It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ask any question you want about Physics

page: 323
72
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I believe I understand the issue about the variance now. Thanks again for your patience and returning to this again. Unless you have any objections with what follows, I am now at peace with this issue. But please do object if you see anything you regard as a flaw!

First up, I think that in my simple case, following the reference you provided, the pooled variance should be
sqrt [(.0025 + .0025)/(1+1)] = 0.05, rather than what you wrote, which had 2+2 in the denominator of the radical. This comes from the Bessel's correction where the denominators in the weighted mean are the number of samples (two in my example) minus one, for each data set. The more important point however is that I do see how one could, under the right circumstances, claim a smaller variance in the overall result than from the individual ones. And of course, since I am new to this I may be still misreading things - I welcome a correction if I am wrong.

Second, it is possible I have been simply misinterpreting what is meant by variance in the quoted result for the Higgs mass. My concern centers around the question: what are the chances that the Higgs has a mass of 126.0 GeV/c^2, given a claimed measurement of 159.09 +/- .24 GeV/c^2? Naively, I would think the chances would be less than 1% - if the meaning is what I thought it was. But when looking at the data the chances might be closer to 50%, as two of the four data sets are consistent with 126.0 GeV/c^2.

You have emphasized that knowing something about the data can assist us, and your example (some pages back) about a resistor measured at different temperatures is clear and in my opinion correct. It is also clear and correct in the Wiki article on pooled variance when they discuss a car engine running at different speeds. In both of those instances the result being measured for a dependent variable changes as a result of changes of an independent variable, so if we account for that we can arrive at a lower variance. But the issue I have been having is that the Higgs mass is just a mass of a particle - it should not vary at all. There should be no dependence of a mass on any other parameter. (Unless it "runs", which is a wholly different issue.) So the systematic error then becomes one of the detectors and analysis within them. And in that case I would certainly not expect that a correction of such errors would result exactly in the weighted mean - rather, further analysis and testing would result in each measurement having its own error, and the weighted mean is just one possible eventual result. Since they arrive at exactly the weighted mean, that implies to me that they've just specified the weighted mean, done a systematic data correction of the individual sets to that weighted mean, and then calculated a variance.

So I am now of the belief that the quoted result is giving us the best mean - the weighted mean. And then the variance is being given by one of those "more methods than we can shake a stick at", but it is not what I assumed was meant by the variance. So I now believe there is a much greater than 1% chance that the result will, in the end, be 126.0 GeV/c^2. I have seen this happen before with my model when an initial result comes in that is off. The top quark mass was just like that. As better measurements were made the mass aligned with my model's prediction. The top quark is now spot on. I didn't need to change the model, the data point changed. Time will tell if the same thing happens with the Higgs mass.

This also may answer a question I've had for quite some time. It is known that results at the four sigma level are often unreliable in high energy physics. But only 0.00633% of results lie outside of four sigma in a Gaussian distribution. So I always wondered why the four sigma results so often were later overturned and we needed to go to six sigma for a level of surety. Thanks to our discussion I now think I know. Someone's been shaking too many sticks!


Thanks again.




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

If something existed, it would be expected to have 'that which has been termed "mass"'.

Do we agree, that if only nothing existed, there would be only no mass?

Mass is the concept that, theoretically, conceptually, actually, if something existed, it would have a 'substantial somethingness' to it, about it.

The essential, somethingness of somethingness, is the concept of mass.

The difference between something and nothing, is fundamentally the difference between mass, and no mass.

The concept of mass, is the concept that if something existed, it would exist. If something existed, it would 'be', 'there'.

Something being there is a quantity and quality.

Theoretically any non nothing, by its existence, would conceptually be, what the concept of 'mass', the word 'mass', essentially is attempting to describe.

I can theoretically take my hand, and move it through hypothetical pure nothing, and I can easily push the nothing, the nothing has no resistance.

There is No Thing there to resist.

If there is something, it requires at least greater than 0 force to move that something. As something, is not nothing.

So now I ask you again: Fundamentally, hypothetically, theoretically: Why is the concept of Higgs needed?

Why is the concept of Higgs needed?

If something exists, it fundamentally, must have mass. Only nothing can have no mass. Only the absence of existence can have 'no existence', 'no thereness', 'no substantial substantialness', ah heres the word, no presence.

The concept of mass is the concept of presence. The concept of something is the concept of presence.

Why is the concept of Higgs needed?

Everything that exists has mass. In other words, Everything that exists exists. Everything that is present is present.

If a particle exists it must have mass.

