FREE TAPATALK APP

edd · 8th November 2012, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Can you explain why what I've said is wrong? No.

There's no logic to it. You're making connections between things that don't have connections, and misunderstanding what needs explaining about the mass of certain fundamental particles.

Quote:

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.

Do you realise I've not disagreed with either of those?

Quote:

And can you explain that Higgs paper? No.

Not very well, no. It's not my particular area, but I get enough and have enough trust in colleagues that I find it overall convincing. I have zero trust in your grasp of physics however.

Quote:

Edd, take a tip from Feynman.

Given what you say about his work and your misinterpretation of my and other's statements about two photon physics I'm quite happy to just shake my head in despair and let you go to bed.

Tubbythin · 8th November 2012, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Can you explain why Einstein was wrong?

Nobody is saying Einstein was wrong (not on this anyway). You are erroneously claiming he would agree with you.

Tubbythin · 8th November 2012, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Pay attention to that "pure kinematics", because you are made of it. And when it comes to http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?E... c^4 + p^2 c^2, do not ignore the flipflop between the mass and momentum terms in pair production followed by annihilation.

That's the first law of thermodynamics.

Perpetual Student · 8th November 2012, 04:40 PM

This is hilarious!
Farsight does not understand what a complex scalar field is. He does not understand the meaning of the breaking of a continuous symmetry. He does not understand what it means for a complex function to be symmetric under phase transformations, but he thinks he has something meaningful to say about particle physics and the Higgs mechanism. He believes Higgs did not understand electromagnetism, the wave nature of matter, elecron diffraction and more.
Hey ~~Far~~Nearsighted, get that pointy hat with the crescent moons and stars on it an wave your wand elsewhere. You have been exposed and embarrassed here -- go sell your snake-oil on the mysticism forum. What a joke!

ben m · 8th November 2012, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

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?

a) Because we know two-photon physics, we know extremely precisely that there is no light-light bound state. Go ahead, work it out. I'll wait. According to the laws of photon-photon interactions, write down the binding energy of a photon-photon bound state. There is no bound state.

In ordinary, nonrelativistic QM, there's is a standard (advanced) undergrad homework problem: find the ground state energy of an electron bound to a spherically-symmetric "square well" of finite depth. For shallow wells, there is no bound state. None. Zero. An electron can scatter off such a well, but never stick to it. Go ahead, learn QM and see for yourself. I'll wait.

Same with neutrinos. Neutrinos can scatter off one another---indeed, the weak force provides an attractive potential---but there's no neutrino-neutrino bound state.

I repeat: there is no light-light bound state. If you want to invent one, you're going to have to throw out the "two photon physics" you keep citing, because that physics tells you you're wrong.

b) You have misunderstood the "arc" paper to an absolutely comical extent. There is no light-light scattering in this paper; it's just a cleverly-constructed set of ordinary, noninteracting waves.

ETA:

Originally Posted by http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.163901

These beams are the full vector solutions of Maxwell’s equation for shape-preserving accelerating beams. Moreover, in their scalar form, these beams are the exact solutions for nondispersive accelerating wave packets of the simple and most common wave equation describing time-harmonic waves. As such, the work pre- sented in this Letter has profound implications to almost any linear wave system in nature, ranging from sound waves and surface waves in fluids to many kinds of clas- sical waves. In this spirit, it is now clear that the phenome- non of accelerating waves is not the result of a specific unusual behavior of the Schro ̈dinger equation (which is equivalent to the paraxial wave equation), as one may think from reading the first paper pioneering this subject [17].

My bold. There's no light-light scattering (a nonlinear and non-Maxwell's equation phenomenon) in this paper.

Reality Check · 8th November 2012, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

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..

The mass of the boson found at the LHC agrees with estimates of the mass of the Higgs boson so we call it the Higgs boson - well Duh!

Peter Higgs is not the only scientist in the world!
Higgs Boson
The 125 GeV/c² mass is a prediction from SUSY extensions to the Standard Model.
The Minimal Standard Model is valid up to Planck energy scales for a Higgs boson mass of 115 and 180 125 GeV/c².

Reality Check · 8th November 2012, 07:25 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

... Einstein's explanation of mass...

Farsight: Citation please to Einstein's explanation of mass.

I do hope this is not E=mc² because that is not an explanation of mass. It is mass–energy equivalence.
But if it is:
Farsight: Citation please to Einstein's explanation of energy.
(could this be E=mc²

!)

Reality Check · 8th November 2012, 07:27 PM

Farsight, what does relativistic mean?
First asked 4 November 2012

Perpetual Student · 9th November 2012, 07:29 AM

Farsight is comletely incapable of understandIng Higgs' 1964 paper. His pretend physics has been exposed for what it is.
Go ahead, Farsight -- prove me wrong. Explain the 1964 Higgs paper and point out the errors.

Stimpson J. Cat · 9th November 2012, 09:18 AM

I just wanted to pop in here because I noticed this particular nugget of "wisdom", and while most of this nonsense has been soundly refuted, I didn't see any direct response to it.

Originally Posted by Farsight

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.

This is, of course, not true. The photon has spin. It has nonzero angular momentum. And it keeps that momentum no matter how close its energy gets to zero. So the notion that you could somehow drain the kinetic energy from a photon until none is left, is simply nonsensical. What you can do is absorb the photon. But then you absorb its angular momentum too, not just its kinetic energy.

I suppose you could amend the claim to say that a photon is made of kinetic energy and angular momentum, but at this point it becomes clear that this amounts to nothing more than saying that those are the properties a photon has.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by edd

Not direct coupling.

Yes, direct coupling. QED doesn't model it, but it happens.

Originally Posted by edd

"One does not simply dismiss QED." - Niels Bohromir.

