Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Higgs Boson Discovered?!

 User Name Remember Me? Password

 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

 5th November 2012, 09:10 AM #321 Ocelot Illuminator     Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: London Posts: 3,475 Interesting to note that it's just two pages and half a dozen or so equations. It's almost poetry. __________________ EDL = English Disco Lovers
 5th November 2012, 10:03 AM #322 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by Ocelot Interesting to note that it's just two pages and half a dozen or so equations. It's almost poetry. Loads of the great historical papers are short. Maria Goeppert Mayer's paper explaining shell structure in nuclei is about a side and a half.
 5th November 2012, 11:51 AM #323 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 My favorite historical paper is Weinberg's 1967 paper on electroweak unification. That's a 2500x-cited paper that won a Nobel prize and so on. After going through the calculations that predict the W and Z-boson masses (correctly, as it turned out 10-15 years later) Weinberg says: Originally Posted by http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v19/i21/p1264_1 Of course our model has too many arbitrary features for these predictions to be taken seriously ... Huh.
 5th November 2012, 11:57 AM #324 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by ben m My favorite historical paper is Weinberg's 1967 paper on electroweak unification. That's a 2500x-cited paper that won a Nobel prize and so on. After going through the calculations that predict the W and Z-boson masses (correctly, as it turned out 10-15 years later) Weinberg says: Huh. The antithesis of certain people on this forum who think that the "mainstream" have got it wrong and only they know the real truth about...
 5th November 2012, 12:18 PM #325 kalen Your Daddy     Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 933 Originally Posted by Farsight Like the electron, the Higgs boson is made of kinetic energy, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content. So the Higgs is made of photons, too? __________________ No way! Yahweh!
 5th November 2012, 04:42 PM #326 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Cuddles 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. Excellent. Thank you. __________________ 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
 8th November 2012, 04:00 AM #327 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Sorry to have been away, there was something I had to do then I got distracted by other physics. Originally Posted by Cuddles 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. This pompous Emperor's New Clothes line can be used to dismiss anything. It's the modern equivalent of you don't even speak Latin. You won't get away with that on a skeptics forum. Will he, guys? Guys? Originally Posted by kalen So the Higgs is made of photons, too? No. Remember that what's actually been discovered is a bump on a graph, that Peter Higgs didn't say I predict a resonance at 125GeV, and we're calling this thing "the Higgs" for short. Assuming there's no event-selection issue, then whatever this might be, it's made of energy, mainly the kinetic energy which was given to the accelerated protons. It has mass by virtue of E=mc², it lasts for maybe 10^-24 seconds and can decay into two photons.
 8th November 2012, 06:50 AM #331 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Originally Posted by Dancing David Did you mean photon or electron, an electron is a lepton. I think you meant photon which is a boson. No, I meant electron. We can turn a photon into electron kinetic energy. Or we can turn a photon into an electron (and a positron) in pair production. So we can say the electron is made of kinetic energy. In the LHC we add kinetic energy to protons, then use that to make a "Higgs boson" which decays instantly into two photons.
 8th November 2012, 07:05 AM #332 edd Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,120 Just because you can use kinetic energy to make an electron positron pair doesn't mean they are physically constituted of kinetic energy. And that's hardly the only thing I could take issue with. __________________ 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
 8th November 2012, 07:24 AM #333 Roboramma Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 9,314 Originally Posted by Farsight I started in post 242 on page 7 where I pointed to Susskind talking about radiation in a box adding mass to the system. Okay, E=mc2 I was aware of that, but yeah cool Quote: Then in posts 247 thru 249 I used a standing-wave to explain that inertia is the flip side of momentum. I'm fine with that too Quote: In post 255 I referred to a the original problem in QED and explained that the standing-wave adds mass because it's interacting with the box. Okay, sounds reasonable Quote: In post 258 I referred again to Guidice and to the importance of symmetry and what's interacting with what. Okay, symetry is cool Quote: In post 262 I referred to electrons existing as standing waves in atomic