Why is the concept of higgs needed, is it about, particles being given extra mass? I admit I could be wrong only in that, if this entire higgs mechanism admits particles have fundamentally their own intrinsic mass: but there needs to be some reason as to why/how particles are given some 'extra mass'.

Is that the case? The case is not that it is purported: "There Exists fundamental particles with 0 mass, that through a process/mechanism are given mass by 'higgs field/particles'?

In any conceptual/theoretical/experimental association with Higgs theory; is it claimed that, before particles interaction with higgs, which gives them mass, the particles have 0 mass?

Or does it state: particles have mass, higgs gives them extra mass?

electron, quarks, neutrino, muon, etc. preons have >0 mass: higgs gives them more mass?

Or there exists particles that have precisely exactly 0 mass: higgs gives them any mass they have?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson
Yes it was late when I plugged in your numbers and forgot to subtract k in the denominator which I noticed the next morning, so I stand corrected on that however note a sample size of two is artificially low so using larger sample sizes is recommended in which case I think you'll see the variance reduction I mentioned.


your example (some pages back) about a resistor measured at different temperatures is clear and in my opinion correct.
That's a simple example.



There should be no dependence of a mass on any other parameter.
Measured mass or actual mass? We are dealing with measurements and the measured mass certainly does depend on other parameters like the design of the detector (ATLAS and CMS detectors have considerable design differences) and analysis techniques. So ATLAS could be biased measuring mass a little on the high side in one type of measurement like H => γγ and a little on the low side in another type of measurement like H => Z => 4l, which may be sort of what happened but I'm not an expert on either ATLAS or CMS.

So I still see it analagous to the resistance versus temperature measurement, where the resistance obtains a "biased" value at a different temperature. It looks like the Higgs mass has a "biased" value in a different type of measurement in the same detector, and of course we also have detector to detector differences.


My concern centers around the question: what are the chances that the Higgs has a mass of 126.0 GeV/c^2, given a claimed measurement of 159.09 +/- .24 GeV/c^2?
Sorry, I missed the 159.09, where is that coming from, or do you mean 125.09?

arxiv.org...

According to those graphs two of the four individual experiments included 126.0 within their error bars so I certainly don't see it being excluded on that basis. For all I know we might have a better grip on the variance than we do on the bias and sources of bias, so in other words there may be more reason to have confidence in the +/- 0.24 than we do in the 125.09.

Considering how different the two detectors are, it's amazing to me the results are as close as they are.

Anyway my interpretation is that both the 125.09 and the +/- 0.24 are best estimates, but I don't see either of them as being engraved in stone. One article mentioned that as an alternative to combining the data to reduce variance they might have achieved the same variance reduction by just collecting more data and running 2 years longer. More data will be collected and after several more years of data we should have better statistics.

Here's an interesting thing to note from the above figure, the estimated mass of the combined measurements, 125.09 is excluded by the error bars of all 4 individual experiments! So how much confidence does that give us that 125.09 is the correct value? Not that much in my case, but it's still the best estimate we have, so it is what it is, like real data often is, sometimes it's a little bit messy, though not that bad in this case. A decade from now we should have better statistics.

edit on 201774 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

In the accelerators: What occurs in order to detect the """higgs"""? For one test of detection of (how many higgs?) How many particles/particle beams of what type are sent around? Proton beams?

How many protons, in one go, one test?

How many collide in that test?

Where do the protons come from, how are they sent into the track?

When the (if it is protons...proton beams...) collide, and many particles are sent into the detector, quarks and what not, some of these particles are believed to be higgs particles?

It is believed there is higgs field, positive value...positive mass value...actual real mass particles existing at every point in space? Higgs field? Higgs field composed of higgs particles?

Higgs field when not excited is massless?

Everywhere there is particles of mass (electron, quark etc.) that is only where there is excited higgs particles, or predominantly?

When stars explode and stuff, and/or even average daily, secondly massive amount of star radiation, are higgs particles sent out too?

How many free higgs particles are thought to be floating around in interstellar space?

By what mechanism does the non excited higgs field that exists at all points of space (need verification, only so many fields can actually exist at all points of space) become excited?

Either the higgs field exists at all points of space or it doesnt.

Either the higgs field is only "the total quantity of higgs particles that exist which do not cover every near infinitesimal unit of space" or it is "particles that cover every near infinitesimal unit of space"

Ok, consider space like a billiard ball table A: Consider we only have 8 balls, and we have enough to pack them exactly on the table so that not a single other 8 ball can fit on the table, and they all fit homogeneously nicely.