I'm not dismissing it. You're dismissing scientific evidence. A photon doesn't actually fluctuate into an electron and a positron. Pair production occurs because light interacts with light. It doesn't occur because pair production occurs!

Originally Posted by edd

"I just... the... what?

Yes, photons have a wavelength.

Originally Posted by edd

Plenty of people did. Admittedly not many press offices did, but that's what press offices are like.

Show some examples.

Originally Posted by edd

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.

We're going round in circles edd.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I forgot that you somehow consider kinetic energy to be more fundamental than other forms of energy

I don't actually.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Personally I think ben m's most recent post in this thread sums up my objections to this better than I'm likely to.

The fact remains that the only things involved in the collisions were protons plus the kinetic energy they'd been given, which was far greater than the proton rest mass.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

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?

Yes. It isn't obvious, and it's called gravitational potential energy. But when you knock the book off the shelf the book falls down, and now that kinetic energy is obvious. When you lift the book back up to the shelf you do work on it, and add energy to it, and as a result its mass increases. Only a little. But conservation of energy ought to tell you that it does increase. It's a little like heating an object. If you could annihilate the book on the shelf with an anti-book and carefully measure the kinetic energy releases in all the gamma photons, you would find that more kinetic energy was released than a similar gedankenexperiment at floor level. I'm not kidding you about this. If you'd like to start a thread on it I'll go into it in more detail.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

You know, I smile when our "moderators" permit trollish behaviour and abuse, then single me out with a penalty for answering back. It's no way to moderate a physics discussion. Instead since it's me giving the scientific evidence and the the well-supported explanation, it hands me the moral high ground and brings JREF into disrepute.

OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Excellent question. You should ask it more often, in front of a mirror.

I did that six years ago Clinger.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

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.

Do try to address the points in this discussion. Your attempts to discredit me do not conceal your inability to respond adequately to the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

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?

Because it's true. The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. That's the first thing you have to understand here, and if you'd read Einstein and appreciated what he said, you'd be on my side in this debate.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Maybe he thinks it's one of his more compelling arguments.

It ought to be compelling. If you disgree with me when I say the inertia of a body depends on its energy content, you're disagreeing with Einstein too.

Tubbythin · 9th November 2012, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Yes. It isn't obvious, and it's called gravitational potential energy. But when you knock the book off the shelf the book falls down, and now that kinetic energy is obvious. When you lift the book back up to the shelf you do work on it, and add energy to it, and as a result its mass increases. Only a little. But conservation of energy ought to tell you that it does increase. It's a little like heating an object. If you could annihilate the book on the shelf with an anti-book and carefully measure the kinetic energy releases in all the gamma photons, you would find that more kinetic energy was released than a similar gedankenexperiment at floor level. I'm not kidding you about this. If you'd like to start a thread on it I'll go into it in more detail.

The extra energy a book has because of being off the ground isn't kinetic energy.

ben m · 9th November 2012, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

nybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

Please consider this post abusive.

Tubbythin · 9th November 2012, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

You know, I smile when our "moderators" permit trollish behaviour and abuse, then single me out with a penalty for answering back. It's no way to moderate a physics discussion. Instead since it's me giving the scientific evidence and the the well-supported explanation, it hands me the moral high ground and brings JREF into disrepute.

You are not giving a well-supported explanation. This isn't me trolling by the way. This is just me informing you.

Quote:

OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon.

You don't make the rules for this forum. yOu can choose to ignore people as you wish, of course, but the discussion is likely to continue on regardless.

Quote:

Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

How about you stop being abusive to everybody else?

Tubbythin · 9th November 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Because it's true. The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. That's the first thing you have to understand here, and if you'd read Einstein and appreciated what he said, you'd be on my side in this debate.

At what point - after how many experts have told you that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect - would you ever consider the possibility that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect?

MattusMaximus · 9th November 2012, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Because it's true. The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. That's the first thing you have to understand here, and if you'd read Einstein and appreciated what he said, you'd be on my side in this debate.

It ought to be compelling. If you disgree with me when I say the inertia of a body depends on its energy content, you're disagreeing with Einstein too.

I know I'm late to the discussion, but humor me, folks.

Farsight, could you point out to me exactly what part of Einstein's work supports your claim?

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

There are two photons. Are they not bodies?

No. They're waves travelling at c. Remember the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Photons have an energy content, but rest mass doesn't apply. You can't make a photon slow down by pushing against it.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Light has wavelike properties.

Light consists of waves. These have a quantum nature. The photon has a wavelength. It isn't a point-particle.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Mass has an equivalent energy content, hence E=mc²

No, mass is a measure, you mean matter.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

It is a mix of frequencies.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Define "energy".

No. It will take me too long to justify the definition I give. If you're really sincere about understanding it start a new thread, ask what energy is, and I'll explain it to you step by step.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

You're still not understanding the first law of thermodynamics.

I understand it.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

The two posts were made at exactly the same time.

No further comment.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

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.

It isn't meaningless. What ingredients went into the LHC to make the "Higgs boson"? Just protons and kinetic energy. Your just like, I dunno distance is a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

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.

I do. It's real. It's the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. You can make an electron move with it, or you can make an electron with it.

Mudcat · 9th November 2012, 10:27 AM

Farsight, I don't understand a lot of what's being said here. Far from it, in fact. But isn't a lot of you objections based upon the laws of physics as they apply in Newtonian space?

Those laws of physics aren't wrong, and as far as I can tell no one claims that they are wrong. They just don't necessarily apply in Quantum Mechanics, where those same laws start to breaking down due to the uncertainty principle.

So I don't see how your objections are relevant to the subject.

Perpetual Student · 9th November 2012, 10:32 AM

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.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

So, you are admitting that you do not understand what a complex scalar field is? You do not understand what it means for a complex function to be symmetric under phase transformations? And -- you actually believe you are qualified to say anything about particle physics?

