JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF 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 18th November 2012, 02:59 PM   #681
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13,597
Question Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic

A follow up to
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
.
Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory?
i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2.
First pointed out 1 November 2012
Have you even read Higgs paper, Farsight?
BROKEN SYMMETRIES AND THE MASSES OF GAUGE BOSONS by Peter W. Higgs (1964)
Where the frst paragraph is:
Quote:
In a recent note' it was shown that the Goldstone theorem, ' that Lorentz-covariant field theories in which spontaneous breakdown of symmetry under an internal Lie group occurs contain zero-mass particles, fails if and only if the conserved currents associated with the internal group are coupled to gauge fields. The purpose of the present note is to report that, as a consequence of this coupling, the spin-one quanta of some of the gauge fields acquire mass; the longitudinal degrees of freedom of these particles (which would be absent if their mass were zero) go over into the Goldstone bosons when the coupling tends to zero. This phenomenon is just the relativistic analog of the plasmon phenomenon to which Anderson' has drawn attention: that the scalar zero-mass excitations of a superconducting neutral Fermi gas become longitudinal plasmon modes of finite mass when the gas is charged.
Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic?
__________________
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 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 18th November 2012, 03:02 PM   #682
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by phunk View Post
The momentum is transferrred to earth, via gravity.
No it isn't. There is no magical mysterious action-at-a-distance. There is no spring connecting the cannonball to the Earth. When you fired the 1kg cannonball upwards at 1000m/s it had its KE=mv kinetic energy of 500,000 kg-m/s and its p=mv momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. At the top of its trajectory it has retained this energy-momentum in the guise of potential energy. The cannonball has it. It hasn't handed it to the Earth. If we simplify matters by making the Earth airless, then we can launch the cannonball with angled rockets that don't push on the Earth at all. The work done on the cannonball is done on the cannonball, not the Earth.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
It never disappears and is never converted to anything else.
Yes it does disappear. See this link. The cannonball gets to a height of 51,020 metres whereupon it's momentarily motionless. It hasn't got any momentum any more. Or any kinetic energy. See the bit in the link that says We also know that potential energy (due to altitude) is defined by the equation Ep = mgh. The m is the cannonballs's mass. The h is the cannonball's height.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Every bit of momentum the cannonball loses is gained by the earth. When the cannonball loses it's initial momentum X and reaches 0 speed, that's because the earth has gained exactly X momentum.
The Earth didn't gain any initial momentum when we fired the cannonball up with rockets. And when the cannonball is at its maximum height, we can't detect any motion of the Earth. We can't detect any spring, or any mechanism whereby the cannonball momentum or kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth. Like I said, you cannot remove kinetic energy from an object without removing the momentum too. There is no lightning-bolt of 500,000 kg-m/s whereby the Earth robs the cannonball of its kinetic energy and momentum. Instead it's converted into potential energy in the cannonball.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
I never said that the energy-momentum of the cannonball was always zero. Mainly because "energy-momentum" isn't a phrase I would use, because it doesn't make sense.
Look it up.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
The momentum (not energy-momentum) of the cannonball passes through 0 on the way from X to -X, but it is not always zero.
Don't be distracted by the vector aspect of momentum. A cannonball going up has momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. When it's at maximum height its momentum is zero. When it's falling down its momentum is not less than that. The cannonball is doing 1000m/s. The negative sign on its -1000 kg-m/s is just a convention for indicating direction. Like I said, a cannonball coming at you from the West at 1000m/s doesn't have zero momentum.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
You seem to think that momentum and energy are the same thiing, but they are not.
They're two different aspects of the same thing called energy-momentum. You cannot take away a cannonball's kinetic energy without taking away its momentum.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
Momentum is related to kinetic energy, but not potential energy. Potential energy is not hidden momentum, because that momentum is never hidden. It's only hidden in your mind because you only consider the cannonball and not the earth and the force of gravity between them.
No it isn't. If you put that cannonball in a box bouncing back and forth at 1000m/s it's still got its kinetic energy and its momentum. The same is true of a light wave, where E=hf and p=hf/c. You can't reduce the p without reducing the E. And if you can't see that E or p you call it potential energy. Divide by c for momentum, but nobody ever calls it potential momentum.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
It comes down to what you denied in the other thread, that gravitational potential energy is stored in an object.
Phunk, I'm not denying anything. Now go and do some research. Start with hyperphysics. Note this: Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The object posesses it. The energy is in the object. It's merely that portion of its mass-energy that is converted into kinetic energy when the object falls down. Once the kinetic energy is radiated away, the mass-energy of the object is reduced. You reverse this when you lift the object up.

Originally Posted by phunk View Post
It is not, it is a property of a system of objects. GPE is relative. One object can have different amounts of GPE, depending on your frame of reference, just like it can have different velocities. This is because GPE is not a property of the object, it's a property of the relationship between multiple objects.
A cannonball way out in space doesn't have any gravitational potential energy, it just has its mass-energy. GPE is just a statement of how much of this can be wrung out of it and turned into kinetic energy when it falls down. I'm not kidding you about all this Phunk. Please go and ask around about it elsewhere, and do your own research. This website looks pretty good.
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 18th November 2012, 03:07 PM   #683
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Once again you did not!
It was a repeat of you ignoring the Higgs mechanism and restating your fantasy (so far) that it is inconsistant with E=mc^2.
I answered your question here and you totally dismissed my answer.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You then complain about putting relativistic in front of QFT !