orbitals. Okay Quote: In post 274 I quoted Einstein's explanation of mass as the measure of a system's energy content. Yeah, we got that: E=mc2 Quote: In post 275 I explained that the electron was literally made of kinetic energy. You asserted that Personally that doesn't seem like a meaningful statement to me An electron has kinetic energy, and it's true that the energy of its mass may have come from the kinetic energy of some other particle, but what does "made of kinetic energy" even mean? Quote: In post 282 I pointed out that the Higgs mechanism says that electron's mass doesn't depend on its energy content. You said it doesn't depend on it's energy content, but I don't see any evidence that that's the case: are you saying that the Higgs mechanism violates conservation of energy? The fact that an electron's mass is determined by its coupling to the Higgs field doesn't mean it's mass doesn't depend on it's energy content: it requires a certain amount of energy to create an electron which is so coupled, so I really don't see your point here Quote: In post 286 I threw down the challenge of how does the Higgs boson get its mass. The answer is from the kinetic energy given to the LHC particles. So its mass is a measure of its energy content. Like Einstein said. So the same applies to the electron. So it doesn't get its mass from the Higgs mechanism which contradicts E=mc². I'm still not following the logic of the highlighted bit __________________ "... 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
 8th November 2012, 07:44 AM #335 DSo Scholar   Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 105 Quote: Originally Posted by Tubbythin Nothing is made of kinetic energy. That is not meaningful English. Originally Posted by Farsight Take that up with Einstein, who said: "The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light". Then take a look at electron-positron annihilation. The kinetic energy of the body diminished as a result of the emission of light. Totally. And afterwards, there's no body left. So I go to the supermarket and buy dinner. My bank account diminishes as a result. Therefore my dinner is made out of money??
 8th November 2012, 07:57 AM #336 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,214 Originally Posted by DSo So I go to the supermarket and buy dinner. My bank account diminishes as a result. Therefore my dinner is made out of money?? You may be taking Farsight too literally. His argument is metaphorical, not mathematical. To deal with his argument on its own terms, you have to think metaphorically. Like this: Originally Posted by Farsight Photons do couple with photons, So that's where baby photons come from? Originally Posted by Farsight All these things tell us that the electron is a standing wave that gets its mass not by interacting with a box, or the Higgs field, but by interacting with itself. That's not where baby electrons come from.
 8th November 2012, 08:08 AM #337 Roboramma Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 9,314 Originally Posted by DSo So I go to the supermarket and buy dinner. My bank account diminishes as a result. Therefore my dinner is made out of money?? The lhc is powered by electricity, some of which comes from hydroelectricity, therefore the Higgs boson is made of gravitational potential energy __________________ "... 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
 8th November 2012, 08:08 AM #338 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Quote: Originally Posted by Farsight Quote: Originally Posted by Cuddles 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. This pompous Emperor's New Clothes line can be used to dismiss anything. It's the modern equivalent of you don't even speak Latin. You won't get away with that on a skeptics forum. It's really quite simple. Some of us laymen have studied enough physics to have a general understanding of the Higgs paper. Since it has been accepted for several decades as standard physics, anyone refuting that paper should present specific arguments against the mathematically developed conclusions in that paper. Anything else is sophistry! Are you capable of finding any flaws in Higgs' paper or not? If not, you are nothing more than another crackpot populating the Internet. __________________ 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
 8th November 2012, 08:10 AM #339 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Originally Posted by Roboramma You asserted that. Personally that doesn't seem like a meaningful statement to me. You've missed something somewhere along the line. The photon has a wavelength, it's a wave, and when you take all the kinetic energy out of the wave it doesn't exist any more. It isn't like some cannonball where you steal all its kinetic energy and you've still got a cannonball. So you can say the photon is kinetic energy. You know this is reasonable because you can convert a photon into electron kinetic energy in Compton scattering with a final bound-electron absorption like edd said. The photon has totally gone, and all you've got to show for it is electron kinetic energy. Alternatively you can use pair