I'm not saying that. I'm saying you don't understand any of these things, and you cannot see that an explanation of something that refers to non-explained things is no explanation at all.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

I have made it quite clear that my knowledge of physics is lacking -- but not so lacking for mathematics. There exists a term in the Lagrangian that is massless (along with one that has mass) which is the reason the breaking of symmetry generates massless particles. If you really do understand the physics involved here, you can tell us all why this is wrong.

I've been telling you, but you prefer not to listen. A Lagrangian is the system's kinetic energy less its potential energy. The standing wave in the box is all kinetic energy, but it adds mass to the system. From the outside that kinetic energy looks like potential energy.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

So, you actually believe Higgs did not understand electromagnetism, the wave nature of matter, electron diffraction, etc.? WHAT HUBRIS!!!

Yes I do. Had he understood electromagnetism he would have understood the A-field and would not have introduced the Higgs field.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

Why do you keep on muttering about the symmetry between inertia and momentum, photons are kinetic energy in space and other delusional baloney?

Because they aren't delusional baloney. What I've said is backed up by hard scientific evidence. And any more talk like that and you're on my ignore list. Let me reiterate what I said at 5:48...

OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

Of course this applies to posts after 5:48pm today.

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

When you can explain what the spontaneous breaking of a continuous symmetry means and tell us why the explanation above is not correct we can proceed. In the meantime, buy yourself a pointed hat with crescent moons and stars painted on it and sell your ignorant rants elsewhere. No one here is buying your make-believe physics.

Speak for yourself. And you failed miserably at explaining that paper. Next.

Perpetual Student · 9th November 2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

Finally, we have a sensible statement from Farsight. Onto my ignore list you go.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Einstein told us that matter has an equivalent energy content.

Einstein told us the mass is diminished when energy is emitted. And that the matter is diminished too. That's what E=mc² is all about. That's why it's on the T-shirts. That's why we have atom bombs.

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

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.

Tubby, you are made of matter. And that matter is made of energy. You can destroy matter, but you can't destroy energy. And "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Those are Einstein's words. Look at them. A body actually contains energy. Energy is not just some abstract measure. Now go elsewhere and ask around on this. I am not wrong.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by edd

There's no logic to it. You're making connections between things that don't have connections, and misunderstanding what needs explaining about the mass of certain fundamental particles...

Forget it then edd.

edd · 9th November 2012, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Yes, direct coupling. QED doesn't model it, but it happens.

You do not have evidence contradicting QED.

Quote:

Yes, photons have a wavelength.

Obviously. Read back however and you said all waves carry angular momentum. Justify this.

Quote:

We're going round in circles edd.

Yes. I am jealous of all those photons, cos they don't.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Perpetual Student

This is hilarious! Farsight does not understand what a complex scalar field is...

You can't explain that paper. It hasn't gone unnoticed.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Tubbythin

Nobody is saying Einstein was wrong (not on this anyway). You are erroneously claiming he would agree with you.

Tubby, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? It's that simple. If you say yes then I point out that the electron is a body. Then you have to agree with me that it's inertia depends upon its energy content. That means it doesn't depend on its interaction with the Higgs field. It boils down to is Einstein right, or Higgs? You can't have it both ways.

Tubbythin · 9th November 2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

No. They're waves travelling at c. Remember the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Photons have an energy content, but rest mass doesn't apply. You can't make a photon slow down by pushing against it.

I'm still not sure how any of this stops photons being a body. I suppose it all depends on definitions.

Quote:

Light consists of waves. These have a quantum nature. The photon has a wavelength. It isn't a point-particle.

The same arguments apply to electrons/muons/tauons/neutrinos.

Quote:

No, mass is a measure, you mean matter.

Do I???

Quote:

Agreed.

Good.

Quote:

No. It will take me too long to justify the definition I give. If you're really sincere about understanding it start a new thread, ask what energy is, and I'll explain it to you step by step.

I'm interested in understanding your definition of it. You seem to be invoking magical existence to it.

Quote:

I understand it.

So why all this talk about photons ceasing to exist meaning they are made of kinetic energy?

Quote:

No further comment.

Ok..?

Quote:

It isn't meaningless. What ingredients went into the LHC to make the "Higgs boson"? Just protons and kinetic energy. Your just like, I dunno distance is a straw man argument.

Rest mass energy and kinetic energy went in and the same (combined) amount of rest mass energy and kinetic energy came out. That's the first law of thermodynamics.

Quote:

I do. It's real. It's the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. You can make an electron move with it, or you can make an electron with it.

It's as real as momentum/mass/temperature etc...

edd · 9th November 2012, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Forget it then edd.

I will not. I am not happy about the possibility of you misleading others, although it does not seem to be happening here.

W.D.Clinger · 9th November 2012, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Do try to address the points in this discussion. Your attempts to discredit me do not conceal your inability to respond adequately to the subject at hand.

I was responding to a point you introduced as if relevant to the subject at hand:

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.

If you base your argument upon who has and who hasn't read Einstein or understood the first thing about physics, then reminding you that you haven't been able to read Einstein and don't understand freshman-level physics is directly relevant to your argument.

Originally Posted by Farsight

OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

Promises, promises.

If my posts have been insufficiently abusive to you, please let me know how I can improve.

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by ben m

a) Because we know two-photon physics, we know extremely precisely that there is no light-light bound state. Go ahead, work it out. I'll wait. According to the laws of photon-photon interactions, write down the binding energy of a photon-photon bound state. There is no bound state.

But there's is photon-photon pair production, and there is annihilation, and electron diffraction, etc etc. What did you start with? Two photons. What did you end up with? Two photons? What did you have in between? Oh a fundamental particle! There is a bound state. But you don't recognise it because you weren't taught it.