There is nothing in that post about whether that Higgs mechanism is relativistic or not.

The answer is either
  • Yes
    and you will show that you know a basic fact about the Higgs mechanism or
  • No
    and the evidence to back it up.
Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory?
i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2.
First pointed out 1 November 2012
I've answered your question. If I gave another answer you'd ignore that too and pretend I've ignored you. And meanwhile you dismiss all my explanations and all my references to Einstein, but can't explain the Higgs mechanism at all.

Next.
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 18th November 2012, 03:16 PM   #684
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
Why is this so hard, Farsight? The presence of the Higgs field alters the allowable energies of Standard Model particles. Because it alters the energies, it alters the masses. There is no conflict between the Higgs mechanism and E^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^2. The Higgs mechanism just helps determine m.
That's a bit of a shift isn't it? You've gone from the Higgs mechanism gives an electron its mass to the Higgs mechanism sets the 511keV level at which an electron can exist. That' wrong too. Apologise for calling me a crackpot and I'll explain why it's h that sets the level, not the Higgs mechanism.
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 18th November 2012, 03:31 PM   #685
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13,597
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I answered your question here and you totally dismissed my answer.
I dismissed it because you did not show that triggers mechanism violates E=mc^2.
Given that you seem nearly totally ignorant about the Higgs mechanism, this is not surprising !

The question remains: Farsight: Is the Higgs mechanism a relativistic quantum field theory?
i.e. is it is based on special relativity and is thus consistent with E=mc^2.
First pointed out 1 November 2012
Just learn about the Higgs mechanism and tell me yes or no Farsight!

And then there is:
Farsight: What does Peter W. Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic in his original 1964 paper?
First asked 19 November 2012

I wonder whether the authors who cite that paper call the Higgs mechanism relativistic or non-relativistic?
What about the other authors about the Higgs mechanism?
I guess if you continue to refuse to learn about the Higgs mechanism then we will find out !

ETA:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
And meanwhile you dismiss all my explanations and all my references to Einstein, but can't explain the Higgs mechanism at all.
See above why all your explanations were dismissed because they do not address the Higgs mechanism at all.

And you are wrong: you have never asked for an explanation of the Higgs mechanism from me. My response would be: Higgs mechanism.
Asking for that explanasion though is yet another indactor of your ignorance about the Higgs mechanism - you cannot even understand the Wikipedia article!
__________________
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; 18th November 2012 at 03:42 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 03:47 PM   #686
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
 
Stimpson J. Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,919
Originally Posted by Farsight
Note this: Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The object posesses it. The energy is in the object. It's merely that portion of its mass-energy that is converted into kinetic energy when the object falls down. Once the kinetic energy is radiated away, the mass-energy of the object is reduced. You reverse this when you lift the object up.
Wait a minute, Farsight. So now you are saying that even though a body's mass depends on its energy content, it can also depend on how the body interacts with a field?

Doesn't this, according to you, violate E=mc^2?

If a cannonball's rest mass can depend on the interaction between the cannonball and the gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass depend on the interaction between the electron and the Higgs field?

If the cannonball's rest mass can be different in a strong gravitational field than it would be if there was no gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there was no Higgs field?

Imagine for a moment that the Higgs field only existed in a small area of space. Outside of the region of space the electron has zero rest mass, just like the photon. A 1MeV electron enters the field. It suddenly slows down from c to about 0.8c, and in doing so 0.511MeV of its kinetic energy becomes rest energy. Another electron with only 0.1MeV of energy strikes the field, but does not have enough energy to penetrate the boundary, and reflects off, much as light can reflect off of a metallic conductor. And inside the field, a 1MeV electron (again moving at about 0.8c) exits the field. Its 0.511MeV of rest energy turns back into kinetic energy, and its speed returns to c. And of course inside the field you won't be able to make any new electrons without supplying enough energy to do so (the Higgs field does not provide the energy). So for example, outside of the field any two photons could combine to produce an electron-positron pair (since they have no rest mass). But inside the field the two photons must have at least 1.022MeV of energy between them, so that this kinetic energy can be converted into the rest energy of the electron and positron that the interaction with the field requires them to have.

Note, by the way, that all of this is exactly analogous to what happens to photons moving in and out of a superconductor. In fact, it's exactly the same type of phenomenon. If a particle with zero rest mass enters a Boson Condensate that interacts with the particle, then the particle acquires a rest mass that depends on the strength of that interaction. This has been known for decades, and has been repeatedly experimentally verified.
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
Stimpson J. Cat 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 18th November 2012, 03:52 PM   #687
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13,597
Question Why has your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" ben ignored for 107 yrs

And yet more questions come up, Farsight!
According to your fantasy, Einstein explained the origin of mass in his 1905 paper. But sceintists have continued to look for an answer to the origin of mass for 107 years !

Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years?


Farsight: Where are the scientific papers expanding on your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?



Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?
__________________
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 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 18th November 2012, 04:01 PM   #688
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
That's not what Einstein thought. He devoted years of his life to explaining the origin of mass. I'll look for excerpts of those papers when I have time.
Please do. I won't hold my breath, because I happen to know he explained the origin of mass in 1905, and spent years of his life trying to unify electromagnetism and gravity. Would you like to know how that works by the way? Maybe we should have a new thread for that.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
Measure c in units of feet/second or Smoots/century, and your expression would give a different result for the electron-proton mass ratio. Therefore, it's manifest nonsense.
Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc too. It isn't manifest nonsense, you just don't understand spin , or that c^ and c^1 equates to c, or that everything hangs off the motion of light. Again, that's new-thread territory.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
You're wrong. And on top of that, after pages and pages no one has any idea why you think that (except ben, but even his take on your psychology doesn't really explain it).
I demolished ben's counterargument in post #668. Are you going to step in to help the guy out by pointing out where I got it wrong? No. Are you going to contribute to what he said about the Higgs mechanism setting the mass levels? No. All you're going to do is pretend that nobody has any idea what I'm saying. It's spectacularly unconvincing sol. Especially when you don't have the grace to say to guys like Phunk that Farsight is right about that. You should try it, it improves your credibility. Or should I say this: once people spot that you aren't sincere, your credibility is shot to pot.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
So then answer my question: what is the angular momentum of two collinear photons with opposite helicity?
The total angular momentum is zero. Just as the total angular momentum of two opposite roundabouts is zero. Just as the total momentum of two photons going in opposite directions is zero. Just as the total momentum of two cannonballs going in opposite directions is zero. But momentum is an aspect of energy-momentum, and in all cases the energy-momentum is not zero. Momentum nets to zero because in an interaction I exert a force on you this way whilst you exert a force on me that way. For every action there is a reaction. But that doesn't mean there is no action. And action h is always there in E=hf, action has the same dimensionality as angular momentum, and like Susskind said at 2:50 it's quantized. LOL, sol, we're going round in circles here. And still nobody can explain the Higgs mechanism. Yawn. 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 18th November 2012, 04:15 PM   #689
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13,597
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I won't hold my breath, because I happen to know he explained the origin of mass in 1905,...
Farsight: Why has your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" been ignored by scientists for 107 yrs?
Quote:
Farsight: Where are the scientific papers expanding on your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?

Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?
I will address a bit of ignorance: h is not an action (this has a precise menaing in physics). h is Plank's constant.
The Higgs mechanism does not have anything to do with angular momentum (quantized ot not).


So what is so important about the trivial facts that
  • h has the dimensions as angular momentum.
  • In relativity, angular momentum is quantized.
And you are lying - everyone here can explain the Higgs mechanism: Higgs mechanism.
No one here is likely to try to dumb it down enough so that you would understand it because you have shown no signs of understanding either Higgs mechanism or Susskind's lectrure. You would probably just continue to deny basic facts about it like it is a relativistic QFT. And then there is your history of not being able to understand SR in other threads.
__________________
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; 18th November 2012 at 04:39 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2012, 04:19 PM   #690
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc too. It isn't manifest nonsense, you just don't understand spin , or that c^ and c^1 equates to c, or that everything hangs off the motion of light. Again, that's new-thread territory.
Nope. It was you Farsight, and you alone, that chose to present an equation which on one side had no units and on the other side had units of (ms-1)1/2. These two quantities can never ever ever ever ever ever ever be considered equal. This betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics - I don't mean the basics of quantum mechanics or the basics of relativistic quantum field theory, I mean the fundamentals of high-school level physics - that it beggars belief.

Last edited by Tubbythin; 18th November 2012 at 04:41 PM.
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 18th November 2012, 04:35 PM   #691
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,813
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
That's a bit of a shift isn't it? You've gone from the Higgs mechanism gives an electron its mass to the Higgs mechanism sets the 511keV level at which an electron can exist.
You're really going out of your way to find new things to misunderstand.

I am baffled as to why you'd even pretend to think this is "a shift".

In the absence of the Higgs field, you can write a relativistic quantum field theory (notice "relativistic"?) including an electron-like object with zero mass. In this theory, the electron obeys all of the zero-mass equations of motion; it obeys the zero-mass equations of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.; it obeys E^2 = 0 + p^2 c^2; the electron-positron pair production threshhold is E_CM = 0; etc.

In the presence of the Higgs field, you can write a relativistic quantum field theory (notice "relativistic"? There it is again!) including an electron-like object which interacts with the Higgs vev. In this theory, the electron obeys all of the massive-particle equations of motion. It obeys the massive-particle equations for conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc; it obeys E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2; the electron-positron pair production threshhold is E_CM = 2mc^2; etc.

There are eighteen different ways to phrase this in English. You have now misunderstood approximately ten of them, claiming that each one contradicts the previous one. You know where there's only one way to phrase it? Equations. Write down the Standard Model Lagrangian and show me which term is Lorentz violating.

You'll have to invent something else to misunderstand. Go back to misunderstanding vectors and scalars, at least that one was funny.

