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 19th February 2013, 03:37 PM   #961
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
In the real world the ferromagnetic material rotates.
Yes. Which the Dirac equation explains without requiring substructure.

Quote:
Mesons are seen, jets are seen, but we've never seen a free quark.
Yes. As QCD predicted.

Quote:
And remember that gluons are virtual particles. They aren't real particles.
It's a distinction without a difference, and one I suspect you didn't attempt to understand particularly well before adopting a pedantic tone. The only distinction between a "virtual particle" and a "real particle" is that a virtual particle may be "off mass shell" as allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. But all particles are at least somewhat off mass shell, so everything is virtual. Photons, pions, quarks, atomic excitations, gauge bosons, etc.. Some aspects of neutrino-oscillations can treated explicitly as virtual neutrino exchange between sources and detectors.

The reason that you---or whoever you're quoting---might have said "gluons are virtual" is that it's uncommon for any single gluon to have a long free-flight path. (You can do it---a high-momentum gluon traversing a hot quark-gluon plasma would, I believe, be as free as a photon.) But that's a matter of detail. A crackpot living in a hot plasma bath would, with equal justification, insist that plasmons were "real" but photons were only "virtual".
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 19th February 2013, 03:51 PM   #962
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
And what gives it that energy content?
The things and the process that formed it. For example you make an electron and a positron by starting with a massless photon of over 1022keV, which you effectively split over a nucleus. The nucleus moves a little and takes some of the energy provided by the photon, and the electron and the positron end up moving, also taking some of the energy provided by the photon. However most of the energy goes into the mass-energy of the electron and the positron. If these don't have enough separation speed, they will annihilate, and the result will be two photons of circa 511keV.

Alternatively to make the thing commonly known as a Higgs boson, you start with protons, then you give them kinetic energy by accelerating them, then you collide them. For the barest instant you can get something with a mass-energy of circa 125Gev which may decay into two photons. Or something else. Remember that all they've actually found is a bump on a graph. You get other things with other mass-energies too, but note that none of them are stable.

Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
None of that suggests that Einstein didn't view electric fields and magnetic fields as fields.
He viewed the electromagnetic field as the field concerned. See this easy-reading article. Note this:

"Thus the existence of the electric field was a relative one, according to the state of motion of the coordinate system used, and only the electric and magnetic field together could be ascribed a kind of objective reality"

He didn't say electromagnetic field and then work on grand unification for decades thinking that E and B were separate fields. But here we are a hundred years later, and you guys still think E and B are separate fields. Fair takes the breath away.

Originally Posted by godless dave
There are multiple electromagnetic fields, so I'm not sure why you're concentrating on the singular/plural distinction.
Because Clinger thinks E and B are fields instead of denoting linear and rotational force resulting from electromagnetic field interactions. Because he hasn't paid any attention to Maxwell's screw or Minkowski's wrench. He doesn't understand that the electromagnetic field has a screw nature. If I depict an "electric field", I draw radial field lines. If I depict a "magnetic field" I draw concentric circular field lines. But the actual field is the electromagnetic field. To depict it I have to combine the radial and concentric lines like this. Once you've taken this in you might understand why Maxwell's page title was The Theory of Molecular Vortices. He died before his time. Before the electron was discovered.

Right, I'm off to bed.
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 19th February 2013, 04:03 PM   #963
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The things and the process that formed it. For example you make an electron and a positron by starting with a massless photon of over 1022keV
Why can't a 922 keV photon make an electron-positron pair? There's a perfectly good Special Relativity solution for this. A 922 keV passing a nucleus, could make a 411 keV electron and a 411 keV positron. This conserves energy, momentum, and charge; it obeys E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, and so on..

Electrons would obey SR (and E=mc^2) if they weighed 411 keV. Or 0 keV. Or 1000 GeV. But electrons have one particular mass, and it's the same mass every time, because of the Higgs mechanism.

Of course, you've heard this all before and failed to understand it.
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 19th February 2013, 04:11 PM   #964
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,759
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Because Clinger thinks E and B are fields instead of denoting linear and rotational force resulting from electromagnetic field interactions. Because he hasn't paid any attention to Maxwell's screw or Minkowski's wrench. He doesn't understand that the electromagnetic field has a screw nature. If I depict an "electric field", I draw radial field lines. If I depict a "magnetic field" I draw concentric circular field lines. But the actual field is the electromagnetic field. To depict it I have to combine the radial and concentric lines like this.

No, Farsight, that picture does not depict an electromagnetic field. We've already been through an entire thread devoted to the crackpot physics advocated by John Duffield of Poole. It would be hard to improve upon ben m's response to your picture and claim in post #3 of that thread: "No it's not."

For a picture of genuine magnetic fields, derived directly from Maxwell's equations and calculated by a simple computer program, see my web page discussing magnetic reconnection. Every graph and animation on that page shows a magnetic field B for which the accompanying E field is essentially zero. Please notice that only the simplest magnetic field on that page consists of "concentric circular field lines".

