ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


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 31st October 2012, 04:39 PM   #281
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by edd View Post
There might be just a teeensy problem with that very last scatter?
Farsight, do you recognize what edd is referring to? This is important.
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 1st November 2012, 03:05 PM   #282
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
RC: don't be so dismissive. This is standard physics, but it is directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.

Ben: sure. See below.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
There might be just a teeensy problem with that very last scatter?
Yes, in that Compton scattering only takes a slice off the photon rather than completely absorbing it. But it isn't a problem because as Tubby alluded to, you can absorb the last remnant of the photon with a bound electron.

Originally Posted by TubbyThin
A photon is a lot more than kinetic energy in space.
We could talk about the nature of the photon at length. For example there's a little clue as to its nature in the "spiral starbust" of electron kinetic energy in the repeated Compton scattering gedankenexperiment. And we could call it "action in space going through space", or somesuch. We could even talk about how angular momentum is quantized, and the dimensionality of action being momentum x distance. But nevertheless kinetic energy in space is essentially what the photon is. Take a look at say the photo-electric effect on wikipedia and note how many references there are to kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin
We can say some of the photon energy (<50%) can now be found in the mass of the electron.
Yes we can.

All: so, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? Does it depend on something else? If we've got two 511keV standing waves in our box, you know that moving the box is a little bit more difficult because those waves offer resistance to any change in their state of motion. They're standing waves instead of free waves propagating at c, so we call their resistance to change-in-motion inertia instead of momentum.

OK, remember we were talking about two-photon physics? Those two waves could interact and result in pair production. Then we've got an electron and a positron in the box. We know they both have a wave nature. We can diffract electrons and positrons, and put them through the two-slit experiment, or use them in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. But now the mass of the body called an electron somehow doesn't depend on its energy-content, but instead on the electron's interaction with the Higgs field? When the only field we know about in that box is the electromagnetic field? And wait, after a nanosecond that electron and that positron annihilate, so now we've got two standing waves again. And the Higgs mechanism has switched off like a light? Remember that QED explanation of pair production, which said a photon fluctuates into an electron-positron pair? Imagine that photon is inside a box. Higgs on, Higgs off, Higgs on, Higgs off. Click, click, click, and all the while the mass of that box-system doesn't change one jot. Anybody smell a rat yet?

And anybody: how does the Higgs boson get its mass?

Last edited by Farsight; 1st November 2012 at 03:09 PM. Reason: typo
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 1st November 2012, 03:23 PM   #283
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,119
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes, in that Compton scattering only takes a slice off the photon rather than completely absorbing it. But it isn't a problem because as Tubby alluded to, you can absorb the last remnant of the photon with a bound electron.
Why not just absorb it from the get go? Why go to the bother of scattering it so much!?

Quote:
Take a look at say the photo-electric effect on wikipedia and note how many references there are to kinetic energy.
... I don't think that quite counts as a good argument.

Quote:
Click, click, click, and all the while the mass of that box-system doesn't change one jot. Anybody smell a rat yet?
So you're basically arguing that the Higgs mechanism can't work because energy is conserved? I'm not sure that's going to work out well 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 1st November 2012, 03:26 PM   #284
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
By the way ben, you should sit through Susskind's lecture. It isn't great, but he makes it clear that the Higgs field rather than the Higgs boson is said to form a "condensate". And he is emphatic that it's nothing like swimming through a thick liquid. Even Susskind will have no truck with the molasses aka cosmic treacle nonsense.
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 1st November 2012, 03:37 PM   #285
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
By the way ben, you should sit through Susskind's lecture. It isn't great, but he makes it clear that the Higgs field rather than the Higgs boson is said to form a "condensate". And he is emphatic that it's nothing like swimming through a thick liquid. Even Susskind will have no truck with the molasses aka cosmic treacle nonsense.
Wow, it sounds like Susskind is presenting the Standard Model of Particle Physics. Who'd have thunk?