production to convert the photon, which is kinetic energy, into an electron. So the electron is made out of the same thing that makes an electron move. Kinetic energy. This is what E=mc² is all about. Read what Einstein said: "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". That's what it is, not the measure of how strongly it couples with some cosmic treacle. Originally Posted by Roboramma An electron has kinetic energy, and it's true that the energy of its mass may have come from the kinetic energy of some other particle, but what does "made of kinetic energy" even mean? See above. Matter is made of energy. That's the whole point of E=mc². Originally Posted by Roboramma You said it doesn't depend on it's energy content, but I don't see any evidence that that's the case: are you saying that the Higgs mechanism violates conservation of energy? No. I said the electron's mass depends on its energy content. Like Einstein said. The Higgs mechanism doesn't, it says it depends on how much it couples with an-all pervasive field. It ignores the wave nature of matter and it contradicts what Einstein said. Originally Posted by Roboramma The fact that an electron's mass is determined by its coupling to the Higgs field doesn't mean it's mass doesn't depend on it's energy content: it requires a certain amount of energy to create an electron which is so coupled, so I really don't see your point here. The point is that the electron is a body, and the inertia of a body depends on its energy content, not on something else. If you trap a photon in a box, the added mass is nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. If you trap a photon in a box of its own making because photon-photon coupling and photon self-coupling really does occur despite what QED says, the added mass is again nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. It's just the flip side of momentum. It's the resistance to change-in-motion for a standing wave propagating round and round at c and getting nowhere, rather than the resistance to change-in-motion for a wave propagating linearly at c. It's that simple, and it's a symmetry. Again look at atomic orbitals which says the electrons exist as standing waves, and look at electron diffraction. Electrons aren't cannonballs, they're waves, made from photons in pair production. They have spin angular momentum and magnetic moment so something really is going round and round in there. Originally Posted by Roboramma I'm still not following the logic of the highlighted bit See above. The inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, just like Einstein said. Not on something else. I've got to go. I'll look at other posts I've skipped such as RC's another time. Last edited by Farsight; 8th November 2012 at 08:13 AM.
 8th November 2012, 08:23 AM #340 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student It's really quite simple. Some of us laymen have studied enough physics to have a general understanding of the Higgs paper. So explain it then. In your own words. And while you're at it, do mention why the inertia of a body doesn't depend upon its energy content. Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Since it has been accepted for several decades as standard physics, anyone refuting that paper should present specific arguments against the mathematically developed conclusions in that paper. Anything else is sophistry! Are you capable of finding any flaws in Higgs' paper or not? If not, you are nothing more than another crackpot populating the Internet. Well, that's one way to dismiss patent scientific evidence along with plain-vanilla physics and a straightforward explanation that even a child can understand. And Einstein to boot. Hide behind mathematics, like a witch doctor hides behind incantations when a pharmacologist shows up. Like a medieval bishop hides behind Latin and says "you're not qualified to speak of such matters". Nobody falls for it on a skeptics website. Do they? Perpetual Student, explain the Higgs paper in your own words. When you can't, it will be a nice demonstration of Emperors' New Clothes. Cue ducking and diving and a few more outraged "crackpot" squawks. Bah. Now I really must go. Last edited by Farsight; 8th November 2012 at 08:26 AM. Reason: Typos, bishop, must go
 8th November 2012, 09:40 AM #341 edd Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,120 This really is crazy. Photons do not trap themselves in self-made boxes. Photons do not couple directly to photons. QED is in complete agreement with all two-photon physics. Electrons are not made up internally of photons, and photons are in no meaningful way made up purely of kinetic energy. To follow your logic Farsight, photons can't be fundamental since they also have spin angular momentum, so presumably there's something smaller going round and round in them too? Your idea makes no useful predictions, unlike the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs mechanism also does not violate relativity (you'd have thought someone might have mentioned that when they found the Higgs if it did, no?) __________________ 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