Last edited by ben m; 18th November 2012 at 04:38 PM.
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 18th November 2012, 04:36 PM   #692
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
That's a bit of a shift isn't it? You've gone from the Higgs mechanism gives an electron its mass to the Higgs mechanism sets the 511keV level at which an electron can exist.
Erm. These are the same things.
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 18th November 2012, 04:41 PM   #693
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
You'll have to invent something else to misunderstand. Go back to misunderstanding vectors and scalars, at least that one was funny.
I particularly enjoyed his recent, and apparently continued, misunderstanding of units.
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 18th November 2012, 05:10 PM   #694
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,621
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The article goes on to say "the definition of the second depends on a single defined physical constant: the ground state hyperfine splitting frequency of the caesium 133 atom". However there's a little flaw in that in that you can't define the second using a frequency, which is cycles per second.
Sure you can, it's easy. A second is the time it takes for 9192631770 cycles.
phunk 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 18th November 2012, 05:21 PM   #695
Roboramma
Philosopher
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,687
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
If we simplify matters by making the Earth airless, then we can launch the cannonball with angled rockets that don't push on the Earth at all. The work done on the cannonball is done on the cannonball, not the Earth.
Why do you think this is useful? You either have a system of earth/cannonball with total momentum of 0, or you have a system of earth/cannonball/rocket exhaust of total momentum 0 It's still the case that in order to change the momentum of the cannonball something else's momentum has to change: that's what it means for momentum to be conserved

Here's a simple example of momentum and kinetic energy being different things: a bomb at t=0 the bomb is sitting somewhere out in space with nothing else around, at rest in our reference frame both it's kinetic energy and it's momentum =0

At t=1 it explodes, and pieces going flying off in various different directions The total momentum is still zero, but the total kinetic energy is certainly not zero

How is it possible that those two values are different?
__________________
"... 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 18th November 2012, 05:37 PM   #696
phunk
Master Poster
 
phunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,621
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No it isn't. There is no magical mysterious action-at-a-distance. There is no spring connecting the cannonball to the Earth. When you fired the 1kg cannonball upwards at 1000m/s it had its KE=mv kinetic energy of 500,000 kg-m/s and its p=mv momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. At the top of its trajectory it has retained this energy-momentum in the guise of potential energy. The cannonball has it. It hasn't handed it to the Earth.
How does the cannonball convert kinetic energy to potential energy? Via the force of gravity acting on the ball in the opposite direction of its motion. And what's on the other end of that force? Earth. How much does earth's momentum change when the cannonball slows down? By the exact amount the cannonball lost. It all adds up to 0 (well, to whatever the initial total was), always. Momentum is conserved.

Quote:
If we simplify matters by making the Earth airless, then we can launch the cannonball with angled rockets that don't push on the Earth at all. The work done on the cannonball is done on the cannonball, not the Earth.
You don't know how rockets work, do you. If you use rockets, then whatever momentum you give the cannonball, you give the exact opposite to the exhaust gasses coming from the rocket. The total momentum of the Earth, cannonball, and exhaust gasses does not change. Momentum is always conserved.
Quote:
Yes it does disappear. See this link. The cannonball gets to a height of 51,020 metres whereupon it's momentarily motionless. It hasn't got any momentum any more. Or any kinetic energy. See the bit in the link that says We also know that potential energy (due to altitude) is defined by the equation Ep = mgh. The m is the cannonballs's mass. The h is the cannonball's height.
It only disappeared because yet again, you're ignoring that the momentum was transferred to something else.

Quote:
The Earth didn't gain any initial momentum when we fired the cannonball up with rockets. And when the cannonball is at its maximum height, we can't detect any motion of the Earth. We can't detect any spring, or any mechanism whereby the cannonball momentum or kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth. Like I said, you cannot remove kinetic energy from an object without removing the momentum too. There is no lightning-bolt of 500,000 kg-m/s whereby the Earth robs the cannonball of its kinetic energy and momentum. Instead it's converted into potential energy in the cannonball.

Look it up.

Don't be distracted by the vector aspect of momentum. A cannonball going up has momentum of 1000 kg-m/s. When it's at maximum height its momentum is zero. When it's falling down its momentum is not less than that. The cannonball is doing 1000m/s. The negative sign on its -1000 kg-m/s is just a convention for indicating direction. Like I said, a cannonball coming at you from the West at 1000m/s doesn't have zero momentum.
Don't be distracted? You can't ignore the fact that momentum is a vector. It's the whole reason the concept of momentum exists.

Quote:
They're two different aspects of the same thing called energy-momentum.
Except that they aren't the same thing, they have different units, and one is a scalar while the other is a vector.

Quote:
You cannot take away a cannonball's kinetic energy without taking away its momentum.

No it isn't. If you put that cannonball in a box bouncing back and forth at 1000m/s it's still got its kinetic energy and its momentum. The same is true of a light wave, where E=hf and p=hf/c. You can't reduce the p without reducing the E. And if you can't see that E or p you call it potential energy. Divide by c for momentum, but nobody ever calls it potential momentum.
If you put that cannonball in a box bouncing back and forth, its momentum and the box's change places with every bounce. And I never said you can reduce p or E independently. But you can not reduce p without increasing it in something else by the same amount.

Quote:
Phunk, I'm not denying anything. Now go and do some research. Start with hyperphysics. Note this: Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The object posesses it. The energy is in the object. It's merely that portion of its mass-energy that is converted into kinetic energy when the object falls down. Once the kinetic energy is radiated away, the mass-energy of the object is reduced. You reverse this when you lift the object up.

A cannonball way out in space doesn't have any gravitational potential energy, it just has its mass-energy. GPE is just a statement of how much of this can be wrung out of it and turned into kinetic energy when it falls down. I'm not kidding you about all this Phunk. Please go and ask around about it elsewhere, and do your own research. This website looks pretty good.
Don't think you can dismiss me by condescendingly telling me to go study. You are making basic mistakes yourself, ignoring units and declaring different quantities as the same thing.