If you understood electromagnetism, you could check my calculations and graphs for yourself. Since you don't speak math, you can only huff and puff about how you're right and all the physicists and mathematicians in this forum are wrong. We respond to your advocacy of crackpot physics only to reduce the risk that someone other than yourself will fall for it.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2013, 04:21 PM   #965
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Exactly. I'm telling it how it is. And the true picture is very different to the cosmic-treacle nonsense which many people take as a given.
What "cosmic-treacle nonsense"?
Quote:
Everybody in the business who knows anything about electromagnetism knows that the field concerned is the electromagnetic field.
Described by the "Faraday tensor" F with its 6 independent components. The E and B fields are its 3+1 decomposition, a result of decomposing space-time into 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension.
F01 = E1, F02 = E2, F03 = E3, F10 = -E1, F20 = -E2, F30 = -E3, F12 = -B3, F23 = -B1, F31 = -B2, F21 = B3, F32 = B1, F13 = B2, F00 = F11 = F22 = F33 = 0
0 = time, 1,2,3 = space
Quote:
In his 1920 Leyden Address Einstein said ...
As if that document is an inspired text, a revelation of Absolute Truth.
Quote:
Here, read what the guy said, and this time pay attention to it:
A scriptural-percussionist approach.
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
In the real world the ferromagnetic material rotates.
Which does not mean that electrons spin in classical-limit fashion.
Quote:
In the real world a Dirac spinor isn't called a spinor for nothing.
The "spin" is built-in angular momentum, like the angular momentum carried by circularly-polarized electromagnetic waves.
Quote:
I've referred to electron models which have received scant publicity and which people like you dismiss.
Why does it deserve to be taken seriously? Can you show *mathematically* that one gets the Dirac theory from it in some reasonable approximation? Extra credit if you can get electromagnetic and weak interaction vertices from it.

Every physicist who has tried to construct some superset of the Standard Model has recognized that this superset has to agree with the SM to the accuracy that the SM has been tested. Farsight, you must play by those rules in order to be taken seriously.
lpetrich 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 19th February 2013, 04:53 PM   #966
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Which means those theories that predict it are wrong. Have a google on that.
Which means those theories that predict it are not yet wrong. Have a google on that.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No! There’s an online copy of John David Jackson’s Classical Electrodynamics here.
Did you even bother reading what you quoted?
See section 1.2 where he says
Quote:
Although the thing that eventually gets measured is a force and At the moment the electric field can be defined as the force per unit charge acting at a given point. Then see see section 11.10 where he says one should properly speak of the electromagnetic field Fuv rather than E or B separately.

(my emnphasis added)
Now quote where he states that E and B are not fields as you asserted.
E is an electric field.
B is a magnetic field.
There is also the electromagnetic field. They are all fields.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Enough.
Does this means that you have learned what an electron is at last !
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 19th February 2013, 05:12 PM   #967
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
What "cosmic-treacle nonsense"?
I think he's trying to say that a certain analogy sometimes used to describe the Higgs mechanism to people with very little understanding of theoretical physics, and which therefore is grossly inaccurate in certain respects (but still has some pedagogical value), but which every physicist with a modicum of understanding of the Higgs mechanism knows is grossly inaccurate, might just be grossly inaccurate.

I wouldn't worry about 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
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 19th February 2013, 05:26 PM   #968
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Question Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
In the real world the ferromagnetic material rotates.
You do not seem to understadd the Einstein–de Haas effect
In the real world the ferromagnetic material is driven to rotate by an impulse of current through a surronding coil.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
In the real world a Dirac spinor isn't called a spinor for nothing.
In the real world a Dirac spinor isn't called a spinor for nothing. It describes quamtum mechanical spin.
But only a great deal of ignorance would lead someone to think that this is classical spin.

As an example of the difference:
  • If you rotate something through 360 degrees classically, it returns to its original state.
  • If you rotate something through 360 degrees usung a spinor, it returis in a different state. You have to rotate it by 720 degrees to return to the original state.
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Not so. I've referred to electron models
You have reffered to a PDF called Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? on a web site which has received scant publicity because it was published in 1997 in Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie.
What you wrote sounds like you have the delusion that science works by popular acclaim !

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
We can't get past first base on E=mc² or the electromagnetic field, ...
You mean you cannot.
We know what E=mc² means. It means that you can convert between energy and mass and vise versa. You seem to have the fantasy that it somehow creates mass only.
We know what the electromagnetic field is.
We know what a spinor is.
We know that the scientific evidence is that electrons act as fundamental particle (no substructure).
We know that the scientific evidence is that quarks are real particles.

And of course: We know what the term relativistic means in a relativistic QFT like the Higgs mechanism!
You still show no signs of understanding the phyics or even the English involved.
Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic?
93 days and counting, Farsight!

Or have you realized that the Higgs meachanism is relativistic and does not violate E = mc^2, Farsight?

The above posts were 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
and
Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates SR
First poined out 20 November 2012.
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 19th February 2013, 05:53 PM   #969
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
If anyone is interested: The Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? paper came up almost 3 years ago and is fundematally flawed. This was exlained to Farsight in the Relativity+ / Farsight's thread, e.g. OK, I've read the Williamson and van der Mark paper again. (they should have got a charge of zero for an electron).
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 19th February 2013, 06:51 PM   #970
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If anyone is interested: The Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? paper came up almost 3 years ago and is fundematally flawed. This was exlained to Farsight in the Relativity+ / Farsight's thread, e.g. OK, I've read the Williamson and van der Mark paper again. (they should have got a charge of zero for an electron).
This is one of the "signature behaviors" of the physics crank. A 1997 paper presented as evidence by the crank, which has been shown to be flawed, was discussed and dismissed three years ago, but resurfaces again as if there were no prior discussion.
How many times have we seen this? Sadly, not as many times as we will continue to see it from the seemingly vast world of crankdom.
__________________
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

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 19th February 2013 at 06:53 PM.
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 19th February 2013, 07:06 PM   #971
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
According to quantum mechanics, if you rotate an entity by 360 degrees, its wavefunction will get multiplied by (-1)2j, where j is its total angular momentum.