Originally Posted by ben m

In ordinary, nonrelativistic QM, there's is a standard (advanced) undergrad homework problem: find the ground state energy of an electron bound to a spherically-symmetric "square well" of finite depth. For shallow wells, there is no bound state. None. Zero. An electron can scatter off such a well, but never stick to it. Go ahead, learn QM and see for yourself. I'll wait.

The electron is the bound state. We talked about this some while back with Johan Prins.

Originally Posted by ben m

Same with neutrinos. Neutrinos can scatter off one another---indeed, the weak force provides an attractive potential---but there's no neutrino-neutrino bound state.

Neutrinos interact only weakly.

Originally Posted by ben m

I repeat: there is no light-light bound state. If you want to invent one, you're going to have to throw out the "two photon physics" you keep citing, because that physics tells you you're wrong.

That physics tells me I'm right. And when you try to say that pair production occurs because pair production occurs, it ought to tell you that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by ben m

b) You have misunderstood the "arc" paper to an absolutely comical extent. There is no light-light scattering in this paper; it's just a cleverly-constructed set of ordinary, noninteracting waves.

This is light interacting with itself. I haven't misunderstood it at all.

Originally Posted by ben m

My bold. There's no light-light scattering (a nonlinear and non-Maxwell's equation phenomenon) in this paper.

Light doesn't scatter off light, it interacts with it.

Tubbythin · 9th November 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Einstein told us the mass is diminished when energy is emitted. And that the matter is diminished too. That's what E=mc² is all about. That's why it's on the T-shirts. That's why we have atom bombs.

E=mc² is all about preserving the first law of thermodynamics.

Quote:

Tubby, you are made of matter. And that matter is made of energy. You can destroy matter, but you can't destroy energy.

As I keep saying, E=mc² is all about preserving the first law of thermodynamics.

Quote:

And "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content".

Right. That's the first law of thermodynamics.

Quote:

Those are Einstein's words. Look at them. A body actually contains energy. Energy is not just some abstract measure. Now go elsewhere and ask around on this. I am not wrong.

Energy is the quantity that is conserved due to the temporal invariance of the laws of physics. Momentum is the quantity that is conserved due to the spatial invariance of the laws of physics. Einstein showed the correct conservation equations for both these quantities in all inertial reference frames. The idea that one is somehow the very essence of a body while the other is not is just... well... silly.

Tubbythin · 9th November 2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

Tubby, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? It's that simple.

If by inertia you mean "mass" then no. The energy "content" of a body depends on its mass.

dafydd · 9th November 2012, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

You know, I smile when our "moderators" permit trollish behaviour and abuse, then single me out with a penalty for answering back. It's no way to moderate a physics discussion. Instead since it's me giving the scientific evidence and the the well-supported explanation, it hands me the moral high ground and brings JREF into disrepute.

OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

You are the soul of politeness.

''Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.

I wouldn't want to provide anything other than a careful explanation, supported by robust evidence and papers, that people can actually understand.

I wouldn't want to provide anything other than a careful explanation, supported by robust evidence and papers, that people can actually understand.

Any objections? Speak now or forever hold your peace.

You bumped this thread, and now you can't take the heat, so go sling your hook. The big boys are talking physics.

I've given a coherent explanation, and you can't counter it. All you've ended up saying is that's what I was taught like some Sunday-school kid.

t might be an idea if you examined your adherence to what you were taught and your textbook bible and started thinking for yourself.

I give evidence galore and logic that even a child could understand,

And blow me Sherlock, that photon doesn't exist any more.

his is a forum for skeptics, for rational thinkers, not for suckers who lap up publicity releases and treat it like gospel.

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.

How many circular arguments do I have to point out to you before you start thinking for yourself?''

Ring any bells?

ben m · 9th November 2012, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Farsight

But there's is photon-photon pair production, and there is annihilation, and electron diffraction, etc etc. What did you start with? Two photons. What did you end up with? Two photons? What did you have in between? Oh a fundamental particle! There is a bound state. But you don't recognise it because you weren't taught it.

Nope. Take the laws of physics (QED) responsible for pair production, annihilation, diffraction, light-by-light scattering, etc.. Do the math that shows whether or not there's a bound state. There is not a bound state

Quote:

The electron is the bound state. We talked about this some while back with Johan Prins.

Another thread where you insisted that this was true, everyone disagreed with you, and you didn't make any progress towards doing the physics.

Quote:

Neutrinos interact only weakly.

Actually, neutrino-neutrino scattering would have a much, much larger cross-section than light-light scattering. Neutrino-neutrino scattering at ~1 eV would have a cross section of 10^-21 barns; photon-photon scattering at the same energy is something like 10^-43 barns. The fact that we've seen photon-photon scattering at all is due to the unusual experimental methods we can apply to this measurement which we can't reproduce with the neutrino beam.

Quote:

This is light interacting with itself. I haven't misunderstood it at all.

You're not a very good judge of when you don't understand something.

Tubbythin · 9th November 2012, 11:55 AM

Farsight:
You go into a sweet shop with a dollar bill. The sweet shop sells (individually) three types of sweets - a mint sweet, a fruit sweet and a chocolate sweet.
How many mint sweets can you buy with your dollar?
How many fruit sweets can you buy with your dollar?
How many chocolate sweets can you buy with your dollar?

You can't answer any of those questions without knowing how much each costs. The number depends on the cost. The cost of each type of sweet is set by the shop owner. Let's call him Pete. Ok, Pete sets the costs of the sweets as:
mint - 1 cent
fruit - 2 cents
chocolate - 5 cents.

Now do the calculations above.

smartcooky · 9th November 2012, 11:55 AM

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.

Well, so what? Most people have a poor appreciation of Shakespeare because they have not experienced reading him in the original Klingon!!!