 8th November 2012, 10:29 AM #342 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by Farsight So the electron is made out of the same thing that makes an electron move. Kinetic energy. This is what E=mc² is all about. See above. Matter is made of energy. That's the whole point of E=mc². As usual, Farsight can't tell the difference between "explaining Relativity" and "explaining his crackpot mental image of Relativity". You really seem to think that energy is the underlying "stuff", and that if you rearrange and recombine energy in different ways you get different "stuff". Tie up some energy like this, and you get an electron at rest; tie it up like that, you get a top quark moving at 0.5c. This is wrong---or, at least, this is not what Einstein or anybody else thought. Energy is a conserved quantity. You can measure it. Different things add up to different amounts of energy. The rest mass of a down quark is worth 5 MeV in this conservation law---that does not mean that "5MeV" worth of "energy blobs" are its building blocks. The field energy of the 1-fm sphere of gluons, found inside a proton, is worth about 900 MeV. The rest mass of an electron is worth 0.511 MeV---that does NOT, emphatically, mean that you build a proton by balling up 0.511 MeV of energy-substance. Energy isn't a substance, isn't a building block, isn't a thing at all. Rest mass has this conserved quantity, energy, as an attribute. High velocities have this energy-quantity as an attribute. Strong fields have this energy-quantity as an attribute. That's as far as it goes. That is the whole point of E=mc^2 --- it tells you what quantity of energy is associated with mass at rest. It does not tell you that one is a constituent of the other. (ETA: Indeed, Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2 has nothing whatsoever to do with substances. That derivation is *pure* kinematics---you starts with "let's assume that energy is conserved", and you run some inelastic-collision experiments in different frames. You discover that E = 1/2 mv^2 is *not* a conserved quantity, but E = sqrt(m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2) is a conserved quantity. This derivation does not care about electrons, or photons, or pair production, or fields---it's just the definition of the conservation law.) All of your assertions revolve around a stupid reinterpretation of words like "contains", etc.. Imagine listening to someone discussing their assets: "I sank $150,000 into my house, and my car is$10,000, and I have $8000 in gold bullion under my mattress." And imagine a crackpot thinking that this literally means that you could pick the car apart under a microscope and find the$150,000 it's made of; that smashing the gold together really hard will reveal a cunning work of dollar-bill origami. It will get worse when the crackpot sees an broker advertising that he can convert gold into money and vice versa (you're ignoring evidence, morons, says the crackpot), and a bank talking about the "liquidity" of assets (see, money is a substance! Everyone knows but you! says the crackpot.) That is just as stupid as your electron = kinetic energy assertion, Farsight. Last edited by ben m; 8th November 2012 at 11:09 AM.
 8th November 2012, 02:50 PM #343 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Testing, one two: $K_0 - K_1 = \frac{1}{2} \frac{L}{C^2} v^2$
 8th November 2012, 03:17 PM #344 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Originally Posted by edd This really is crazy. Photons do not trap themselves in self-made boxes. Photons do not couple directly to photons. Yes they do couple directly. It's called two-photon physics. SLAC have done the experiments. And go and read Light bends itself into an arc. What do you think's going to happen if that arc is so very curved that it forms a closed path? Originally Posted by edd QED is in complete agreement with all two-photon physics. Not the bit that says pair production occurs because pair production occurs, and that a photon is forever spontaneously morphing into an electron-positron pair all on its own. That's crazy. All you need to do is look at Faraday rotation and understand that a photon is an electromagnetic wave to understand that a photon can couple to a photon. Two photons pass each other, jinkjink, jinkjink. Originally Posted by edd Electrons are not made up internally of photons, and photons are in no meaningful way made up purely of kinetic energy. Oh yes they are. You really can convert a photon into electron kinetic energy and nothing else. And you really can convert two photons into an electron and a positron and nothing else. You really can convert an electron and a positron into two photons and nothing else. Do not dismiss the scientific evidence of Compton scattering, the photoelectric effect, electron diffraction, magnetic dipole moment, the Einstein de-Haas effect, and what Einstein said in favour of something for which there is no evidence, and which fails miserably at explaining why "the Higgs boson" doesn't get its mass from all the kinetic energy we gave the LHC protons. Originally Posted by edd To follow your