This is because (angular momentum) ~ (hbar)*(rotation generators)

The total angular momentum for a set of entities with angular momenta j1, j2, ..., jn is

sum(j1, j2, ..., jn) - (nonnegative integer)

Likewise, orbital angular momentum is always a nonnegative integer. That means that this multiplication factor is thus

Product of (-1)2*spin for each particle

This is equal to (-1)F for a system with F fermions. Bosons don't affect that number.


We don't see this effect in our macroscopic experience, because of the nature of the classical limit of quantum mechanics.

In the particle limit, we only see the absolute squares or magnitudes of the wavefunctions, so this effect cancels out.

In the wave limit, the wave entities are all bosonic: gravity, electromagnetism, sound, superfluids, superconductivity, etc. so rotating them 360d gives the same wavefunction.
lpetrich 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 19th February 2013, 07:08 PM   #972
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Originally Posted by godless gave
And what gives it that energy content?
The things and the process that formed it.
Exactly. e=mc2 doesn't tell you the sources of mass, and Einstein never claimed it did. It tells you how to calculate the energy equivalence for a given mass, or the mass equivalence for a given amount of energy. You're seeing a contradiction where none exists.
__________________
"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
godless dave 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 19th February 2013, 11:55 PM   #973
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Referring back to RÉSONAANCES: Twin Peaks in ATLAS, the ATLAS team reports on a measurement of the spin of the putative Higgs particle. This was done by comparing the decay-product directions to the beam directions. If the particle has nonzero spin, then its creation would give it a directional imprint, an imprint ultimately from the beam directions. This imprint would then carry over to its decay products' directions, where it can then be detected. However, if the particle has zero spin, then there will be zero directional imprint. The ATLAS team reports zero imprint to within experimental limits, thus likely zero spin.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The things and the process that formed it. For example you make an electron and a positron by starting with a massless photon of over 1022keV, which you effectively split over a nucleus. ...
Except that the 1022-keV energy is observation-relative. One can move relative to the photon and thus redshift or blueshift it. What really counts here is the center-of-mass energy of the whole system. Is it enough to make both an electron and a positron?

That's why many recent accelerators aim particles at each other from opposite directions as opposed to using stationary targets. Farsight, I challenge you to work out the relativistic kinematics of why do that. Find the center-of-mass energy of:

A moving proton and a stationary proton.
Two protons moving at the same speed but in opposite directions.

Quote:
Alternatively to make the thing commonly known as a Higgs boson, you start with protons, then you give them kinetic energy by accelerating them, then you collide them. For the barest instant you can get something with a mass-energy of circa 125Gev which may decay into two photons. Or something else. Remember that all they've actually found is a bump on a graph. You get other things with other mass-energies too, but note that none of them are stable.
What an exercise in irrelevance. If it decays, it's not really elementary? That's a very dumb position.

Quote:
But here we are a hundred years later, and you guys still think E and B are separate fields. Fair takes the breath away.
They are parts of the Faraday tensor. Yawn.
Quote:
Once you've taken this in you might understand why Maxwell's page title was The Theory of Molecular Vortices. He died before his time. Before the electron was discovered.
Thump, thump, thump, thump, thump. As if Maxwell was some inspired prophet. Truly a theologian's argument.
lpetrich 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 20th February 2013, 09:26 AM   #974
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
A field is a mathematical model that assigns a value (scalar or vector) to every point in space. From wikipedia:
Quote:
The (electromagnetic) field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law.
Or, alternatively:
Quote:
An electromagnetic four-potential is a relativistic vector function from which the electromagnetic field can be derived. It combines both an electric scalar potential and a magnetic vector potential into a single four-vector.
As usual, the mathematics is the key to understanding. One can model the electromagnetic field either way, depending on the need. There is no reality to the question as to whether E and B fields are distinct fields. Farsight's folksy non-mathematical physics fails again.
__________________
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 20th February 2013, 09:37 AM   #975
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
If anyone is interested: The Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology? paper came up almost 3 years ago and is fundematally flawed. This was exlained to Farsight in the Relativity+ / Farsight's thread, e.g. OK, I've read the Williamson and van der Mark paper again. (they should have got a charge of zero for an electron).
Perhaps the moderators might consider restricting Farsight to that thread?
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 20th February 2013, 01:32 PM   #976
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
As I was looking for stuff on elementary-particle quantum numbers and the Higgs particle, I found [1301.4965] Probing the spin-parity of the Higgs boson via jet kinematics in vector boson fusion

Most of it is rather technical, but I'll mention a few details. It's about studying Higgs -> WW or ZZ, two of the strongest decay channels of that particle. Strictly speaking, Higgs -> WW* or ZZ*, one real and one virtual.


The decay will make the W's or Z's polarizations correlated, and since those particles' polarizations affect the directions of the particles they decay into, one can get an idea of that correlation from the observed particles' or jets' directions.

That correlation depends on whether the Higgs particle is CP-even, CP-odd, or anywhere in between. C = charge symmetry, P = parity. It also depends on that particle's spin, and that provides a test in addition to possible beam imprints.


What do the theories predict?

The Standard Model predicts an even-parity CP-even Higgs particle: JPC = 0++

The MSSM agrees about zero spin, and it also predicts that, to lowest order, its three neutral Higgs particles will be 2 CP-even ones and 1 CP-odd one. The light one of the 2 CP-even ones will be much like the Standard-Model Higgs particle. However, higher-order effects may transmit CP violation to the Higgs particles.


But testing these and other Higgs-related possibilities may have to wait until the LHC gets restarted in 2015.
lpetrich 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 25th February 2013, 07:14 AM   #977
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Let's now look at how well the Standard Model fits some Grand Unified Theories. What extra particles do they predict? From simplicity, one would want to avoid predicting a large number of them to fill out the multiplets.