Farsight · 9th November 2012, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The 125 GeV/c² mass is a prediction from SUSY extensions to the Standard Model.

Pulled out of the hat long after the limits were closed down by null results. Go check it out.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Citation please to Einstein's explanation of mass. I do hope this is not E=mc² because that is not an explanation of mass. It is mass–energy equivalence.

It is E=mc², it's does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? That's where Einstein said "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Not the measure of how that body interacts with some mysterious field. The measure of its energy content. Why do you have such an objection to that? You know about the wave nature of matter, and pair production, and atomic orbitals, and spherical harmonics, and electron diffraction, and magnetic moment and the Einstein-de Haas effect. And you can work out for yourself that a standing wave will resist change-in-motion just as a propagating wave will. You must surely understand that symmetry between momentum and inertia. Do you accept it? Can you elucidate why you reject it?

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Citation please to Einstein's explanation of energy.

There isn't one. I can however explain it. See what I said to Tubby.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Farsight, what does relativistic mean?

Don't bother me with trivia, RC. It means relating to relativity or speeds which are a significant fraction of c. And relativity begain life as the principle of invariance. Things look the same in your box regardless of how fast you're moving. But when you look outside your box, they don't.

Sorry I've missed some of your posts. I'll go back to them when I've caught up.

8th November 2012, 03:48 PM	#361
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,619	Originally Posted by Farsight Can you explain why what I've said is wrong? No. There's no logic to it. You're making connections between things that don't have connections, and misunderstanding what needs explaining about the mass of certain fundamental particles. Quote: 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. Do you realise I've not disagreed with either of those? Quote: And can you explain that Higgs paper? No. Not very well, no. It's not my particular area, but I get enough and have enough trust in colleagues that I find it overall convincing. I have zero trust in your grasp of physics however. Quote: Edd, take a tip from Feynman. Given what you say about his work and your misinterpretation of my and other's statements about two photon physics I'm quite happy to just shake my head in despair and let you go to bed.
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,619	__________________ 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, 03:49 PM	#362
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight Can you explain why Einstein was wrong? Nobody is saying Einstein was wrong (not on this anyway). You are erroneously claiming he would agree with you.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

8th November 2012, 04:00 PM	#363
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight Pay attention to that "pure kinematics", because you are made of it. And when it comes to http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?E... c^4 + p^2 c^2, do not ignore the flipflop between the mass and momentum terms in pair production followed by annihilation. That's the first law of thermodynamics.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

8th November 2012, 04:40 PM	#364
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,738	This is hilarious! Farsight does not understand what a complex scalar field is. He does not understand the meaning of the breaking of a continuous symmetry. He does not understand what it means for a complex function to be symmetric under phase transformations, but he thinks he has something meaningful to say about particle physics and the Higgs mechanism. He believes Higgs did not understand electromagnetism, the wave nature of matter, elecron diffraction and more. Hey ~~Far~~Nearsighted, get that pointy hat with the crescent moons and stars on it an wave your wand elsewhere. You have been exposed and embarrassed here -- go sell your snake-oil on the mysticism forum. What a joke!
	__________________ _{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, 05:33 PM	#365
ben m Illuminator TLA Winner Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,714	Originally Posted by Farsight 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? a) Because we know two-photon physics, we know extremely precisely that there is no light-light bound state. Go ahead, work it out. I'll wait. According to the laws of photon-photon interactions, write down the binding energy of a photon-photon bound state. There is no bound state. In ordinary, nonrelativistic QM, there's is a standard (advanced) undergrad homework problem: find the ground state energy of an electron bound to a spherically-symmetric "square well" of finite depth. For shallow wells, there is no bound state. None. Zero. An electron can scatter off such a well, but never stick to it. Go ahead, learn QM and see for yourself. I'll wait. Same with neutrinos. Neutrinos can scatter off one another---indeed, the weak force provides an attractive potential---but there's no neutrino-neutrino bound state. I repeat: there is no light-light bound state. If you want to invent one, you're going to have to throw out the "two photon physics" you keep citing, because that physics tells you you're wrong. b) You have misunderstood the "arc" paper to an absolutely comical extent. There is no light-light scattering in this paper; it's just a cleverly-constructed set of ordinary, noninteracting waves. ETA: Originally Posted by http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.163901 These beams are the full vector solutions of Maxwell’s equation for shape-preserving accelerating beams. Moreover, in their scalar form, these beams are the exact solutions for nondispersive accelerating wave packets of the simple and most common wave equation describing time-harmonic waves. As such, the work pre- sented in this Letter has profound implications to almost any linear wave system in nature, ranging from sound waves and surface waves in fluids to many kinds of clas- sical waves. In this spirit, it is now clear that the phenome- non of accelerating waves is not the result of a specific unusual behavior of the Schro ̈dinger equation (which is equivalent to the paraxial wave equation), as one may think from reading the first paper pioneering this subject [17]. My bold. There's no light-light scattering (a nonlinear and non-Maxwell's equation phenomenon) in this paper.
	Last edited by ben m; 8th November 2012 at 07:25 PM.

8th November 2012, 07:11 PM	#366
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983	Originally Posted by Farsight 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.. The mass of the boson found at the LHC agrees with estimates of the mass of the Higgs boson so we call it the Higgs boson - well Duh! Peter Higgs is not the only scientist in the world! Higgs Boson The 125 GeV/c² mass is a prediction from SUSY extensions to the Standard Model. The Minimal Standard Model is valid up to Planck energy scales for a Higgs boson mass of 115 and 180 125 GeV/c².
	__________________ 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; 8th November 2012 at 07:17 PM.