Is there something specific in his lecture that I wouldn't have gotten from, e.g., Peskin and Schroeder?
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 1st November 2012, 03:54 PM   #286
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by edd View Post
Why not just absorb it from the get go? Why go to the bother of scattering it so much!?
To get you used to the idea of scattering, to avoid getting into atomic orbitals and standing waves too soon, and to avoid getting sidetracked by things like binding energy and gyrating boxes. It neatly makes it clear that the photon is being sliced away into electron kinetic energy until there's (virtually) nothing left, and then pair production makes it clear that the electron is made of kinetic energy. We come back to standing waves later.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
...I don't think that quite counts as a good argument.
It's good enough, because the photon is a wave with a wavelength, and if you take all the kinetic energy out of the wave, the wave isn't there any more. By the way, the bound electron can absorb all the photon energy instead of just taking a slice because it's bound. It's a inelastic collision rather than an elastic collision. In simple terms, it can't skitter away.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
So you're basically arguing that the Higgs mechanism can't work because energy is conserved? I'm not sure that's going to work out well either.
No, not at all. I don't know why you thought that. Now, how does the Higgs boson get its mass?
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2012, 04:14 PM   #287
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Is there something specific in his lecture that I wouldn't have gotten from, e.g., Peskin and Schroeder?
Apparently so. And don't namedrop your textbook bible, ben. It cuts no ice. Now come on, how does the Higgs boson get its mass? Yes it's a trap, but not how you think, and you're already in it so save some grace by demonstrating your sincerity.

And the answer is... ?
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 1st November 2012, 05:11 PM   #288
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes, in that Compton scattering only takes a slice off the photon rather than completely absorbing it. But it isn't a problem because as Tubby alluded to, you can absorb the last remnant of the photon with a bound electron.
So, as Edd said, Compton scattering is irrelevant.

Quote:
We could talk about the nature of the photon at length. For example there's a little clue as to its nature in the "spiral starbust" of electron kinetic energy in the repeated Compton scattering gedankenexperiment.
There is a big clue to its nature in the thousands of studies that have been published in the last 107 years. There really is no need for thought experiments on this.

Quote:
And we could call it "action in space going through space", or somesuch.
We could, but that would just be stupid.

Quote:
We could even talk about how angular momentum is quantized, and the dimensionality of action being momentum x distance.
Pardon?

Quote:
But nevertheless kinetic energy in space is essentially what the photon is.
No, no it isn't. It is as much "kinetic energy in space" as me spinning around on my computer chair.

Quote:
Take a look at say the photo-electric effect on wikipedia and note how many references there are to kinetic energy.
Is that the best you can do?

Quote:
OK, remember we were talking about two-photon physics? Those two waves could interact and result in pair production. Then we've got an electron and a positron in the box. We know they both have a wave nature. We can diffract electrons and positrons, and put them through the two-slit experiment, or use them in the Aharonov-Bohm effect. But now the mass of the body called an electron somehow doesn't depend on its energy-content, but instead on the electron's interaction with the Higgs field? When the only field we know about in that box is the electromagnetic field? And wait, after a nanosecond that electron and that positron annihilate, so now we've got two standing waves again. And the Higgs mechanism has switched off like a light? Remember that QED explanation of pair production, which said a photon fluctuates into an electron-positron pair? Imagine that photon is inside a box. Higgs on, Higgs off, Higgs on, Higgs off. Click, click, click, and all the while the mass of that box-system doesn't change one jot. Anybody smell a rat yet?
This is sounding familiar. Oh yes, it is essentially the same argument you made about the strong force disappearing.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st November 2012, 05:30 PM   #289
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Oh Tubby. Words like irrelevant and stupid merely make you look like a naysayer troll dismissing the evidence that challenges his conviction. You bumped this thread, and now you can't take the heat, so go sling your hook. The big boys are talking physics.

Ben, edd: no answers yet? So come on, does the Higgs boson get its mass by virtue of E=mc˛, or by an interaction with the Higgs field? That would be an interaction between an excitation of the Higgs field and the Higgs field. Ben, what sort of interaction might that be?

With the exception of Tubby who bit off more than he could chew, is everybody happy so far? Can anybody point out any obvious errors? Can anybody point out any "crackpot" physics? Is everybody happy that the photon-photon interaction has been observed experimentally? And that light light can be "scattered" by any sort of electric charge or electric current? And does everybody know about displacement current along with spherical harmonics and standing waves?

If not there's a little reading for you, and meanwhile, 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 1st November 2012, 05:44 PM   #290
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Yes it's a trap, but not how you think, and you're already in it so save some grace by demonstrating your sincerity.
Your politeness and humility is truly praiseworthy.

Quote:
And the answer is... ?
In the Standard Model, there's a direct mu^2 H term in the Lagrangian. The Higgs mass is the sort of mass you would have tried giving to the fermions---"hey, suppose energy is proportional to (Psi* Psi), with some constant"---if the rest of QFT didn't force those constants to be zero. For all of the non-Higgs particles, interactions with the Higgs vev generates a different (and QFT-allowed) sort of mass---a dynamical term that happens to be proportional to (Psi* Psi) and thereby looks like a mass, even in the absence of a static term.