The simplest one is the Georgi-Glashow SU(5) theory:
What Hand Mult To SM SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1)
Gauge - 24 g(8,1,0) + W(1,3,0) + B(1,1,0) + (3,2,-5/6) + (3*,2,5/6)
Higgs L 5 Hu(1,2,1/2) + (3,1,-1/3)
  L 5* Hd(1,2,-1/2) + (3*,1,1/3)
  R 5* Hu*(1,2,-1/2) + (3*,1,1/3)
  R 5 Hd*(1,2,1/2) + (3,1,-1/3)
EF's L 1 N*(1,1,0)
  R 5 L*(1,2,1/2) + D(3,1,-1/3)
  L 10 Q(3,2,1/6) + U*(3*,1,-2/3) + E*(1,1,1)
  R 10* Q*(3*,2,-1/6) + U(3,1,2/3) + E(1,1,-1)
  L 5* L(1,2,-1/2) + D*(3*,1,1/3)
  R 1 N(1,1,0)
g = gluon, W = unbroken W multiplet (W+,W-,W0). W0 + B -> Z + photon
Hu and Hd are the two MSSM Higgs multiplets before electroweak symmetry breaking.
EF = elementary fermions
Q = left-handed up, down quarks, U = right-handed up quarks, D = right-handed down quarks
L = left-handed neutrino, electron, N = right-handed neutrino, E = right-handed electron
L and R = left and right chiralities / handedness. Each R one is the antiparticle of a L one, and vice versa. Gauge particles are their own antiparticles.

Both the gauge and the Higgs multiplets get some extra particles that can cause proton decay. These must have GUT masses for that decay to be within experimental limits.

The elementary fermions have an interesting pattern, one like binomial(5,k) for k = 0 to 5, with even k's left-handed and odd k's right-handed. Right-handed neutrinos are still gauge singlets, however.

The next step is the Fritzsch-Minkowski-Georgi SO(10) theory:
What Hand Mult To SU(5)*U(1)
Gauge - 45 G(24,0) + (10,-1) + (10*,1) + (1,0)
Higgs L 10 Hu(5,-1/2) + Hd(5*,1/2)
  R 10 Hd*(5,-1/2) + Hu*(5*,1/2)
EF's L 16 F(1,5/4) + F(10,1/4) + F(5*,-3/4)
  R 16* F(1,-5/4) + F(10*,-1/4) + F(5,3/4)
The Higgs particles have been unified, as have the elementary fermions, in one multiplet per generation. The only unobserved EF here is the right-handed neutrino, and it may create neutrino masses by the seesaw mechanism.

Unification is a bit too successful, because in unbroken SO(10), there is no cross-generation quark or lepton decay.

The next step is a symmetry group called E6:
What Hand Mult To SO(10)*U(1)
Gauge - 78 G(45,0) + (16,-1) + (16*,1) + (1,0)
EF+H L 27 F(16,1/3) + H(10,-2/3) + (1,4/3)
  R 27* F(16*,-1/3) + H(10,2/3) + (1,-4/3)
The elementary fermions and the Higgs particles fit into one multiplet, with the addition of a "Higgs singlet", a part of extensions of the MSSM like the NMSSM.

So why are there 3 EF generations and 1 Higgs generation? That must require some odd pattern of symmetry breaking.

The ultimate comes from string there, where a "HE heterotic string" has a gauge field with symmetry group E8*E8. We get from it
E8 -> E6 * SU(3)
248 -> (78,1) + (27,3) + (27*,3*) + (1,8)
All of the Standard Model in one gauge multiplet. The different spins and chiralities that we observe come from breaking from 10 space-time dimensions to 4.
lpetrich 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 25th February 2013, 07:24 AM   #978
Kwalish Kid
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 509
Neat stuff, thanks.

I recently got to see a planetarium demonstration of particle collisions, including a Higgs event. Very cool.
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 25th February 2013, 12:26 PM   #979
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Here's how their interactions work. I'll be focusing on elementary fermions and Higgs particles, because that's where most of the free parameters in the Standard Model are. Gauge interactions can be completely predicted from the symmetry group and multiplet structure, to within an overall coupling-constant or "charge" value.

For the Standard Model with neutrino seesaw masses, one has

yu,ijH'.Qi.U*j + yd,ijH.Qi.D*j + yn,ijH'.Li.N*j + ye,ijH.Li.E*j + mN,ij.N*i.N*j + (Hermitian conjugates) + mH2*|H|2 + gH*|H|4

H = {Hc,Hn} (charged and neutral Higgs, both complex-valued fields), H' = flipped version = {Hn*,-Hc*}

mH is the unbroken-electroweak Higgs mass, and it's imaginary, making the Higgs particle tachyonic. That makes it unstable, but the instability is limited by its self-interaction, with parameter gH. That's what makes electroweak symmetry breaking, the nonzero vacuum value of the Higgs field -- {0,v} -- and Standard Model particles' masses.


In the MSSM, both the EF's and the Higgs particles are Wess-Zumino multiplets, the simplest kind of 4D supersymmetric field. WZ multiplets are composed of SUSY-related spin-0 and spin-1/2 particles. Their interactions look much like the SM ones:

yu,ijHu.Qi.U*j + yd,ijHd.Qi.D*j + yn,ijHu.Li.N*j + ye,ijHd.Li.E*j + mHudHu.Hd + mN,ij.N*i.N*j + (Hermitian conjugates) + (oodles of SUSY-breaking terms)

When one expands it out, one gets Higgs masses and self-interactions. The Higgs particles Hu and Hd are separate, unlike in the SM -- that's a consequence of SUSY and their WZ nature.