8th November 2012, 07:25 PM	#367
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983	Originally Posted by Farsight ... Einstein's explanation of mass... Farsight: Citation please to Einstein's explanation of mass. I do hope this is not E=mc² because that is not an explanation of mass. It is mass–energy equivalence. But if it is: Farsight: Citation please to Einstein's explanation of energy. (could this be 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

8th November 2012, 07:27 PM	#368
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,983	Farsight, what does relativistic mean Farsight, what does relativistic mean? First asked 4 November 2012
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

9th November 2012, 07:29 AM	#369
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,738	Farsight is comletely incapable of understandIng Higgs' 1964 paper. His pretend physics has been exposed for what it is. Go ahead, Farsight -- prove me wrong. Explain the 1964 Higgs paper and point out the errors.
	__________________ _{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

9th November 2012, 09:18 AM	#370
Stimpson J. Cat Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 1,833	I just wanted to pop in here because I noticed this particular nugget of "wisdom", and while most of this nonsense has been soundly refuted, I didn't see any direct response to it. Originally Posted by Farsight 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. This is, of course, not true. The photon has spin. It has nonzero angular momentum. And it keeps that momentum no matter how close its energy gets to zero. So the notion that you could somehow drain the kinetic energy from a photon until none is left, is simply nonsensical. What you can do is absorb the photon. But then you absorb its angular momentum too, not just its kinetic energy. I suppose you could amend the claim to say that a photon is made of kinetic energy and angular momentum, but at this point it becomes clear that this amounts to nothing more than saying that those are the properties a photon has.
	__________________ A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.

9th November 2012, 09:25 AM	#371
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by edd Not direct coupling. Yes, direct coupling. QED doesn't model it, but it happens. Originally Posted by edd "One does not simply dismiss QED." - Niels Bohromir. I'm not dismissing it. You're dismissing scientific evidence. A photon doesn't actually fluctuate into an electron and a positron. Pair production occurs because light interacts with light. It doesn't occur because pair production occurs! Originally Posted by edd "I just... the... what? Yes, photons have a wavelength. Originally Posted by edd Plenty of people did. Admittedly not many press offices did, but that's what press offices are like. Show some examples. Originally Posted by edd 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. We're going round in circles edd.

9th November 2012, 09:37 AM	#372
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by Roboramma I forgot that you somehow consider kinetic energy to be more fundamental than other forms of energy I don't actually. Originally Posted by Roboramma Personally I think ben m's most recent post in this thread sums up my objections to this better than I'm likely to. The fact remains that the only things involved in the collisions were protons plus the kinetic energy they'd been given, which was far greater than the proton rest mass. Originally Posted by Roboramma 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? Yes. It isn't obvious, and it's called gravitational potential energy. But when you knock the book off the shelf the book falls down, and now that kinetic energy is obvious. When you lift the book back up to the shelf you do work on it, and add energy to it, and as a result its mass increases. Only a little. But conservation of energy ought to tell you that it does increase. It's a little like heating an object. If you could annihilate the book on the shelf with an anti-book and carefully measure the kinetic energy releases in all the gamma photons, you would find that more kinetic energy was released than a similar gedankenexperiment at floor level. I'm not kidding you about this. If you'd like to start a thread on it I'll go into it in more detail.

9th November 2012, 09:48 AM	#373
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by dafydd <sound of irony meters exploding> You know, I smile when our "moderators" permit trollish behaviour and abuse, then single me out with a penalty for answering back. It's no way to moderate a physics discussion. Instead since it's me giving the scientific evidence and the the well-supported explanation, it hands me the moral high ground and brings JREF into disrepute. OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over.

9th November 2012, 09:58 AM	#374
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Excellent question. You should ask it more often, in front of a mirror. I did that six years ago Clinger. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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. Do try to address the points in this discussion. Your attempts to discredit me do not conceal your inability to respond adequately to the subject at hand. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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? Because it's true. The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. That's the first thing you have to understand here, and if you'd read Einstein and appreciated what he said, you'd be on my side in this debate. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Maybe he thinks it's one of his more compelling arguments. It ought to be compelling. If you disgree with me when I say the inertia of a body depends on its energy content, you're disagreeing with Einstein too.

9th November 2012, 10:05 AM	#375
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight Yes. It isn't obvious, and it's called gravitational potential energy. But when you knock the book off the shelf the book falls down, and now that kinetic energy is obvious. When you lift the book back up to the shelf you do work on it, and add energy to it, and as a result its mass increases. Only a little. But conservation of energy ought to tell you that it does increase. It's a little like heating an object. If you could annihilate the book on the shelf with an anti-book and carefully measure the kinetic energy releases in all the gamma photons, you would find that more kinetic energy was released than a similar gedankenexperiment at floor level. I'm not kidding you about this. If you'd like to start a thread on it I'll go into it in more detail. The extra energy a book has because of being off the ground isn't kinetic energy.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

9th November 2012, 10:05 AM	#376
ben m Illuminator TLA Winner Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,714	Originally Posted by Farsight nybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over. Please consider this post abusive.

9th November 2012, 10:09 AM	#377
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight You know, I smile when our "moderators" permit trollish behaviour and abuse, then single me out with a penalty for answering back. It's no way to moderate a physics discussion. Instead since it's me giving the scientific evidence and the the well-supported explanation, it hands me the moral high ground and brings JREF into disrepute. You are not giving a well-supported explanation. This isn't me trolling by the way. This is just me informing you. Quote: OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. You don't make the rules for this forum. yOu can choose to ignore people as you wish, of course, but the discussion is likely to continue on regardless. Quote: Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over. How about you stop being abusive to everybody else?
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

9th November 2012, 10:11 AM	#378
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight Because it's true. The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. That's the first thing you have to understand here, and if you'd read Einstein and appreciated what he said, you'd be on my side in this debate. At what point - after how many experts have told you that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect - would you ever consider the possibility that your understanding of Einstein is incorrect?
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