logic Farsight, photons can't be fundamental since they also have spin angular momentum, so presumably there's something smaller going round and round in them too? No. Don't put words in my mouth. Photons are waves, waves are always associated with angular momentum. Look at wind waves. See the pictures on the right. A wave makes things go round. Originally Posted by edd Your idea makes no useful predictions, unlike the Higgs mechanism. It isn't my idea, it's Einstein's idea. The inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. That's what it depends on, not whether it couples with cosmic treacle. Originally Posted by edd The Higgs mechanism also does not violate relativity (you'd have thought someone might have mentioned that when they found the Higgs if it did, no?) You'd have thought they'd have mentioned that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter when they found the Higgs. But they didn't did they? No. Nor did they mention that it's "frightfully ad-hoc" and isn't central to the Standard Model. And nor did they mention the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. And nor did they mention that it gets it mass from all that proton kinetic energy. So what's your fallback argument edd? That the Higgs mechanism must be right because the people trumpeting it don't mention these things? Wake up. This is a forum for skeptics, for rational thinkers, not for suckers who lap up publicity releases and treat it like gospel. Last edited by Farsight; 8th November 2012 at 03:19 PM.
 8th November 2012, 03:28 PM #346 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,850 Originally Posted by Farsight So explain it then Perpetual Student, explain the Higgs paper in your own words. When you can't, it will be a nice demonstration of Emperors' New Clothes. Cue ducking and diving and a few more outraged "crackpot" squawks. Bah. Now I really must go. I don't know why I'm taking the bait here. I have had such negative experiences in the past with a certain Mozina when I have done so -- I will likely regret this. My own (layman's) words for a mathematically developed argument in such a complex area of physics are mostly pointless. But anyway here goes: As a starting point (not shown in the paper in question), an analysis of a certain Lagrangian of a complex scalar field constructed to be symmetric under phase transformations shows that the spontaneous breaking of a continuous symmetry generates massless scalars (bosons), which cannot really exist in nature. (I assume you understand why this is so.) The Higgs mechanism solves this problem through a coupling mechanism that I believe is similar to that of fermions (that couple with their anti-particles -- but maybe not?) in order to account for mass. However, a gauge field is postulated to accomplish that for bosons having mass. His equation (4) contains the coupling constant that does the trick. So, now explain where the errors are in his thesis. You have the floor! No more silly comments about photons being kinetic energy in space -- just tell us where Higgs went wrong! __________________ 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
 8th November 2012, 03:40 PM #347 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by Farsight No, I meant electron. We can turn a photon into electron kinetic energy. Or we can turn a photon into an electron (and a positron) in pair production. So we can say the electron is made of kinetic energy. No, no we can't. This is just the high-school version of the first law of thermodynamics, nothing more.
 8th November 2012, 03:46 PM #348 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Perpetual Student: Huh? LOL! Call that an explanation? You don't understand this at all! What complex scalar field? What does constructed to be symmetric under phase transformations actually mean? And how does the "spontaneous" breaking of a continuous symmetry generate massless bosons? All you've done is had a stab at an explanation that "explains" things in terms of things you don't understand at all. Why do you fool yourself that abstract blather like this is in any way convincing, whilst at the same time fooling yourself into thinking that patent scientific evidence is silly? Higgs went wrong because he didn't understand classical electromagnetism and four-potential. The A-field is what "bulges" when a photon passes by, that's what's responsible for both photon momentum and electron mass, that's the "Higgs substance" that doesn't fill space, but is space. And he didn't understand the symmetry between momentum and inertia either. Or the wave nature of matter. Or the Einstein-de Haas effect, or electron diffraction, etc etc etc. And yet he's revered like a gospel saint by people like you who have never read the original Einstein and don't understand the first thing about physics. Ye Gods.
 8th November 2012, 03:48 PM #349 dafydd Banned   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398 Originally Posted by Farsight Testing, one two: http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?K...ac{L}{C^2} v^2 Wow, you can count to two!
8th November 2012, 04:04 PM   #350
dafydd
Banned