For the Higgs boson, the basic, static sort of mass term is *not* forced to be zero, so it has some nonzero value---whose value, measured at 125GeV, is *presumably* a reflection of some (as yet inaccessible) higher-energy field theory. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass.

(Plus, there are loop corrections.)

That's what I was taught. But I'm not a theorist, I'm an experimentalist. If I am wrong, I would welcome correction by someone other than Farsight, because I don't have the patience.
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 1st November 2012, 05:44 PM   #291
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,119
You might have noticed if you'd been paying attention that I preempted your little poser way back in post #30 of this very thread, although I was rather joking when I did so. Anyway, I'll let a proper particle physicist answer that one for you. The rest of your posts this evening have frankly just made me give up on you for now.
__________________
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 1st November 2012, 05:54 PM   #292
W.D.Clinger
Master Poster
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,850
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The big boys are talking physics.
Agreed.

And if Farsight's posts spur the big boys to talk physics, then Farsight's posts may also have value.
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 1st November 2012, 05:56 PM   #293
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Oh Tubby. Words like irrelevant and stupid merely make you look like a naysayer troll dismissing the evidence that challenges his conviction. You bumped this thread, and now you can't take the heat, so go sling your hook. The big boys are talking physics.
I'm such a dismissive troll that I explained to you how your description of Compton scattering was wrong in a way you now admit was entirely correct.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2012, 11:48 AM   #294
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Tubbythin
I'm such a dismissive troll that I explained to you how your description of Compton scattering was wrong in a way you now admit was entirely correct.
LOL. You bumped the thread and challenged me to give an explanation, then starting ducking and diving saying it was vague when it wasn't, then you tried to hide behind mathematics, and now you're claiming a point edd raised as you're own. You've explained nothing Tubby, everybody can see that, just as they can see your patent insincerity.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
You might have noticed if you'd been paying attention that I preempted your little poser way back in post #30 of this very thread, although I was rather joking when I did so.
I did edd. You're not the first person to have asked this question, and ben isn't the last person to have given a cop-out non-answer as he attempts to squirm away from an uncomfortable truth.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
Anyway, I'll let a proper particle physicist answer that one for you.
I don't need a "proper" particle physicist to answer that one for me. I already know that the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. That's what E=mc˛ is all about. And like I said, the Higgs mechanism contradicts it.

Originally Posted by edd View Post
The rest of your posts this evening have frankly just made me give up on you for now.
What you really mean is you give up. Suit yourself.

ben: the answer you gave leaks like a seive. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass. Oh come on. Doesn't that remind you of pair production occurs because pair production occurs? But you believe in it because that's what you've been taught. To hell with Einstein, logic, and a rational argument that you can't show to be wrong? Doesn't that kind of thing ever bother you? On a skeptics forum?

Anybody else like to have a stab at explaining how the Higgs boson gets its mass? Because if you can't, and if you can't show where my argument is flawed, you're a bit stuck, aren't you?

ETA: And can I just mention that a collider like the LHC accelerates particles to close to the speed of light before slamming them together. Those particles have a lot of... kinetic energy.

Last edited by Farsight; 2nd November 2012 at 12:26 PM.
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 2nd November 2012, 12:25 PM   #295
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Oh come on.
So your detailed scientific objection to the Standard Model of Particle Physics is "oh come on". Sorry, Farsight, that's not actually an objection.
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 2nd November 2012, 01:10 PM   #296
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
LOL. You bumped the thread and challenged me to give an explanation,
Too right. You implicitly accused CERN of scientific fraud. That requires some bloody good explanation.

Quote:
then starting ducking and diving saying it was vague when it wasn't,
It was very vague.

Quote:
then you tried to hide behind mathematics,
Maths is the formal application of logical rules. It forms the basis of scientific endeavour. It is you that is hiding behind a lack of maths.

Quote:
and now you're claiming a point edd raised as you're own.
Err. That is false. Edd made a post that just said "There might be just a teeensy problem with that very last scatter?" at exactly the same time (check if you don't believe me) that I pointed out that you were wrong about Compton scattering.

Quote:
You've explained nothing Tubby, everybody can see that, just as they can see your patent insincerity.
That's funny, you agreed with me at 10:05 PM yesterday.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2012, 02:31 PM   #297
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,212
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post

What evidence do you have to suggest that the five-sigma significance bump observed in the ATLAS/CMS experiments has been wrongly-interpreted by the scientists at CERN?