9th November 2012, 10:15 AM	#379
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,204	Originally Posted by Farsight Because it's true. The inertia of a body depends on its energy content. That's the first thing you have to understand here, and if you'd read Einstein and appreciated what he said, you'd be on my side in this debate. It ought to be compelling. If you disgree with me when I say the inertia of a body depends on its energy content, you're disagreeing with Einstein too. I know I'm late to the discussion, but humor me, folks. Farsight, could you point out to me exactly what part of Einstein's work supports your claim?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

9th November 2012, 10:21 AM	#380
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by Tubbythin There are two photons. Are they not bodies? No. They're waves travelling at c. Remember the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Photons have an energy content, but rest mass doesn't apply. You can't make a photon slow down by pushing against it. Originally Posted by Tubbythin Light has wavelike properties. Light consists of waves. These have a quantum nature. The photon has a wavelength. It isn't a point-particle. Originally Posted by Tubbythin Mass has an equivalent energy content, hence E=mc² No, mass is a measure, you mean matter. Originally Posted by Tubbythin It is a mix of frequencies. Agreed. Originally Posted by Tubbythin Define "energy". No. It will take me too long to justify the definition I give. If you're really sincere about understanding it start a new thread, ask what energy is, and I'll explain it to you step by step. Originally Posted by Tubbythin You're still not understanding the first law of thermodynamics. I understand it. Originally Posted by Tubbythin The two posts were made at exactly the same time. No further comment. Originally Posted by Tubbythin 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. It isn't meaningless. What ingredients went into the LHC to make the "Higgs boson"? Just protons and kinetic energy. Your just like, I dunno distance is a straw man argument. Originally Posted by Tubbythin 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. I do. It's real. It's the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. You can make an electron move with it, or you can make an electron with it.

9th November 2012, 10:27 AM	#381
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,771	Farsight, I don't understand a lot of what's being said here. Far from it, in fact. But isn't a lot of you objections based upon the laws of physics as they apply in Newtonian space? Those laws of physics aren't wrong, and as far as I can tell no one claims that they are wrong. They just don't necessarily apply in Quantum Mechanics, where those same laws start to breaking down due to the uncertainty principle. So I don't see how your objections are relevant to the subject.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

9th November 2012, 10:32 AM	#382
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,738	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.
	__________________ _{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

9th November 2012, 10:34 AM	#383
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student So, you are admitting that you do not understand what a complex scalar field is? You do not understand what it means for a complex function to be symmetric under phase transformations? And -- you actually believe you are qualified to say anything about particle physics? I'm not saying that. I'm saying you don't understand any of these things, and you cannot see that an explanation of something that refers to non-explained things is no explanation at all. Originally Posted by Perpetual Student I have made it quite clear that my knowledge of physics is lacking -- but not so lacking for mathematics. There exists a term in the Lagrangian that is massless (along with one that has mass) which is the reason the breaking of symmetry generates massless particles. If you really do understand the physics involved here, you can tell us all why this is wrong. I've been telling you, but you prefer not to listen. A Lagrangian is the system's kinetic energy less its potential energy. The standing wave in the box is all kinetic energy, but it adds mass to the system. From the outside that kinetic energy looks like potential energy. Originally Posted by Perpetual Student So, you actually believe Higgs did not understand electromagnetism, the wave nature of matter, electron diffraction, etc.? WHAT HUBRIS!!! Yes I do. Had he understood electromagnetism he would have understood the A-field and would not have introduced the Higgs field. Originally Posted by Perpetual Student Why do you keep on muttering about the symmetry between inertia and momentum, photons are kinetic energy in space and other delusional baloney? Because they aren't delusional baloney. What I've said is backed up by hard scientific evidence. And any more talk like that and you're on my ignore list. Let me reiterate what I said at 5:48... OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over. Of course this applies to posts after 5:48pm today. Originally Posted by Perpetual Student When you can explain what the spontaneous breaking of a continuous symmetry means and tell us why the explanation above is not correct we can proceed. In the meantime, buy yourself a pointed hat with crescent moons and stars painted on it and sell your ignorant rants elsewhere. No one here is buying your make-believe physics. Speak for yourself. And you failed miserably at explaining that paper. Next.

9th November 2012, 10:35 AM	#384
Perpetual Student Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 3,738	Originally Posted by Farsight OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over. Finally, we have a sensible statement from Farsight. Onto my ignore list you go.
	__________________ _{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

9th November 2012, 10:47 AM	#385
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Einstein told us that matter has an equivalent energy content. Einstein told us the mass is diminished when energy is emitted. And that the matter is diminished too. That's what E=mc² is all about. That's why it's on the T-shirts. That's why we have atom bombs. Originally Posted by Tubbythin 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. Tubby, you are made of matter. And that matter is made of energy. You can destroy matter, but you can't destroy energy. And "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Those are Einstein's words. Look at them. A body actually contains energy. Energy is not just some abstract measure. Now go elsewhere and ask around on this. I am not wrong.

9th November 2012, 10:49 AM	#386
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by edd There's no logic to it. You're making connections between things that don't have connections, and misunderstanding what needs explaining about the mass of certain fundamental particles... Forget it then edd.

9th November 2012, 10:50 AM	#387
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,619	Originally Posted by Farsight Yes, direct coupling. QED doesn't model it, but it happens. You do not have evidence contradicting QED. Quote: Yes, photons have a wavelength. Obviously. Read back however and you said all waves carry angular momentum. Justify this. Quote: We're going round in circles edd. Yes. I am jealous of all those photons, cos they don't.
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,619	__________________ 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

9th November 2012, 10:51 AM	#388
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by Perpetual Student This is hilarious! Farsight does not understand what a complex scalar field is... You can't explain that paper. It hasn't gone unnoticed.