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
For those interested in the truth, here is the BBC documentary about the Higgs Boson.
 YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. I AGREE

 8th November 2012, 04:23 PM #351 edd Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,120 Originally Posted by Farsight Yes they do couple directly. It's called two-photon physics. Not direct coupling. Quote: Not the bit that says pair production occurs because pair production occurs, and that a photon is forever spontaneously morphing into an electron-positron pair all on its own. That's crazy. "One does not simply dismiss QED." - Niels Bohromir. Quote: No. Don't put words in my mouth. Photons are waves, waves are always associated with angular momentum. I just... the... what? Quote: You'd have thought they'd have mentioned that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter when they found the Higgs. But they didn't did they? No. Plenty of people did. Admittedly not many press offices did, but that's what press offices are like. Quote: That the Higgs mechanism must be right because the people trumpeting it don't mention these things? Wake up. This is a forum for skeptics, for rational thinkers, not for suckers who lap up publicity releases and treat it like gospel. I tend not to do my physics by press releases. I tend to have more direct routes to it. I think it's incredibly likely to be right because of its explanatory power and because a suitable looking particle just showed up. __________________ 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
8th November 2012, 04:23 PM   #352
Farsight
Banned

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m
As usual, Farsight can't tell the difference between "explaining Relativity" and "explaining his crackpot mental image of Relativity".
As usual, you've got no counterargument and resort to abuse.

Originally Posted by ben m
You really seem to think that energy is the underlying "stuff", and that if you rearrange and recombine energy in different ways you get different "stuff". Tie up some energy like this, and you get an electron at rest; tie it up like that, you get a top quark moving at 0.5c. This is wrong---or, at least, this is not what Einstein or anybody else thought.
It isn't "stuff". Stuff is made of it. And it was Einstein who told us that matter is made of energy.

Originally Posted by ben m
Energy is a conserved quantity.
Yep. And matter is made from it.

Originally Posted by ben m
You can measure it. Different things add up to different amounts of energy. The rest mass of a down quark is worth 5 MeV in this conservation law---that does not mean that "5MeV" worth of "energy blobs" are its building blocks.
Can you show me a down quark? No. But I can show you energy. KICK. That's energy. I can show you Compton scattering. KICK. The electron moves and the photon is diminished. I can show you pair production, and now there's no KICK, just an electron and a positron. Learn to put evidence and reality above abstraction ben. You're an experimentalist aren't you? Act like one.

Originally Posted by ben m
The field energy of the 1-fm sphere of gluons, found inside a proton, is worth about 900 MeV.]
Gluons are virtual particles. See above. Next.

Originally Posted by ben m
The rest mass of an electron is worth 0.511 MeV---that does NOT, emphatically, mean that you build a proton by balling up 0.511 MeV of energy-substance. Energy isn't a substance, isn't a building block, isn't a thing at all.
Oh yes it is a thing. It isn't stuff, but it's the thing from which stuff is made. It's the thing from which matter is made. It's the thing that you can neither create nor destroy. It isn't some abstract thing like money that is merely a tokenised agreement of value. It's real ben. Plants capture it. You consume it to do work and to grow. It isn't just the capacity to do work. Not when work is the energy associated with the action of a force. How many circular arguments do I have to point out to you before you start thinking for yourself?

Originally Posted by ben m
Rest mass has this conserved quantity, energy, as an attribute.
Because it's just energy that is effectively at rest because it isn't getting anywhere, because it's going round and round instead of linearly. That's it, that's all it is. Do you still not understand this symmetry between momentum and inertia? A wave propagating linearly exhibits resistance to change-in-motion called momentum, a wave propagating circularly exhibits resistance to change-in-motion called inertia. Hence the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Can I even put it any simpler?

Originally Posted by ben m
High velocities have this energy-quantity as an attribute. Strong fields have this energy-quantity as an attribute.
And is there anything that doesn't? Photons? No. Neutrinos? No. Electrons and positrons? No. Protons and antiprotons? No. Neutrons and antineutrons that decay into the above? No. Fast moving electrons made to move fast by photons? No. How about a gravitational field? No? And so it goes ben.

Originally Posted by ben m
That's as far as it goes. That is the whole point of E=mc^2 --- it tells you what quantity of energy is associated with mass at rest. It does not tell you that one is a constituent of the other.
No, the experiments tell you that. And you're an experimentalist.