Aside:
Out of interest, what kind of picture of a discovery of the Higgs boson were you expecting?
Still nothing but blather and pretense.
__________________
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 2nd November 2012, 05:31 PM   #298
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
So your detailed scientific objection to the Standard Model of Particle Physics is "oh come on". Sorry, Farsight, that's not actually an objection.
It's a weird objection If Farsight were saying "There must be more to physics than the standard model, because some of the parameters, like the mass of the Higgs boson, seem arbitrary, and I want a physics theory that is more elegant than that", well, I can at least see something in that (though personally I don't know how much that applies in this particular case).

But that's not what he's saying, he seems to be saying that the Higgs mechanism itself must not be correct, because the mass of the Higgs boson seems arbitrary. That's weird. Without the Higgs we've got the masses of all massive fundamental particles to explain, with it, only one. Which is more elegant? That he thinks it's not sufficiently elegant isn't much of an argument, particularly when it is so well tested experimentally, and all he has to offer in return is some vague ideas that don't seem related and don't make any quantitative predictions.

It seems to me that most physicists expect that there is something going on beyond the standard model, but at the moment it's the best we've got and if we do find something beyond it, it will be connected to the standard model in so much as it will explain why it is so successful, and will reduce to it in most situations.

I'm no expert, and my physics knowledge is relatively minimal, this is simply the perspective of one bystander on this thread.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 2nd November 2012, 05:50 PM   #299
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,876
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But that's not what he's saying, he seems to be saying that the Higgs mechanism itself must not be correct, because the mass of the Higgs boson seems arbitrary. That's weird.
You're assuming Farsight has a coherent objection. I think what he's actually saying is this:
  • I have a mental picture of Relativity+! I proved it to my own satisfaction! It fills me with awe at my own genius, Einstein's genius, and the photon-based simplicity of nature!
  • You're talking about something other than Relativity+! It fills me with a sense of ugliness and wrongness!
  • I will pick something you've said, figure out whether it differs from Relativity+, and declare that difference to be a problem! Rather than clearly identifying the problem, I will steer the conversation back to Relativity+!
In this case: the Higgs mechanism? Well, that sounds ugly, doesn't whatever you just said about it fill you with loathing? I can't explain why it does, but it should. Instead, brace yourself for the Relativity+ truth of a photon in a box, which is actually the electron mass, don't you see it yet, moron?
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 2nd November 2012, 06:04 PM   #300
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Instead, brace yourself for the Relativity+ truth of a photon in a box, which is actually the electron mass, don't you see it yet, moron?
You forgot: bow to my greater knowledge for I am the one true disciple of Einstein, only I can understand what he really meant.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2012, 08:56 PM   #301
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
RC: don't be so dismissive. This is standard physics, but it is directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.
Farsight: Don't be derailing the thread. It is the wrong standard physics to be directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.

Your posts do not have anything to do with the Standard Model or QFT where the Higgs mechanism is described.

All we have is posts on standard physics that has nothing to to with the Higgs mechanism.
Starting with you writing this totally ignorant assertion : Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson
The fact is that the Higgs mechanism can give electrons mass. That is what the Higgs meachangsm does to all particles !
The fact is that a new boson has been discovered from a bump in data.
The fact is that this boson has the mass predicted for the Higss boson.
It is very probably the Higgs boson (I forget what else it could be - a light-weight SUSY particle?). More news to come in December:
Quote:
So far the observations are consistent with the observed particle being the Standard Model Higgs boson. The particle decays into at least some of the predicted channels. Moreover, the production rates and branching ratios for the observed channels match the predictions by the Standard Model within the experimental uncertainties. However, the experimental uncertainties currently still leave room for alternative explanations. It is therefore too early to conclude that the found particle is indeed the Standard Model Higgs.[49]
Further confirmation will require more precise data on some of the characteristic of the new particle, including its other decay channels and various quantum numbers such as its parity. To allow for further data gathering, the current LHC proton-proton collision run has been extended by seven weeks, delaying the planned long shutdown for upgrades in 2013. It is hoped that this extra data will allow a more conclusive statement on the nature of the new particle in December.[72]
P.S.
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?
First asked 30 October 2012
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd November 2012 at 09:13 PM.
Reality Check is online now   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 3rd November 2012, 01:52 AM   #302
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
So your detailed scientific objection to the Standard Model of Particle Physics is "oh come on". Sorry, Farsight, that's not actually an objection.
My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛. Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.
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 3rd November 2012, 02:06 AM   #303
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Too right. You implicitly accused CERN of scientific fraud. That requires some bloody good explanation.
Don't put words into my mouth Tubby. What's important is that I gave a bloody good explanation, which is why guys like ben and edd are stumped.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Maths is the formal application of logical rules. It forms the basis of scientific endeavour. It is you that is hiding behind a lack of maths.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I even gave you a bit of Einstein's very simple maths, only there's some kind of problem with the latex. Maybe I should have a word and tell them how to fix it.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Err. That is false. Edd made a post that just said "There might be just a teeensy problem with that very last scatter?" at exactly the same time (check if you don't believe me) that I pointed out that you were wrong about Compton scattering.
All you said was Typically (depends on the energy of course) a photon will scatter once or twice and then be absorbed. As ever you've explained nothing, and you try to pretend that you have. Nobody is fooled Tubby.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin
That's funny, you agreed with me at 10:05 PM yesterday.
I said nevertheless kinetic energy in space is essentially what the photon is. That's why it can be converted into electron kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Still nothing but blather and pretense.
I've given a robust explanation backed by references and simple logic that you can't refute. All you've done is make acerbic quips of no value.

Last edited by Farsight; 3rd November 2012 at 02:11 AM.
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 3rd November 2012, 02:31 AM   #304
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's a weird objection If Farsight were saying "There must be more to physics than the standard model, because some of the parameters, like the mass of the Higgs boson, seem arbitrary, and I want a physics theory that is more elegant than that", well, I can at least see something in that (though personally I don't know how much that applies in this particular case).
I'm not saying that. I'm echoing what Giudice said in that the Higgs mechanism is the toilet of the standard model and the Higgs boson is in no way central to it. Only I'm explaining why.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
But that's not what he's saying, he seems to be saying that the Higgs mechanism itself must not be correct, because the mass of the Higgs boson seems arbitrary.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛. I'm saying the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said. That's what it depends upon, not on its interaction with the Higgs field. Look at what's happening in the LHC. We give protons huge kinetic energy, them smash them together to create something with a mass of 125GeV. It gets its mass from the kinetic energy.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That's weird. Without the Higgs we've got the masses of all massive fundamental particles to explain, with it, only one. Which is more elegant?
The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
He thinks it's not sufficiently elegant isn't much of an argument, particularly when it is so well tested experimentally, and all he has to offer in return is some vague ideas that don't seem related and don't make any quantitative predictions.
I've referred to Einstein and I've explained it clearly using a standing wave. There's nothing vague about it. And let's face it, the only experimental evidence is a bump on a graph.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It seems to me that most physicists expect that there is something going on beyond the standard model, but at the moment it's the best we've got and if we do find something beyond it, it will be connected to the standard model in so much as it will explain why it is so successful, and will reduce to it in most situations.
It's not a question of finding something beyond it, it's a question of replacing the "frightfully ad-hoc" Higgs sector (Giudice's words) with something better - a symmetry.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I'm no expert, and my physics knowledge is relatively minimal, this is simply the perspective of one bystander on this thread.
Go back to post #231 on page 6 where Tubby bumped the thread, and follow the argument closely. You don't need expert physics knowledge to understand what I've been saying. Contrast that with the way you've previously been suckered by Emperor's New Clothes non-explanations that you don't understand.
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 3rd November 2012, 02:42 AM   #305
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
You're assuming Farsight has a coherent objection.
I've given a coherent explanation, and you can't counter it. All you've ended up saying is that's what I was taught like some Sunday-school kid.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I think what he's actually saying is this:
  • I have a mental picture of Relativity+! I proved it to my own satisfaction! It fills me with awe at my own genius, Einstein's genius, and the photon-based simplicity of nature!
  • You're talking about something other than Relativity+! It fills me with a sense of ugliness and wrongness!
  • I will pick something you've said, figure out whether it differs from Relativity+, and declare that difference to be a problem! Rather than clearly identifying the problem, I will steer the conversation back to Relativity+!
LOL. I haven't even mentioned relativity+, and I've steered clear of electron models. You're just throwing out vapid words-in-my-mouth accusations because you can't counter what I've said here.

Originally Posted by ben m View Post
In this case: the Higgs mechanism? Well, that sounds ugly, doesn't whatever you just said about it fill you with loathing? I can't explain why it does, but it should. Instead, brace yourself for the Relativity+ truth of a photon in a box, which is actually the electron mass, don't you see it yet, moron?
Ad-hominems are no substitute for a carefully laid-out rationale, ben. Especially when it's based on Einstein and E=mc˛. It might be an idea if you examined your adherence to what you were taught and your textbook bible and started thinking for yourself.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin
You forgot: bow to my greater knowledge for I am the one true disciple of Einstein, only I can understand what he really meant.
No, it's don't dismiss Einstein and simple logic because you'd rather believe in what you've been taught. It's pay attention and think for yourself instead of being a starry-eyed sucker who laps up non-answers. And as to my greater knowledge, I hope to share that with you, and educate you. Because right now it's as you are to people who believe in spiritualism and alternative medicine, so am I to you.

Last edited by Farsight; 3rd November 2012 at 02:49 AM.
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 3rd November 2012, 03:09 AM   #306
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Farsight: Don't be derailing the thread. It is the wrong standard physics to be directly relevant to the Higgs mechanism.
What, E=mc˛ isn't relevant to mass? Which the Higgs mechanism is supposed to account for? Only it only accounts for only 1% of the mass of matter, and the Higgs boson gets its mass from the kinetic energy given to the LHC protons? When the thread title is Higgs boson discovered?. Much as you might wish, that's no derail, RC.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Your posts do not have anything to do with the Standard Model or QFT where the Higgs mechanism is described.
All: have you ever had a conversation with a young-Earth creationist or the like? If you have you will appreciate that they're locked into a psychology that always finds a way to say "that's not evidence" or "that isn't relevant". You might think that that's because they're religious but it isn't. It's because they're convictional, because that's how people are. And here's RC being convictional. I give a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence, and when he can't counter it, he falls back to the "not relevant" gambit. When you're used to this it gets easy to spot it, and it is pathetic.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
All we have is posts on standard physics that has nothing to to with the Higgs mechanism.
Starting with you writing this totally ignorant assertion : Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson
The fact is that the Higgs mechanism can give electrons mass. That is what the Higgs meachangsm does to all particles !
The fact is that a new boson has been discovered from a bump in data.
The fact is that this boson has the mass predicted for the Higss boson.
It is very probably the Higgs boson (I forget what else it could be - a light-weight SUSY particle?). More news to come in December:
Spoken like an acolyte.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
P.S.
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?
First asked 30 October 2012
All: Oh boy. It's as if I hadn't posted anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and RC repeats his unsupported assertions mantra. I don't if you've ever heard me say this: the shutters are down and there's nobody home. That's exactly what it's like. Honesty, I really do recommend you go find some creationists to talk to, note their convictional traits, and then note the selfsame traits in people who talk about speculative physics. They talk about many-worlds just like some religious guy talks about heaven, and there's no shaking either of 'em.

Gotta go. Meanwhile, anybody care to look up the given reason why the Higgs boson gets its mass? Then I can give you the coup-de-grace.
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 3rd November 2012, 03:22 AM   #307
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,740
Question Farsight, what does relativistic mean

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛. Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.
Wrong: You have not explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛ - you have asserted that.

And the worst bit of ignorance that you are still displaying, Farsight: the Higgs mechanism is baed on relativistic quantum field theory.

Farsight, what does relativistic mean?

Hint: It means that it includes special relativity (it includes E=mc˛ ) and so it is very ignorant to state that the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   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 3rd November 2012, 03:38 AM   #308
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
What, E=mc˛ isn't relevant to mass?
What? You do not know that E=mc˛ isn't relevant to mass.
It is relevant to the ability to treat energy as mass or to treat mass as energy. It states nothing about the origin of mass.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
All: have you ever had a conversation with a young-Earth creationist or the like?
...
All: have you ever had a conversation with an Internet physics crank or the like?
If you have you will appreciate that they're locked into a psychology that always finds a way to say "that's not evidence" or "that isn't relevant". You might think that that's because they're religious but it isn't. It's because they're convictional, because that's how people are. And here's Farsightbeing convictional. He lies about giving a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence, and when he can't support it, he falls back to the "not relevant" derails (like this one about creationists ). When you're used to this it gets easy to spot it, and it is pathetic.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Spoken like an acolyte.

Spoken like someone who knows the actual science like
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
All: Oh boy. It's as if I hadn't posted anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and RC repeats his unsupported assertions mantra.
...
All: Oh boy. It's as if Farsight hadn't learned anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and Farsight repeats his Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛ fantasy (see above). mantra. You have defintitely never heard me say this but: the shutters are down and there's nobody home. That's exactly what it's like.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Meanwhile, anybody care to look up the given reason why the Higgs boson gets its mass?
You shoud learn to read the thread Farsight:
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
In the Standard Model, there's a direct mu^2 H term in the Lagrangian. The Higgs mass is the sort of mass you would have tried giving to the fermions---"hey, suppose energy is proportional to (Psi* Psi), with some constant"---if the rest of QFT didn't force those constants to be zero. For all of the non-Higgs particles, interactions with the Higgs vev generates a different (and QFT-allowed) sort of mass---a dynamical term that happens to be proportional to (Psi* Psi) and thereby looks like a mass, even in the absence of a static term.

For the Higgs boson, the basic, static sort of mass term is *not* forced to be zero, so it has some nonzero value---whose value, measured at 125GeV, is *presumably* a reflection of some (as yet inaccessible) higher-energy field theory. For the Higgs, uniquely, the mass is just a mass.
...
Or if you want a really simple answer: How does the Higgs Boson gain mass itself?
Quote:
The mass is generated by the Higgs field. See the Wikipedia article on the Higgs mechanism for details. To (over)simplify, the Higgs field has four degrees of freedom, three of which interact with the W and Z bosons and generate masses. The remaining degree of freedom is what we see as the 125Gev Higgs boson.
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd November 2012 at 03:54 AM.
Reality Check is online now   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 3rd November 2012, 03:47 AM   #309
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,740
You seem to have forgotten the actual questions and a very relevant point in
Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
There seems to be all sorts of unsupported assertions in this post, so Farsight:
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism "contradicts E=mc˛"?
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism can be removed from the Standard Model and replaced by a symmetry (in the SM?)?
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that there is a problem in QED related to the Higgs mechanism that is so obvious that people have a "Ohmygawd! moment"?
FYI: The Standard Model is a relativistic quantum field theory, i.e. nothing in it contradicts E=mc˛ !
First asked 30 October 2012. But the answer seems to be:
You have no actual scientific evidence except a fantasy that a relativistic theory does not include relativity.
That certainly deserves a !
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

Last edited by Reality Check; 3rd November 2012 at 03:48 AM.
Reality Check is online now   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 3rd November 2012, 04:13 AM   #310
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛.
You have? I must have missed that, could you quote the post where you did so?

Quote:
Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy,
This is assertion for which so far you've given no evidence.

Quote:
and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.
Mass is a form of energy (remember E=mc2 that you keep mentioning?) so if mass is determined by "coupling to the Higgs field" then stronger coupling equates to higher energy content. Where exactly is the problem?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 3rd November 2012, 04:23 AM   #311
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Go back to post #231 on page 6 where Tubby bumped the thread, and follow the argument closely. You don't need expert physics knowledge to understand what I've been saying.
I've been following the thread since that point (I was following it prior to that as well, but may have forgotten much of the discussion as I was following it as it happened and it's been a while). I honestly don't understand your argument. My post that you responded to here seems evidence of that as I wrote what I thought was your argument and you made it clear that that's not what you were saying.

On the other hand the Susskind lecture that I linked to was quite clear to me. That's why I posted it: because I figured others at my level might find it useful.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 3rd November 2012, 04:37 AM   #312
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 36,163
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
My objection is to the Higgs sector of the standard model, and I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛. Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.
Did you mean photon or electron, an electron is a lepton. I think you meant photon which is a boson.
__________________
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
Dancing David 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 3rd November 2012, 04:54 AM   #313
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. Not its coupling to the Higgs field.
Nothing is made of kinetic energy. That is not meaningful English.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2012, 05:14 AM   #314
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Don't put words into my mouth Tubby. What's important is that I gave a bloody good explanation, which is why guys like ben and edd are stumped.
I'm not putting words into your mouth.

Quote:
I'm not hiding behind anything. I even gave you a bit of Einstein's very simple maths, only there's some kind of problem with the latex. Maybe I should have a word and tell them how to fix it.
Yes you are. You're hiding behind meaningless phrases like "the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy". Kinetic energy is the energy a body has due to it's motion. It's as meaningless to say the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy as it is to say an elephant is made of grey.

Quote:
All you said was Typically (depends on the energy of course) a photon will scatter once or twice and then be absorbed. As ever you've explained nothing, and you try to pretend that you have. Nobody is fooled Tubby.
I explained that you were wrong because the photoelectric effect dominates over Compton scattering at lower energies. I may not have given you a detailed explanation of this but told you where you were wrong and gave you a link to a source that would give you more details. I see you've backed down from your previous claim that I was "claiming a point edd raised as [my] own".

Quote:
I said nevertheless kinetic energy in space is essentially what the photon is. That's why it can be converted into electron kinetic energy.
You are familiar with the first law of thermodynamics right? The high school level version of that usually goes along the lines of "Energy can be transferred from one form to another but never created or destroyed". On its own, the fact that a photon's energy can be converted to the kinetic energy of an electron tell us two basic things: 1) Electron and photons interact; 2) photon-electron interactions obey the first law of thermodynamics. Well blow me Sherlock! And now because you've told us two facts about photons that I learnt when I was at school, we are meant to be impressed and believe everything you say about the Higgs boson.

Last edited by Tubbythin; 3rd November 2012 at 05:25 AM.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2012, 05:21 AM   #315
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
And here's RC being convictional. I give a rock-solid argument backed with impeccable evidence
You haven't given a rock solid argument. You've given a nothing argument. Nobody except you thinks you've given a rock-solid argument. The fact that you think you've given a rock-solid argument is entirely tied to your own convictions that you are right. Alanis Morissette would probably have something to say about that.

Quote:
All: Oh boy. It's as if I hadn't posted anything at all. I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand, and it's all totally in line with Einstein and known physics, and RC repeats his unsupported assertions mantra. I don't if you've ever heard me say this: the shutters are down and there's nobody home. That's exactly what it's like. Honesty, I really do recommend you go find some creationists to talk to, note their convictional traits, and then note the selfsame traits in people who talk about speculative physics. They talk about many-worlds just like some religious guy talks about heaven, and there's no shaking either of 'em.
You've given evidence that electron-photon interactions obey the first law of thermodynamics. You have not given evidence for anything else.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2012, 08:32 AM   #316
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,212
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I've given a robust explanation backed by references and simple logic that you can't refute. All you've done is make acerbic quips of no value.
What? I have reviewed your comments still again. Where is this "robust explanation"? Photons imparting energy to electrons? Is that it? Photons are energy in space ? Is that it? Some of us have studied some particle physics and QM; so give us something other than hand waving with more pretense and bluster. You claim above,"I've explained why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc˛" Huh? Are you hallucinating?
Where is you evidence? Where is your mathematics? Where is your logic?
On another thread you said of Sean Carroll(of Caltech):
"I think he's a pompous pontificator who employs sophistry and thinks people are too stupid to spot it."
What rich irony!
__________________
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; 3rd November 2012 at 08:36 AM.
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 3rd November 2012, 04:59 PM   #317
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.
Everything comes down to something you can't explain. At some point the chain of "why" questions has to stop and the answer is simply that that's the way things are That we can get deeper and deeper explanations is wonderful, but that doesn't change the fact that there are necessarily some facts where are simply facts.

To take several different numbers (the masses of the various massive particles) and explain them as the result of a single number makes a theory simpler I honestly can't see how you can disagree with that.

There's nothing analogous here to "god did it" explanations, because the nature of god can be arbitrarily tweaked to any number of different facts: god saved that child because he loves him, god gave that one a disease because he is testing him, etc etc Whereas the mass of the Higgs boson has to be consistent with all of the masses of the particles in the standard model. And guess what? The experimental results agree with that predicted value. Show me a similar prediction made by "god did it" models, and perhaps I'll agree with your point
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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 4th November 2012, 12:09 PM   #318
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 14,740
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm saying the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said.
You are wrong - Einstein never said that or you would cite him saying that.
There is no inertia in E=mc2.
What E=mc2 (mass-energy equivalance) means is that
  • If you have a system with an an energy E you can consider that system as having a mass of mc2 or
  • If you have a system with an a mass m you can consider that system as having an energy of E/c2
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.
Wrong, Farsight. The Higgs mechanism is explained and has been explained for 50 years so it is an an answer.
This seems to be an argument from incredibility (you cannot understand it ans so it is a "non-answer").
__________________
Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520)
"Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2
Reality Check is online now   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 4th November 2012, 01:15 PM   #319
TjW
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The former. Explaining something in terms of something you can't explain isn't elegant, it's a non-answer. Just as "God did it" is a non-answer.
You assert this, and give an example of something else you consider to have this flaw.
Can you explain why it's a non-answer?
TjW 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 5th November 2012, 08:46 AM   #320
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,415
Just in case anyone is interested in actual physics, here is Higgs' 1964 paper which was the first to predict a massive boson as the result of the incorrectly named Higgs mechanism. Any objections that do not directly address this at a similar level of mathematics are simply irrelevant. No amount of wordy analogies and pointless handwaving can compete with an actual theory.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles 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

Bookmarks

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 04:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.