The y's are 3*3 matrices of dimensionless complex quantities, giving 18 free parameters each, and a total of 72. mN is a 3*3 symmetric complex mass matrix, giving 12 free parameters. There is only one of mHud, and it can be complex. However, redefining the fields can easily absorb a large fraction of these parameters, and one gets quark and lepton masses and mixing angles.

In the Next to MSSM, or NMSSM, mHudHu.Hd gets replaced with gHSS.Hu.Hd with a Higgs singlet, S, and coupling constant gHS. Like the right-handed neutrino N, S is a gauge singlet, and S is also a gauge singlet in SU(5) and SO(10) GUT's.


Let's see what happens in GUT's.

In SU(5), the interactions become

yu,ijHu.F(10)i.F(10)j + yd,ijHd.F(10)i.F(5*)j + yn,ijHn.F(1)i.F(5*)j + mHudHu.Hd (or gHSS.Hu.Hd) + mN,ijF(1)i.F(1)j + (Hermitian conjugates)

where F is the EF's, ye,ij = yd,ji, and yu,ij is symmetric.

One gets bottom-tau Higgs-coupling unification, and thus mass unification, and extrapolation to GUT energies in the MSSM can get close masses. A calculation I've found is [1206.5909] Updated values of running quark and lepton masses at GUT scale in SM, 2HDM and MSSM, m(tau) ~ (1.2 or 1.3) * m(bottom) at GUT energies. Unification is not nearly as good for the lighter generations.

Still a lot of terms, however.


Now, SO(10). We get

yijH.Fi.Fj + mHudH.H (or gHSS.H.H) + (Hermitian conjugates)

where F is the EF's and H contains both MSSM Higgs doublets. One gets Higgs-coupling unification: y is symmetric, and yu, yd, yn, and ye are all equal to it. Complete with no cross-generation mixing. It must therefore be the result of breaking of SO(10) symmetry.

The right-handed-neutrino mass term drops out. It must also be produced by that symmetry breaking.

Interestingly, these interaction terms are the only terms with F and H that are possible with nonnegative mass dimension. Negative mass dimension gives bad behavior for energy scales above the interaction's mass scale. Historically, that was a problem for the original theory of the weak interactions, Fermi's four-fermion contact interaction. That was eventually solved by electroweak unification.


Turning to E6, we get even more simplification.

yijkXiXjXk + (Hermitian conjugates)

where y is symmetric, and X = the 27 multiplet: (elementary fermions: F) + (Higgs doublets: H) + (Higgs singlet: S)

Here again, these terms are the only ones possible with nonnegative mass dimension.

Going from E6 to SO(10), the possible interactions are H.F.F and S.H.H. No mHudH.H term, but instead the NMSSM term gHSS.H.H.

So E6 gets it right.


Going to E8, it has only one free parameter, the gauge coupling constant, and all the interactions must result from its self-interactions.

So we get more and more simple as we go SM - MSSM - SU(5) - SO(10) - E6 - E8. The complexity that we find is due to symmetry breaking -- a *lot* of it -- and SUSY and GUT symmetry breaking aren't very well-understood.

Last edited by lpetrich; 25th February 2013 at 12:29 PM. Reason: Added "Hermitian conjugates" to SO(10) and E6
lpetrich 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 6th March 2013, 07:14 AM   #980
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Back to GUT's, model builders have come up with numerous possibilities, and I'll stick to symmetry groups.

E6 ->
SO(10)*U(1)
SU(6)*SU(2)
SU(3)*SU(3)*SU(3) -- "trinification"

SO(10) ->
SU(5)*U(1)
SO(6)*SO(4) ~ SU(4)*SU(2)*SU(2) -- Pati-Salam: leptonness as a 4th quark color

Then further symmetry breaking to the Standard Model's SU(3)*SU(2)*U(1)

GUT symmetry breaking is even worse. Some model builders have proposed Higgs-like mechanisms at GUT energies, but they often require rather big Higgs multiplets, especially for the likes of SO(10) and E6. String-related models often involve effects of the topology of the 6 compactified space dimensions.


Then there's the question of the source of the supersymmetry breaking in SUSY-containing models. It's hard to get SUSY breaking out of the MSSM or the NMSSM by themselves, and the usual theory is that it happens in some unobserved "hidden sector". It then gets transmitted to more accessible particles by various routes: "gravity mediation", "gauge mediation", or "anomaly mediation" (3.2 SUSY Breaking Scenarios).


Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I've referred to electron models which have received scant publicity and which people like you dismiss.
So what? Does it deserve more publicity? From the looks of it, no. Every new theory has to explain what an existing theory successfully explains, and the best way to do that is to reduce to the existing theory in an appropriate limit. But I see no evidence that that electron theory can do that.
Quote:
Besides, if I did come up something that Dirac said to support my case, lpetrich will dismiss it as text-thumping.
With VERY good reason. That's how a theologian works, not how a scientist works. How a scientist works would be to discuss the properties and solutions of Dirac's electron equation without treating Dirac's writings as sacred books to be interpreted.
lpetrich 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 March 2013, 02:46 AM   #981
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
Higgs-particle news!

Quantum Diaries - Latest news on the Higgs boson
Quantum Diaries - The Standard Model passes with flying colors
Moriond Higgs Update | viXra log
So far, the putative Higgs particle behaves much like the Standard-Model one. Its interactions are less than a factor of 2 from Standard-Model predictions, and it most likely has spin 0.

HiggsPublicResults < AtlasPublic < TWiki - scroll down to " Animations". There are 4 animated GIFs of graphs that show how the Higgs-particle bump emerged as the ATLAS detector collected more data.

To get to the source, you can check out Rencontres de Moriond EW 2013 (02-09 March 2013) It has collections of slides presented at that conference as PDF's. It may warn about an untrusted security certificate; you can go ahead anyway.
lpetrich 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 March 2013, 06:36 AM   #982
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Sorry to have negelected you guys, I've been busy and haven't got to JREF much. This one is interesting:

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Why can't a 922 keV photon make an electron-positron pair? There's a perfectly good Special Relativity solution for this. A 922 keV passing a nucleus, could make a 411 keV electron and a 411 keV positron. This conserves energy, momentum, and charge; it obeys E^2 = p^2 c^2 + m^2 c^4, and so on..
Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do. Remember I've referred to Percy Hammond and the ABB50/25 program about curved space and to TQFT about particles as knots? To make an electron and a positron you use the space-curve of one photon on another to bend them both into a closed path. For an analogy think of a long thin spring-steel rod. When you flick it, a wave runs down its length. The speed relates to c which also relates to ɛ and μ denoting how easy it is to bend and how well it recovers, and the amplitude relates to h because action is momentum x distance.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Electrons would obey SR (and E=mc^2) if they weighed 411 keV. Or 0 keV. Or 1000 GeV. But electrons have one particular mass, and it's the same mass every time, because of the Higgs mechanism.
Because of the properties of space signified by c, h, ɛ, and μ. You might like to assert that that's what the Higgs field or "Higgs substance" is all about, but if you do you then have to say that it's responsible for photon momentum as well as electron mass, or the mass that a photon adds to the mirror-box. We already know from atomic orbitals that electrons exist as standing waves, we know we can diffract electrons, and we know about pair production and annihilation to gamma photons. So saying an electron is a photon in a box of its own making gives us a nice symmetry between momentum and inertia and a better Standard Model. What's not to like?

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Of course, you've heard this all before and failed to understand it.
Ditto. But you'll get there in the end.
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 8th March 2013, 06:58 AM   #983
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
No, Farsight, that picture does not depict an electromagnetic field. We've already been through an entire thread devoted to the crackpot physics advocated by John Duffield of Poole. It would be hard to improve upon ben m's response to your picture and claim in post #3 of that thread: "No it's not."

For a picture of genuine magnetic fields, derived directly from Maxwell's equations and calculated by a simple computer program, see my web page discussing magnetic reconnection. Every graph and animation on that page shows a magnetic field B for which the accompanying E field is essentially zero. Please notice that only the simplest magnetic field on that page consists of "concentric circular field lines".

If you understood electromagnetism, you could check my calculations and graphs for yourself. Since you don't speak math, you can only huff and puff about how you're right and all the physicists and mathematicians in this forum are wrong. We respond to your advocacy of crackpot physics only to reduce the risk that someone other than yourself will fall for it.
Groan. Clinger, you still don't understand electromagnetism. Now stop all this huffing and puffing and crackpot naysaying, pay attention, and watch my lips: the field concerned is the electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic field interactions result in linear and/or rotational motion. When only linear motion is observed people speak of an electric field, when only rotational motion is observed people speak of a magnetic field, but these are not two different fields. They are mere ciphers for the force and motion that electromagnetic field interactions cause. Now please try to understand it instead of spouting pre-Maxwell garbage and trying to pretend you've shot me down when you haven't. This isn't crackpot physics. This is how it is.

Sheesh, somebody please save us from mathematicians who know ****-all physics trying to pretend that they do, and just getting in the way. Will nobody step up to the plate and say actually Farsight is right about this?
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2013, 07:04 AM   #984
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do.
You are invited to express me in terms of c, h, ɛ, and μ. You can have a go at all the other particle masses too if you like, including that funny new spin-0 thing.
__________________
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 8th March 2013, 07:20 AM   #985
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
What "cosmic-treacle nonsense"?
This cosmic treacle nonsense from a guy at DAMTP see slide 17, and this Fermilab article: "The Higgs field is like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe". It's garbage.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Described by the "Faraday tensor" F with its 6 independent components. The E and B fields are its 3+1 decomposition, a result of decomposing space-time into 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension.
F01 = E1, F02 = E2, F03 = E3, F10 = -E1, F20 = -E2, F30 = -E3, F12 = -B3, F23 = -B1, F31 = -B2, F21 = B3, F32 = B1, F13 = B2, F00 = F11 = F22 = F33 = 0
0 = time, 1,2,3 = space

As if that document is an inspired text, a revelation of Absolute Truth.
Oh look in the mirror, lpetrich. And just spit it out, tell Clinger I'm right about electromagnetism.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Which does not mean that electrons spin in classical-limit fashion.
They aren't spinning like planets, but that doesn't mean there's no rotation going on. The magnetic dipole moment isn't there for nothing.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
The "spin" is built-in angular momentum, like the angular momentum carried by circularly-polarized electromagnetic waves.
It isn't the same. You can take those electromagnetic waves and make electrons and positrons out of them. Then they aren't going linearly through space at c any more. But you can still diffract them.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Why does it deserve to be taken seriously?
Because it's supported by scientific evidence like the Einstein-de Haas effect.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Can you show *mathematically* that one gets the Dirac theory from it in some reasonable approximation? Extra credit if you can get electromagnetic and weak interaction vertices from it.
Not offhand, it would take me months or years, and then it would be so complicated that you'd just claim it contained some error. It's a waste of my time, and I'd rather point out the scientific evidence and refer to work by others because I'm not some my-theory guy.

Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Every physicist who has tried to construct some superset of the Standard Model has recognized that this superset has to agree with the SM to the accuracy that the SM has been tested. Farsight, you must play by those rules in order to be taken seriously.
See above, it'll come, give it time.
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 8th March 2013, 07:31 AM   #986
HighRiser
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: High above Indianapolis
Posts: 1,920
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
(snip)

Sheesh, somebody please save us from mathematicians who know ****-all physics trying to pretend that they do, and just getting in the way. Will nobody step up to the plate and say actually Farsight is right about this?
Does this ever happen? That someone who knows physics comes along and says that? Ever?

What does anything you have posted in this thread have to do with disproving the Higgs in any reasonable manner?

You, Farsight, if you haven't noticed, pop into nearly every physics thread to peddle your unsubstantiated worldview, and in every case have that view disassembled by learned scientists who cite sources and show figures and experimental results that don't agree with your philosophy.
__________________
Congratulations, you have successfully failed to model something that you assert "isn't noticeable". -The Man

Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination. -JayUtah
HighRiser 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 March 2013, 07:34 AM   #987
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
This cosmic treacle nonsense from a guy at DAMTP see slide 17, and this Fermilab article: "The Higgs field is like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe". It's garbage.
It's an analogy. A rather imperfect analogy, but it would be going quite far to call it garbage. I suggest we stop worrying about an analogy that no-one is trying to support completely.
__________________
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 8th March 2013, 07:45 AM   #988
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
You are invited to express me in terms of c, h, ɛ, and μ. You can have a go at all the other particle masses too if you like...
Then we get into the howls of outrage against Andrew Worsley again, and another tedious deliberate distraction.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
...including that funny new spin-0 thing
What funny new spin-0 thing? The electron is a spin-½ particle, the closed path is like a line drawn around a moebius strip. You need a photon-photon interaction to do pair production, then you need more of the same to maintain the electron structure. Something like the trivial-knot depiction on the left of this image. Like I said, the electron is like a photon in a box of its own making, hence the mass, which is a measure of the energy content, like Einstein said. Which is contradicted by the Higgs mechanism. See my post to ben m above re the symmetry between momentum and inertia. Both are measures of a wave's resistance to change-in-motion. One is for a wave in a linear path, the other for a wave in a closed path.


Originally Posted by Kwalish Kid
Neat stuff, thanks.
LOL, as if you understand it. Talk about Emperor's New Clothes. Oh and scroll up. See that word skepticism? You might try exercising some about the way the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². Mass is a measure of energy-content, not something else.

Gotta go. You know guys, I've missed our little chats.
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 8th March 2013, 07:49 AM   #989
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Like I said, the electron is like a photon in a box of its own making, hence the mass, which is a measure of the energy content, like Einstein said. Which is contradicted by the Higgs mechanism.
No, it isn't. Not in the slightest.
__________________
"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
godless dave 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 March 2013, 08:01 AM   #990
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Then we get into the howls of outrage against Andrew Worsley again, and another tedious deliberate distraction.
So you still support Worsley and his hilariously not-even-wrong formulae?
Quote:
What funny new spin-0 thing?
I was referring to the subject of the thread.
__________________
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 8th March 2013, 08:49 AM   #991
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
...
Like I said, the electron is like a photon in a box of its own making, hence the mass, which is a measure of the energy content, like Einstein said. Which is contradicted by the Higgs mechanism.
...
And the charge just pops into existence, violating charge conservation?
__________________
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 March 2013, 09:45 AM   #992
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Sorry to have negelected you guys, I've been busy and haven't got to JREF much. This one is interesting:

Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do. Remember I've referred to Percy Hammond and the ABB50/25 program about curved space and to TQFT about particles as knots? To make an electron and a positron you use the space-curve of one photon on another to bend them both into a closed path.
Ding ding ding ding! Congratulations! You are the 1,000,000th person to daydream that the electron mass can be predicted from fundamental constants, plus some sort of geometry! Please pass through the first door into the Vestibule of Amateur Mass-Spectrum Prediction!

Here is your numerology wand! Keep it close, it is your only weapon. You will be confronted with enemies bearing Differential Equations, Linear Algebra, and Experimentally Verified Predictions. The wand is activated by chanting, "Pi equals 22 over 7!" You must chant this pi times.

Please pass through this door and choose your wizarding robe. Would you like the black robe, giving you the power to ignore dimensions and units? The blue robe gives you the ability to inscribe and circumscribe polygons. If you add the blue hat to the blue robe, your ability will expand to mentioning advanced mathematics, including topology, knots, but not to the extent of doing actual calculations. The beige robe carries all the numerical properties of the Pyramids of Egypt ... oh, no, sir, you're not a beige-robe man. Let's stick with the blue.

Here is the first gate! Beyond it is the Hall of Electrons. Many have entered! Geometers! Sphere-packers! Amateur knot theorists! Circle-squarers! Rationalists! Irrationalist! The entire on-line encyclopedia of integer sequences! None have proceeded to the Hall of Muons beyond, nor, of course, to the Quark Galleries, nor ... well, let me not scare you with talk of neutrinos. The knights of Amateur Mass-Spectrum Prediction need not concern themselves with the neutrino.

This is your path. Raise your wand! Clasp your hat! Make sure your educational copy of Mathematica is connected to the license server! Only a geometric prediction of 510.998 keV can protect you! Go!
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 8th March 2013, 11:40 AM   #993
lpetrich
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 762
(Why the electron mass?)
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Because c, h, ɛ, and μ take the values that they do. ...
Let's do some dimensional analysis. I'll use 3+1 separation with space (L) and time (T) as separate. I'll also make mass (M) and charge (Q) sort-of fundamental.

c = L/T
h = M*L2/T
ɛ = (Q2*T2)/(M*L3) (Coulomb, Lorentz)
μ = (M*L)/Q[sup]2[sup] (Biot-Savart, Lorentz)

Let's see what various unit combinations give you.

h*c = M*L
ɛ*μ*c2 = (dimensionless) -- in fact, its vacuum value is 1.
h/μ = Q2

So one can set c = h = ɛ0 = μ0 = 1 without loss of generality, since they are essentially relativistic, quantum-mechanical, and electromagnetic units factors. In fact, that's what's done in theoretical work. In effect,

T = L
M = 1/L
Q = dimensionless

However, one can't get the electron's mass out of these numbers, because they don't set a length or mass scale.

Quote:
Remember I've referred to Percy Hammond and the ABB50/25 program about curved space and to TQFT about particles as knots?
What makes Percy Hammond a Prophet of Revealed Truth?

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Sheesh, somebody please save us from mathematicians who know ****-all physics trying to pretend that they do, and just getting in the way. Will nobody step up to the plate and say actually Farsight is right about this?
Farsight, you need to recognize that your Prophets of Revealed Truth had had used much of the mathematics that you disdain so loudly. Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Minkowski, Feynman, ...

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
This cosmic treacle nonsense from a guy at DAMTP see slide 17, and this Fermilab article: "The Higgs field is like a giant vat of molasses spread throughout the universe". It's garbage.
He was making an ANALOGY. If one chooses to disdain the mathematics of electroweak symmetry breaking, then one's stuck with analogies like these.
Quote:
You can take those electromagnetic waves and make electrons and positrons out of them.
It doesn't happen that way. Instead, the photons disappear and make the electrons and positrons appear as they do so. Let's see what an electron-positron collider does.

The electron and positron collide and make a virtual photon, a virtual Z, and a virtual Higgs particle all together. The virtual Z only gets prominent for collision energies around its rest mass or more, and likewise for the Higgs particle. Even then, the Higgs particle is suppressed by its VERY weak interaction with the electron.

This combined virtual particle then decays into a pair of particles -- electrons, muons, taus, up quarks, down quarks, strange quarks, charm quarks, bottom quarks, though no existing electron accelerator has accelerated electrons and positrons to make top quarks. The virtual Z can also make a pair of neutrinos, and also a real Z and a Higgs particle.

Quote:
Because it's supported by scientific evidence like the Einstein-de Haas effect.
Yawn.

(Me on working out the mathematics of getting the Dirac theory of the electron out of the circling-photon theory...)
Quote:
Not offhand, it would take me months or years, and then it would be so complicated that you'd just claim it contained some error. It's a waste of my time, and I'd rather point out the scientific evidence and refer to work by others because I'm not some my-theory guy.
Farsight, that sort of attitude will is NOT going to get you taken seriously by other physicists. Seriously. They use math to make predictions and they use math to test predictions against observations. So if the numbers don't work out, they don't work out, and one ought to accept that. Disdaining math is sort of like changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Furthermore, Farsight, you've been pushing your theories for several years now, enough time for you to learn the mathematics. Claiming that you are too busy to do so is no excuse, because you are not too busy to push your theories. Whether you invented them or not is irrelevant, because you are advocating them.
lpetrich 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 March 2013, 12:12 PM   #994
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Just want to pop in here to ask a question: What is spin, exactly? I've heard various ways of explaining it, but they're not really doing it for me. Something that must rotate 720 degrees to again face in the right way? Does this mean the particle is rotating through other dimensions or something? What about spin zero?

Confused armchair physics enthusiast, signing off
Mister Earl 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 March 2013, 12:34 PM   #995
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
Spin is a type of angular momentum. It also has the connections to symmetry you mentioned. So spin 0 means the particle has no intrinsic angular momentum, and it means it is perfectly symmetrical rotationally. If you turn it, it doesn't change state at all.
Spin 1/2 where it has to rotate 720 degrees to return to the same state is intuitively odd. I can't think of a good way to explain it to be perfectly honest. Integer spins are more straightforward (something that returns to the same state in 360 degrees is obvious, and 180 or 90 degrees or whatever shouldn't be considered too unusual either).
__________________
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 8th March 2013, 12:45 PM   #996
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Hrm. But what is the point of reference? I don't think there's any sort of obvious topology involved, of course. Spin a baseball, and you can tell by the laces. Spin a particle and... ?
Mister Earl 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 March 2013, 12:46 PM   #997
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 14,185
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Spin 1/2 where it has to rotate 720 degrees to return to the same state is intuitively odd. I can't think of a good way to explain it to be perfectly honest.
Isn't it accurate to say that it happens that way because something else is changing as you "turn it"? And that "something else" changes once each "turn".
RecoveringYuppy 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 March 2013, 12:56 PM   #998
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
Hrm. But what is the point of reference? I don't think there's any sort of obvious topology involved, of course. Spin a baseball, and you can tell by the laces. Spin a particle and... ?
Wait. Wait. Would spin have anything to do with the path of the particle after a collision? I recall seeing graphic representation of collisions, where certain particles' paths would curl up, almost as if it were swirling down a drain.
Mister Earl 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 March 2013, 01:27 PM   #999
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,120
You're probably thinking of charged particles in a magnetic field, Mister Earl. Particle physicists apply magnetic fields to make them do that so they can determine the charge.
__________________
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 8th March 2013, 01:30 PM   #1000
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,504
Ah, that makes perfect sense. Thank you, edd! Ok, so curly-que paths nailed down... just gotta figure out spin.

#EDIT: Ah, I shouldn't bother you folks with this. I'll just dig around Wikipedia a bit and follow tons of links until it sinks in. Hehe.

Last edited by Mister Earl; 8th March 2013 at 01:41 PM.
Mister Earl 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 11:05 PM.
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.