Originally Posted by ben m
(ETA: Indeed, Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2 has nothing whatsoever to do with substances. That derivation is *pure* kinematics---you starts with "let's assume that energy is conserved", and you run some inelastic-collision experiments in different frames. You discover that E = 1/2 mv^2 is *not* a conserved quantity, but E = sqrt(m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2) is a conserved quantity. This derivation does not care about electrons, or photons, or pair production, or fields---it's just the definition of the conservation law.)
Pay attention to that "pure kinematics", because you are made of it. And when it comes to $E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2$, do not ignore the flipflop between the mass and momentum terms in pair production followed by annihilation.

Originally Posted by ben m
All of your assertions revolve around a stupid reinterpretation of words like "contains", etc.. Imagine listening to someone discussing their assets: "I sank $150,000 into my house, and my car is$10,000, and I have $8000 in gold bullion under my mattress." And imagine a crackpot thinking that this literally means that you could pick the car apart under a microscope and find the$150,000 it's made of; that smashing the gold together really hard will reveal a cunning work of dollar-bill origami. It will get worse when the crackpot sees an broker advertising that he can convert gold into money and vice versa (you're ignoring evidence, morons, says the crackpot), and a bank talking about the "liquidity" of assets (see, money is a substance! Everyone knows but you! says the crackpot.)
 Breach of rules 0 and 12 removed. Do not insult other posters. Posted By:Cuddles

Last edited by Cuddles; 9th November 2012 at 05:15 AM.

 8th November 2012, 04:26 PM #353 Roboramma Philosopher     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 9,314 Originally Posted by Farsight And gravitational potential energy is converted into kinetic energy when a brick falls down. And before the brick fell down, that gravitational potential energy was in the brick as hidden kinetic energy wherein the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Find a brick made of antimatter and you can annihilate the elevated brick and antibrick to photons, which can be entirely converted into electron motion. So again, the "Higgs boson" is made of kinetic energy. I forgot that you somehow consider kinetic energy to be more fundamental than other forms of energy Personally I think ben m's most recent post in this thread sums up my objections to this better than I'm likely to But just to be clear: you're saying that a book sitting on shelf five feet off the floor in my bedroom has more kinetic energy than the same book sitting on the floor? __________________ "... 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
8th November 2012, 04:28 PM   #354
dafydd
Banned

Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Farsight
 Edited by LashL: Edited.
<sound of irony meters exploding>

Last edited by LashL; 9th November 2012 at 07:53 AM. Reason: To remove quote of moderated content.