As long as it isn't the only thing in the universe, a cannonball way out in space has gravitational potential energy relative to every other thing in space. Gravity doesn't have a distance limit.
phunk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 02:56 AM   #697
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nova Roma
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Huff puff. It would give a different result for E=mc too.
No, it would not.

It's quite clear that you don't understand units, at all. Units are the first thing you study in an introductory course in any physical science.

Quote:
All you're going to do is pretend that nobody has any idea what I'm saying.
No one has any idea what you're saying, Farsight. That's because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

Quote:
The total angular momentum is zero.
So, you were wrong about that too. I asked you "Light waves always carry angular momentum, do they?". Your response? "Yep."

Light waves are composed of an enormous number of photons, the total angular momentum of which can be zero - as you have just admitted.

Last edited by sol invictus; 19th November 2012 at 02:59 AM.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 02:58 AM   #698
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Wait a minute, Farsight. So now you are saying that even though a body's mass depends on its energy content, it can also depend on how the body interacts with a field?
No. It depends on its energy content. When you raise a cannonball you do work on it. You exert a force for a distance. Force times distance equals energy. That energy is now in the cannonball. Its energy content is higher, so its mass has increased.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Doesn't this, according to you, violate E=mc^2?
No. E is greater and so is m. What's the problem?

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
If a cannonball's rest mass can depend on the interaction between the cannonball and the gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass depend on the interaction between the electron and the Higgs field?
Because the cannonball's rest mass depends on its energy content. The gravitational field merely provides a way to increase it. You could take that cannonball way out in space where there's no detectable gravitational field. It isn't interacting with a gravitational field. But when you try to push it, it still resists your attempt to move it. It hasn't gone featherlight and massless.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
If the cannonball's rest mass can be different in a strong gravitational field than it would be if there was no gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there was no Higgs field?
Because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It isn't a measure of its interaction with a field. All a field does is give you a mechanism by which to vary that energy content.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Imagine for a moment that the Higgs field only existed in a small area of space. Outside of the region of space the electron has zero rest mass, just like the photon. A 1MeV electron enters the field. It suddenly slows down from c to about 0.8c, and in doing so 0.511MeV of its kinetic energy becomes rest energy. Another electron with only 0.1MeV of energy strikes the field, but does not have enough energy to penetrate the boundary, and reflects off, much as light can reflect off of a metallic conductor. And inside the field, a 1MeV electron (again moving at about 0.8c) exits the field. Its 0.511MeV of rest energy turns back into kinetic energy, and its speed returns to c. And of course inside the field you won't be able to make any new electrons without supplying enough energy to do so (the Higgs field does not provide the energy). So for example, outside of the field any two photons could combine to produce an electron-positron pair (since they have no rest mass). But inside the field the two photons must have at least 1.022MeV of energy between them, so that this kinetic energy can be converted into the rest energy of the electron and positron that the interaction with the field requires them to have.
Electrons can't travel at the speed of light. And the cannonball's rest mass is greater when its out in free space where there's no detectable gravitational field. You're clutching at straws Stimpson.

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat View Post
Note, by the way, that all of this is exactly analogous to what happens to photons moving in and out of a superconductor. In fact, it's exactly the same type of phenomenon. If a particle with zero rest mass enters a Boson Condensate that interacts with the particle, then the particle acquires a rest mass that depends on the strength of that interaction. This has been known for decades, and has been repeatedly experimentally verified.
It's called effective mass, and it backs up what I've been saying. When you slow down a photon to below c you say it has an slight effective mass, the ratio of effective mass to energy-momentum depending on how much you've slowed it down. When you slow it down to zero by trapping it in a box as a standing wave, 100% of the energy-momentum is effective mass. And it is indeed effective. The box is now harder to move. That's why the mass of a body is a measure of energy-content. But note that the photon is interacting with the box, not with some Higgs field. The electron is similar but it's like a photon in a box of its own making. Ditto for the positron. You made them both in two-photon physics, where light interacted with light. Go and look at light bends itself into an arc. Imagine what would happen if it was a tight arc, that went all the way round in a circle. You'd have a standing wave, wouldn't you? And in atomic orbitals, "electrons exist as standing waves". The electron is like the standing wave in a box, minus the box. It still offers to resistance to change-in-motion, only now you call it inertia instead of momentum. Annihilation is like opening one box with another, only afterwards there's no boxes left. Because there weren't any boxes in the first place. Just the standing waves.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:07 AM   #699
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It isn't a measure of its interaction with a field. All a field does is give you a mechanism by which to vary that energy content.
And if the field is a constant?
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 19th November 2012, 03:27 AM   #700
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
And yet more questions come up, Farsight! According to your fantasy, Einstein explained the origin of mass in his 1905 paper. But sceintists have continued to look for an answer to the origin of mass for 107 years !
No they haven't. They've known about E=mc for 107 years. They've know that mass is a measure of system energy content for all that time. You however have only recently learned that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years?
As above. They haven't. E=mc isn't on the T-shirts for nothing.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Farsight: Where are the scientific papers expanding on your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?
There's loads of them. Go find them. Do your own research, think for yourself. Here's one I've plucked out of arXiv for you: On the Origin of Elementary Particle Masses by Johan Hansson. Here's an excerpt:

"A more promising way could be to assume that the stable elementary particles of the first generation are exact soliton solutions to the relevant quantum field theory, or its dual [15], whereas unstable higher generation elementary particles would be solitary wave (particle-like, but not stable) solutions to the said quantum field theory."

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?
Buried under an avalanche of popscience woo.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 03:32 AM   #701
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
As above. They haven't. E=mc isn't on the T-shirts for nothing.
That doesn't explain the origin of mass in any way, shape or form. You clearly do not understand what the equation tells us.
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 19th November 2012, 03:42 AM   #702
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Doubtless you will dismiss my answer above and continue to pretend that I haven't answered your question.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I will address a bit of ignorance: h is not an action (this has a precise menaing in physics). h is Plank's constant.
Go look it up. Take your pick of various sources, such as wikipedia. "The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics".

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
The Higgs mechanism does not have anything to do with angular momentum (quantized or not).
No, but this thread is starting to feel like wading through cosmic treacle. You're now dismissing the obvious simple stuff because you're so desperate to cling to something you can't explain and don't understand.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So what is so important about the trivial facts that
  • h has the dimensions as angular momentum.
  • In relativity, angular momentum is quantized.
And you are lying - everyone here can explain the Higgs mechanism: Higgs mechanism.
I'm not lying. Prove me wrong by explaining the Higgs mechanism.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
No one here is likely to try to dumb it down enough so that you would understand it because you have shown no signs of understanding either Higgs mechanism or Susskind's lectrure.
Emperor's New Clothes. You can't explain it. Susskind didn't do too good a job either. His heart wasn't in it. Hence the "zilch". LOL.

Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
ou would probably just continue to deny basic facts about it like it is a relativistic QFT. And then there is your history of not being able to understand SR in other threads.
That's enough RC. I'm the one doing the explaining here, you're continuing to deny basic facts about it. And now you're even denying the simple stuff that's on record and beyond doubt. Plus you're making ad-hominem accusatations to try to bolster your position. That's insulting. You know the rules. You're out.

Last edited by Farsight; 19th November 2012 at 03:45 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 19th November 2012, 04:08 AM   #703
Farsight
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole, UK
Posts: 2,640
I'm going to make an exception to my own rule to respond to an accusation:

Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
Nope. It was you Farsight, and you alone, that chose to present an equation which on one side had no units and on the other side had units of (ms-1)1/2. These two quantities can never ever ever ever ever ever ever be considered equal. This betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics - I don't mean the basics of quantum mechanics or the basics of relativistic quantum field theory, I mean the fundamentals of high-school level physics - that it beggars belief.
Not when you understand that you use the motion of light to define the metre and the second, and that harmonics and mass ratios are dimensionless. It's a variant on natural units where you can find things like this:

"The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The rest-energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the rest-mass of a particle, measured in Planck units of mass."

Had I said E=m, Tubby would say it betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics and beggars belief. Without understanding what I'm talking about, because he just doesn't want to.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm beginning to thing that this thread has run its course.
Farsight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 04:33 AM   #704
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 35,897
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
As above. They haven't. E=mc isn't on the T-shirts for nothing.
argumentum populari vestimenta

Tommy Hilfiger wins!
__________________
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 19th November 2012, 04:40 AM   #705
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,091
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm going to make an exception to my own rule to respond to an accusation:

Not when you understand that you use the motion of light to define the metre and the second, and that harmonics and mass ratios are dimensionless. It's a variant on natural units where you can find things like this:

"The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The rest-energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the rest-mass of a particle, measured in Planck units of mass."

Had I said E=m, Tubby would say it betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics and beggars belief. Without understanding what I'm talking about, because he just doesn't want to.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm beginning to thing that this thread has run its course.

It's reasonable to drop factors of c especially in particle physics of course, and quote masses in GeV or whatever.

You however wrote

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No. His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc. As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245
Let's use natural units then...
c^ = 1
3π = 9.424778
c^ / 3π = 1 / 9.424778
r = 0.106
Actual = 1836.15267245

Do you see the problem now? You wrote a completely nonsensical formula down.
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 05:38 AM   #706
Stimpson J. Cat
Graduate Poster
 
Stimpson J. Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,919
Originally Posted by Farsight
No. E is greater and so is m. What's the problem?
There is no problem, obviously. So why do you think there is a problem with the Higgs field affecting the rest mass of an electron? After all, E is greater than, and so is m. So what's the problem?

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
If a cannonball's rest mass can depend on the interaction between the cannonball and the gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass depend on the interaction between the electron and the Higgs field?
Because the cannonball's rest mass depends on its energy content.
So does the rest mass of the electron.

Originally Posted by Farsight
The gravitational field merely provides a way to increase it.
Ditto for the electron. The Higgs field just provides a way to make the rest mass of the electron more than it would be if it were not in the Higgs field.

Originally Posted by Farsight
You could take that cannonball way out in space where there's no detectable gravitational field. It isn't interacting with a gravitational field. But when you try to push it, it still resists your attempt to move it. It hasn't gone featherlight and massless.
And outside of the Higgs field the electron would still have inertia too, just as the photon does.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
If the cannonball's rest mass can be different in a strong gravitational field than it would be if there was no gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there was no Higgs field?
Because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It isn't a measure of its interaction with a field. All a field does is give you a mechanism by which to vary that energy content.
And that is all the Higgs mechanism does too. I asked you why the electron's rest mass cannot be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there were no Higgs field, but instead of answering that question you just said that the rest mass is not a measure of the particle's interaction with a field. Nobody ever said it was.

Can you answer the question I actually asked?

Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Electrons can't travel at the speed of light. And the cannonball's rest mass is greater when its out in free space where there's no detectable gravitational field. You're clutching at straws Stimpson.
No, I am telling what the Standard Model actually claims. You assert that an electron cannot travel at the speed of light, but the Standard Model claims that an electron that is not inside of the Higgs condensate would travel at the speed of light. Now, you may believe that this claim is wrong, but you have asserted that the Higgs theory is not just wrong, but also inconsistent with E=mc^2. And the reason you have cited for why it is inconsistent with E=mc^2 is that the rest mass of a particle cannot depend on a field. But the fact that the rest mass of a particle can and does depend on a field clearly refutes that argument. I have also explained that the rest energy of the electron is, in fact, just potential energy, fundamentally no different from the extra rest mass that a bowling ball gains when you lift it up in a gravitational field.

Originally Posted by Farsight
Originally Posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Note, by the way, that all of this is exactly analogous to what happens to photons moving in and out of a superconductor. In fact, it's exactly the same type of phenomenon. If a particle with zero rest mass enters a Boson Condensate that interacts with the particle, then the particle acquires a rest mass that depends on the strength of that interaction. This has been known for decades, and has been repeatedly experimentally verified.
It's called effective mass, and it backs up what I've been saying. When you slow down a photon to below c you say it has an slight effective mass, the ratio of effective mass to energy-momentum depending on how much you've slowed it down.
It is exactly the same mechanism. Have you even bothered to read any of the links to explanations of the Higgs mechanism people have been posting? According to the Standard Model, the observed rest mass of the electron is obtained in exactly the same way that the photon acquires rest mass in a superconductor. They even refer to the Higgs field as being a type of superconducting field. I don't care whether you call it "effective mass" or not. The bottom line is that according to the standard model an electron in the Higgs field gets its observed rest mass in the same way that a photon in a superconductor does.

Originally Posted by Farsight
When you slow it down to zero by trapping it in a box as a standing wave, 100% of the energy-momentum is effective mass. And it is indeed effective. The box is now harder to move. That's why the mass of a body is a measure of energy-content. But note that the photon is interacting with the box, not with some Higgs field.
And likewise in a superconductor the photon is interacting with Cooper pairs, which are electrically charged particles. And likewise the electron in a Higgs condensate is interacting with the Higgs field. The mechanism is exactly the same as for the photon in the superconductor. The only difference is the types of particles involved.

Originally Posted by Farsight
The electron is similar but it's like a photon in a box of its own making. Ditto for the positron.
No, it is like a photon in a superconductor.

Originally Posted by Farsight
You made them both in two-photon physics, where light interacted with light. Go and look at light bends itself into an arc. Imagine what would happen if it was a tight arc, that went all the way round in a circle. You'd have a standing wave, wouldn't you? And in atomic orbitals, "electrons exist as standing waves". The electron is like the standing wave in a box, minus the box. It still offers to resistance to change-in-motion, only now you call it inertia instead of momentum. Annihilation is like opening one box with another, only afterwards there's no boxes left. Because there weren't any boxes in the first place. Just the standing waves.
Maybe in your model that is how it works. But I don't care about your model. I am telling what the Standard Model says. I am disputing your claim that the Standard Model violates E=mc^2. What your model claims has absolutely zero relevance to that dispute.
__________________
A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.
Stimpson J. Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 06:34 AM   #707
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I'm going to make an exception to my own rule to respond to an accusation:
Oh good.

Quote:
Not when you understand that you use the motion of light to define the metre and the second, and that harmonics and mass ratios are dimensionless. It's a variant on natural units where you can find things like this:
The speed of light is used for convenience to define the metre now, in 2012. In the past they used a standard ruler. Back in the day there was no definition of the metre. You used the speed of light as measured in m/s as some kind of magic constant that some how explain the proton to electron mass ratio. Which begs the question: what was the proton to electron mass ratio before some French bod came up with an arbitrary definition for the metre back in the day?

Quote:
"The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The rest-energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the rest-mass of a particle, measured in Planck units of mass."
Sure. But you used the speed of light measured in metres per second. I'll repeat this - you used the speed of light measured in metres per second.

Quote:
Had I said E=m, Tubby would say it betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics and beggars belief. Without understanding what I'm talking about, because he just doesn't want to.
Entirely incorrect. I have on many many occasions used natural units to simplify calculations.

Quote:
I'm sorry guys, but I'm beginning to thing that this thread has run its course.
Not at all. There are still many interesting aspects of the Higgs discovery to be discussed. But feel free to disappear and we can get back to discussing those things rather than your misunderstandings of scalars, vectors, the first law of thermodynamics, momentum, pair production etc etc.
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 19th November 2012, 08:30 AM   #708
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,809
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, and I know nothing about particle physics.

...

On the other hand, I am no longer stuck on Higgs's first sentence. I can now read the entire paper, noting the details I still don't understand.
Good post, Clinger. I think I will be picking up that book
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 08:38 AM   #709
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,809
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No. His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc. As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245
Units? These numbers mean nothing without units, you know.

Basic stuff, Farsight, basic stuff
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 08:44 AM   #710
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,091
The formula is even more crazy when you realise he could have just gone for good clean numerological woo by announcing the proton to electron mass ratio is 6π5... much closer to the true value too!
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 08:55 AM   #711
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by edd View Post
The formula is even more crazy when you realise he could have just gone for good clean numerological woo by announcing the proton to electron mass ratio is 6π5... much closer to the true value too!
Excellent. How long did it take you to come up with that?
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 19th November 2012, 09:01 AM   #712
edd
Master Poster
 
edd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,091
I believe it's a frequently rediscovered 'classic', Tubbythin. I can't make any claim to it!
__________________
When I look up at the night sky and think about the billions of stars out there, I think to myself: I'm amazing. - Peter Serafinowicz
edd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 09:10 AM   #713
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by edd View Post
I believe it's a frequently rediscovered 'classic', Tubbythin. I can't make any claim to it!
Disappointing.
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 19th November 2012, 09:35 AM   #714
ben m
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,813
c^1/2 = 8.41529061292597326e+05 inches^1/2 minutes^-1/2
3π = 9.424778
Therefore the proton-electron mass ratio is 89000.

This works great!
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 10:18 AM   #715
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,809
Originally Posted by edd View Post
The formula is even more crazy when you realise he could have just gone for good clean numerological woo by announcing the proton to electron mass ratio is 6π5... much closer to the true value too!
Does anyone even know what the heck he was even trying to show with that "calculation"? I mean, besides his atrocious use (or non-use) of units...
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 10:20 AM   #716
MattusMaximus
Intellectual Gladiator
 
MattusMaximus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe
Posts: 15,809
Btw, I think we now see why Farsight is so reluctant to show us the math behind his "theory"
__________________
Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher
MattusMaximus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 11:18 AM   #717
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,206
Originally Posted by MattusMaximus View Post
Does anyone even know what the heck he was even trying to show with that "calculation"? I mean, besides his atrocious use (or non-use) of units...
I think he may have expected us to have been wowed by stunning discovery and thus be forced to accept his every word thereafter.
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 19th November 2012, 12:06 PM   #718
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13,597
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
No they haven't. They've known about E=mc for 107 years. They've know that mass is a measure of system energy content for all that time.
You are just reinforcing my point, Farsight!
No scientist in the past 107 years has stated that E=mc2 is an explanation for the origin of mass. That is your own very strange idea.
E=mc2 is the mass-energy equivalence equation. Thinking that it explains the origin of mass is ridiculous because you then have to explain the origin of energy and you are stuck in an infinite loop.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
You however have only recently learned that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter.
And that would be a lie based on the delusion that you can read my mind

Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years?
Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?
The answer is obviously that this is your fantasy, not science..

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
There's loads of them.
That is a lie - you have only cited one and it has nothing to do with your fantasy.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Quote:
The oldest enigma in fundamental particle physics is: Where do the observed masses of elementary particles come from? Inspired by observation of the empirical particle mass spectrum we propose that the masses of elementary particles arise solely due to the self-interaction of the fields associated with a particle.
No mention of E=mc2 !
My guess - you have the delusion that every paper that tries to explain the origin of mass is about E=mc2.
__________________
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; 19th November 2012 at 12:19 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 12:25 PM   #719
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 13,597
Exclamation Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates SR

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Doubtless you will dismiss my answer above and continue to pretend that I haven't answered your question.
No doubt you will understand that you are wrong (not!) .
You answered my question: No scientist in the past 107 years has stated that E=mc2 is an explanation for the origin of mass. That is your own very strange idea.

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Quote:
The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics.
As that article states: h is not an action. h is a number that appears as the quantum of action in quantum mechanics. .

Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Prove me wrong by explaining the Higgs mechanism.
That is easy: Higgs mechanism. You are thus wrong.
If you think that someone is going to explain the Higgs mechanism in baby talk to you then you are even more wrong. There are plenty of sources explaining the Higgs mechanism. If you cannot understand them then that is your problem, not ours.

There is Susskind's lecture where he does try to make the explanation as simple as possible (QM = things like angular momentum are quantized + uncertainty principle)
But there is little evidence that you understand what he says. You may think that the Mexican hat potential is an actual Mexican hat !

It looks like I will have to make this explicit:
Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates special relativity, e.g. contradicts E=mc2.
Higgs mechanism states that it is a relativistic QFT.
Peter Higgs states that it is a relativistic QFT:
Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic ?
The answer is easy: obeys SR, e.g. E=mc2 .

This basic fact about the Higgs mechanism was pointed out on 1 November 2012 and you still cannot understand that this means that the Higgs mechanism obeys SR. One day could just be laziness - you could not be bothered to actually read the Higgs mechanism article. One week and it is a bit of denial. 20 days and we are into the territory of delusions. You should have red the article. You should have read the paper. But you are still are ignoring or in denial of the science.
__________________
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; 19th November 2012 at 12:35 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2012, 04:53 PM   #720
mijopaalmc
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,249
Isn't it E2 = (mc2)2+(pc)2?
mijopaalmc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF 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 11:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.