9th November 2012, 10:54 AM	#389
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by Tubbythin Nobody is saying Einstein was wrong (not on this anyway). You are erroneously claiming he would agree with you. Tubby, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? It's that simple. If you say yes then I point out that the electron is a body. Then you have to agree with me that it's inertia depends upon its energy content. That means it doesn't depend on its interaction with the Higgs field. It boils down to is Einstein right, or Higgs? You can't have it both ways.

9th November 2012, 10:55 AM	#390
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight No. They're waves travelling at c. Remember the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content. Photons have an energy content, but rest mass doesn't apply. You can't make a photon slow down by pushing against it. I'm still not sure how any of this stops photons being a body. I suppose it all depends on definitions. Quote: Light consists of waves. These have a quantum nature. The photon has a wavelength. It isn't a point-particle. The same arguments apply to electrons/muons/tauons/neutrinos. Quote: No, mass is a measure, you mean matter. Do I??? Quote: Agreed. Good. Quote: No. It will take me too long to justify the definition I give. If you're really sincere about understanding it start a new thread, ask what energy is, and I'll explain it to you step by step. I'm interested in understanding your definition of it. You seem to be invoking magical existence to it. Quote: I understand it. So why all this talk about photons ceasing to exist meaning they are made of kinetic energy? Quote: No further comment. Ok..? Quote: It isn't meaningless. What ingredients went into the LHC to make the "Higgs boson"? Just protons and kinetic energy. Your just like, I dunno distance is a straw man argument. Rest mass energy and kinetic energy went in and the same (combined) amount of rest mass energy and kinetic energy came out. That's the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: I do. It's real. It's the one thing you can neither create nor destroy. You can make an electron move with it, or you can make an electron with it. It's as real as momentum/mass/temperature etc...
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

9th November 2012, 11:00 AM	#391
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,619	Originally Posted by Farsight Forget it then edd. I will not. I am not happy about the possibility of you misleading others, although it does not seem to be happening here.
edd Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 1,619	__________________ 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

9th November 2012, 11:00 AM	#392
W.D.Clinger Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 2,466	Originally Posted by Farsight Do try to address the points in this discussion. Your attempts to discredit me do not conceal your inability to respond adequately to the subject at hand. I was responding to a point you introduced as if relevant to the subject at hand: 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. If you base your argument upon who has and who hasn't read Einstein or understood the first thing about physics, then reminding you that you haven't been able to read Einstein and don't understand freshman-level physics is directly relevant to your argument. Originally Posted by Farsight OK, we're going to have new rules in this discussion hereon. Anybody who is abusive to me goes on my ignore list. If we get to the point where there's nobody left, the discussion is over. Promises, promises. If my posts have been insufficiently abusive to you, please let me know how I can improve.

9th November 2012, 11:03 AM	#393
Farsight Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 2,009	Originally Posted by ben m a) Because we know two-photon physics, we know extremely precisely that there is no light-light bound state. Go ahead, work it out. I'll wait. According to the laws of photon-photon interactions, write down the binding energy of a photon-photon bound state. There is no bound state. But there's is photon-photon pair production, and there is annihilation, and electron diffraction, etc etc. What did you start with? Two photons. What did you end up with? Two photons? What did you have in between? Oh a fundamental particle! There is a bound state. But you don't recognise it because you weren't taught it. Originally Posted by ben m In ordinary, nonrelativistic QM, there's is a standard (advanced) undergrad homework problem: find the ground state energy of an electron bound to a spherically-symmetric "square well" of finite depth. For shallow wells, there is no bound state. None. Zero. An electron can scatter off such a well, but never stick to it. Go ahead, learn QM and see for yourself. I'll wait. The electron is the bound state. We talked about this some while back with Johan Prins. Originally Posted by ben m Same with neutrinos. Neutrinos can scatter off one another---indeed, the weak force provides an attractive potential---but there's no neutrino-neutrino bound state. Neutrinos interact only weakly. Originally Posted by ben m I repeat: there is no light-light bound state. If you want to invent one, you're going to have to throw out the "two photon physics" you keep citing, because that physics tells you you're wrong. That physics tells me I'm right. And when you try to say that pair production occurs because pair production occurs, it ought to tell you that you're wrong. Originally Posted by ben m b) You have misunderstood the "arc" paper to an absolutely comical extent. There is no light-light scattering in this paper; it's just a cleverly-constructed set of ordinary, noninteracting waves. This is light interacting with itself. I haven't misunderstood it at all. Originally Posted by ben m My bold. There's no light-light scattering (a nonlinear and non-Maxwell's equation phenomenon) in this paper. Light doesn't scatter off light, it interacts with it.

9th November 2012, 11:05 AM	#394
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight Einstein told us the mass is diminished when energy is emitted. And that the matter is diminished too. That's what E=mc² is all about. That's why it's on the T-shirts. That's why we have atom bombs. E=mc² is all about preserving the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: Tubby, you are made of matter. And that matter is made of energy. You can destroy matter, but you can't destroy energy. As I keep saying, E=mc² is all about preserving the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: And "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". Right. That's the first law of thermodynamics. Quote: Those are Einstein's words. Look at them. A body actually contains energy. Energy is not just some abstract measure. Now go elsewhere and ask around on this. I am not wrong. Energy is the quantity that is conserved due to the temporal invariance of the laws of physics. Momentum is the quantity that is conserved due to the spatial invariance of the laws of physics. Einstein showed the correct conservation equations for both these quantities in all inertial reference frames. The idea that one is somehow the very essence of a body while the other is not is just... well... silly.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206

9th November 2012, 11:13 AM	#395
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206	Originally Posted by Farsight Tubby, does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content or not? It's that simple. If by inertia you mean "mass" then no. The energy "content" of a body depends on its mass.
Tubbythin Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,206