 8th November 2012, 04:29 PM #355 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,214 Originally Posted by Farsight All you've done is had a stab at an explanation that "explains" things in terms of things you don't understand at all. Why do you fool yourself that abstract blather like this is in any way convincing, whilst at the same time fooling yourself into thinking that patent scientific evidence is silly? Excellent question. You should ask it more often, in front of a mirror. Originally Posted by Farsight Higgs went wrong because he didn't understand classical electromagnetism and four-potential. Oh, this is gonna be good... Originally Posted by Farsight The A-field is what "bulges" when a photon passes by, that's what's responsible for both photon momentum and electron mass, that's the "Higgs substance" that doesn't fill space, but is space. If that doesn't demonstrate Farsight's superior understanding of classical electromagnetism and four-potential, then I don't know what does. Originally Posted by Farsight And yet he's revered like a gospel saint by people like you who have never read the original Einstein and don't understand the first thing about physics. Ye Gods. In a discussion of Einstein's most important paper on general relativity, Farsight got lost at the third of 75 numbered equations. While promoting his book, Farsight demonstrated profound ignorance of freshman-level electromagnetism. Why does Farsight continue to remind us of that history by accusing others of not having read Einstein and not understanding the first thing about physics? Maybe he thinks it's one of his more compelling arguments.
 8th November 2012, 04:31 PM #356 edd Master Poster     Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,120 Originally Posted by Farsight Your physics knowledge is scant. I assure you it isn't - his knowledge is clear enough to anyone, especially other physicists. I don't think I really need to bother saying this for anyone else reading it, but you're only making yourself look foolish by making this sort of statement about others. __________________ 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
 8th November 2012, 04:38 PM #357 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by Farsight Take that up with Einstein, who said: "The kinetic energy of the body with respect to (ξ ɳ Ϛ) diminishes as a result of the emission of light". That's the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: Then take a look at electron-positron annihilation. The kinetic energy of the body diminished as a result of the emission of light. That's the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: Totally. And afterwards, there's no body left. There are two photons. Are they not bodies? Quote: Not when that "body" is a photon. It isn't some billiard-ball thing. It's got a wavelength. It's a wave. Light has wavelike properties. Quote: When you take all the kinetic energy out of that wave, it doesn't exist any more. The photon has 0 chemical potential. We've known that since 1905 (at a guess). Quote: Like I was saying you can convert the photon kinetic energy into electron kinetic energy, whereafter there is no photon. That's the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: Or you can convert it into an electron (and a positron). That's the first law of thermodynamics too... combined with the conservation of electron lepton number of course. Quote: That's why we have the phrase "matter is made of energy". What else do you think it's made from? Cheese? Mass has an equivalent energy content, hence E=mc2. Quote: No it isn't. grey is a colour, it's a quale, something that only exists inside our heads. It's how we perceive light of a given frequency. It is a mix of frequencies. Quote: Energy isn't like that, it's the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. Like I said, that's the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: Matter really is made of energy. Define "energy". Quote: And that "Higgs boson" was quite literally made of the kinetic energy that we put in. You're still not understanding the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: I haven't backed down. Edd made the point, you hitched a ride on it. The two posts were made at exactly the same time. Quote: And blow me Sherlock, that photon doesn't exist any more. Take its kinetic energy away, and it isn't just sitting there. It's gone. That's why it is kinetic energy. You really don't understand the idea of energy do you? It is a scalar quantity. Just like, I dunno, distance. If the distance from one end of an elephant to the other is 5 m it makes no meaningful sense to say that the elephant is actually 5 m. Not 5 m long. Actually 5 m. Meaningless. Just like the photon being made of kinetic energy. Quote: And you can make matter out of it. Yay. Gotta love the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: You can't point out where I'm wrong, all you can do is go into denial and resort to dissmissal and abuse. I'm with Einstein here Tubby. Don't forget that. No, no you're not. Einstein pointed out that the first law of thermodynamics required the mass-energy equivalence. You think energy is actually a thing like an elephant. Quote: Spoken like a creationist. Nope. Spoken like someone telling the truth.
 8th November 2012, 04:40 PM #359 Farsight Banned   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,640 Originally Posted by edd I think it's incredibly likely to be right because of its explanatory power and because a suitable looking particle just showed up. Can you explain why what I've said is wrong? No. Can you explain why the inertia of a body does not depend upon its energy content? No. Can you explain why Einstein was wrong? No. And can you explain that Higgs paper? No. Edd, take a tip from Feynman. Pay attention to this: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool" You can't explain why I'm wrong and you can't explain why you're right. It must be right because it can't be wrong doesn't cut it. And nore does "crazy". What kind of argument is that? One that dismisses patent scientific evidence and plain-vanilla physics? In favour of something you don't understand and cannot explain, but lap up regardless? You know Feynman was called The Great Explainer? I look up to the guy, and try to emulate him. Now go listen to what he said about cargo-cult science, and pay attention. The ultimate irony of all this is that his QED has been corrupted into saying pair production occurs because pair production occurs, and damn the evidence, to hell with SLAC, dismiss light bends itself into an arc, photons do not couple with photons, QED. One day the penny will drop Edd. But on this day, I'm off to bed. ETA: LOL, Perpetual Student, Emperors New Clothes it is. Abusive words like "ignorant" and "rant" and "make-believe" do not conceal it. Last edited by Farsight; 8th November 2012 at 04:46 PM.
 8th November 2012, 04:46 PM #360 Tubbythin Illuminator   Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,202 Originally Posted by Farsight It isn't "stuff". Stuff is made of it. And it was Einstein who told us that matter is made of energy. Einstein told us that matter has an equivalent energy content. Energy is a scalar quantity, like mass. Say you weigh 100 kg. Does that mean you are made of 100 kg? No, that is not a meaningful sentence. Nor is it a meaningful sentence to say you are made of 1m 96 cm. Your body temperature is about 37 degrees C but you are not made of 37 degrees C. And in exactly the same way, you are not made of a billion gigajoules.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit