mass of 125 GeV makes proponents of the MSSM nervous. ...As the Higgs was found at around 125 GeV (along with no other superparticles) at the LHC, this strongly hints at new dynamics beyond the MSSM such as the 'Next to Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model' (NMSSM). Quick lpetrich, shift them goalposts! Get used to it. When Einstein said energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another, he wasn't kidding. But the energy doesn't disappear. So think again about it's not the "energy" that's confined, it's the quark and gluon fields. Oh, and do note that gluons are virtual particles. They were never really there anyway. Not as little bullet-things rattling back and forth between the quarks. It's the same for virtual photons. Magnets don't shine, and hydrogen atoms don't twinkle. You referred to quark and gluon fields, if we say these are quark/gluon field excitations and then note that these are annihilated to electromagnetic field excitations, then note that energy is conserved along with what Einstein said (see above), and then look up Higgs substance, it's crystal clear that you're talking out of your hat. And that you don't know that this "Higgs substance" would pan out a whole lot better if it were responsible for photon energy-momentum as well as electron mass. Because that then introduces the symmetry between momentum and inertia: a wave in space resists your efforts to change its state of motion whether it's moving on an open path or a closed path. I beg to differ. I think a better description would involve a lattice distortion, this lattice being merely a visual aid.
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
|
7th February 2013, 11:01 AM | #873 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'd say it's because of action h in E=hf which is common to all photons, which is in turn related to the properties of space. Have a read of The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance and is intimately related to angular momentum. Only one wavelength and therefore energy is the right energy to match h and convert a gamma photon moving at c into the standing-wave structure called an electron.
|
7th February 2013, 11:07 AM | #874 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
7th February 2013, 11:09 AM | #875 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Yes I do, and I can derive that formula. Can you?
Quote:
Electrons have spin 1/2, and there is no way to get one from an integer-spin field. Rotate a system with spin j by 360 degrees. Its wavefunction will get a sign of (-1)2j relative to its original. Photons get +1, electrons get -1, and never the twain shall meet. One likewise can't get Fermi-Dirac statistics from a system that follows Bose-Einstein statistics. Like what happens to a combined wavefunction upon interchange: BE: X(2,1) = + X(1,2) FD: X(2,1) = - X(1,2)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th February 2013, 11:23 AM | #876 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
|
Like some theologian quoting some sacred books?
(Wikipedia-thumping snipped) The Wikipedia article on "MSSM Higgs Mass" has a note on it stating "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)". So please explain to us once again, Farsight, why Wikipedia deserves the status of a sacred book.
Quote:
|
7th February 2013, 11:23 AM | #877 |
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 |
|
7th February 2013, 11:25 AM | #878 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
I'd say it's because of action h in E=hf which is common to all photons, which is in turn related to the properties of space. Have a read of The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance and is intimately related to angular momentum. Only one wavelength and therefore energy is the right energy to match h and convert a gamma photon moving at c into the standing-wave structure called an electron.
|
7th February 2013, 11:26 AM | #879 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
You cut out bits of text, wrap them in quote tags, and refer to them.
That does not mean that they back up your case. You're so wrong, even Abraham Lincoln knew you were wrong:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th February 2013, 12:15 PM | #880 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Change the record lpetrich. I'm the one quoting bona-fide references here. You're the one behaving like a theologian dismissing the science I'm referring to.
It doesn't. It merely gives a fairly accurate description of current physics knowledge whilst demonstrates that I'm not just making this stuff up. What's absurd is the notion that gluons are real particles. They aren't. They're virtual particles. They aren't real particles prior to proton-antiproton annihilation, and they aren't real particles thereafter when we've rendered the proton and the antiproton down to gamma photons. We do not see gluons spilling out of proton-antiproton annihilation.
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
Originally Posted by lpetrich
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|