Now consider a separate table B, and this table has 1/4th the amount of 8 balls on it, so there is space in between.

(this metaphor can be used to distinguish what is meant by 'field' or 'free particles' for the others I have heard too, electron field, EM field)

When Higgs Field is mentioned, is it more like A, or B?

Is there really something at every point in space? Or is Higgs Field, the use of field, just to suggest: "we are aware there are multiple particles in an area, so we call it a field"?

Well then the 'excitation and non excitation" comes into play.

So when it is said a "field exists, that is not excited, but it exists, but it can be excited" it brings to mind, concept A.

When it is said: Higgs particles, are actually non nothings, that exist: Higgs particles are actually things that exist in space, it brings to mind B.

But lets go with A for a second. So then we have marbles or something, and marble beams, and we have a track that goes around the permitter of the billiard table hugging the inner walls, and we make the marbles go around faster and faster, (and the marbles are gooey, squishy, maybe made of smaller inner parts, held together by some cellular membrane of sorts)

and the marbles collide, and we have a detector, and the innards spill out into the detector, and they 'shake up' the homogeneously cramped 8 balls, and the 8 balls are not very solid, so bits of them can break off,

and bits of them go in the detector...well actually... the marble track was actually traveling straight through the 8balls the whole time, the 8balls are like "kind of ghost"...well, maybe its like water, how its there, but things can go through it, or air... its there but things can go through it...

But the collision of the marbles 'shakes up' the previous order of the homegenous 8ball medium:

and now a fish who did not know it was surrounded by water, has bumped head first into a berg of ice.

and so little bits of the invisible 8ball medium, are caught in the detector, along with little bits of the marbles, and it is theorized the little bits of the marbles could not exist, could not have the mass they are measured to have, the marbles themselves could not have the mass they are measured to have, unless those other bits detected, which were certainly shards from the invisible all pervasive homogenous 8ball medium, existed.


So marbles equal mass/energy X (rest mass... good luck, make sure everything else checks out, one little wrong concept here or there will through everything off, one little untight screw will drop the whole scaffolding off the side of the sand castle)

Marbles are sped up to mass/energy Z by adding mass/energy Y.

Marbles are collided, without losing any.. and Matter mass/energy is detected in detector = > Y+X (+ or times or squared... you get the picture).



edit on 4-7-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So it is said, More mass/energy was detected than put in? Or less mass/energy was detected than put in?

The missing or extra mass must exist "in an invisible, maybe all pervasive maybe homogenous maybe field of maybe mass that maybe sometimes in maybe someways maybe gives maybe 0 mass maybe not 0 mass maybe objects more mass"


To try to be a bit more simple and clear, the water concept might be nice to roll with:

The higgs field is like water? It is impossible to get accurate measurements on anything because all the measurements take place in the presence of an unavoidable medium? calibrated to the medium

But by making very forceful collisions, it 'breaks up the medium a bit', and measures a unit of medium? A higgs particle is like h20 molecule? higgs field is like a lake of water?

This is where yall lose me: If there was no Higgs medium, the particles would have 0 mass?

As I explained in my post 2 above: something cannot exist with no mass.

Well ok lets say this: Would you either say: without the higgs field, all particles would travel light speed, or all particles would be light?

If with a snap of the fingers, the higgs field disappeared: Would all particles (or, pertinent particles to this discussion, the ones said to depend on higgs) travel light speed? Or would all particles 'become' light itself?

Well actually this is where a trick of yours comes into place...

It has to do with light speed, and define this as 0 mass.

When light is radiated, it is said: it requires 0 force to radiate light, so light has 0 mass. The force that is required to radiate light, equals the mass of the object that is forced to radiate light.

1 unit of mass A is required to 'accelerate an electron B that is 1 unit of mass': 'light energy' C comes out of this, but the 1 unit of mass A = the 1 unit of mass B... there is no need for any more units of mass in this equation, yet... light energy is a part of this equation, therefore light energy has 0 mass.


When you touch your finger to a lake surface, the mass of your finger, forces the mass of the lake surface, and energy propagates.

would you calculate the entire mass of the water in the lake? Could you calculate the mass of the wave/wake... the rest mass!!?

The universe exists such that, when what is called light, is created/generated/radiated, it 'self propagates'... very freaking fast.

Imagine touching a rock and it shoots away from you at half of light speed.

imagine touching a lakes surface and it shoots away from you however fast it shoots away from you.

Imagine touching an electron and something must be touching the electron such that like a finger touching a lake surface an energy wave shoots away from it.

So the term mass, is calibrated to this concept of: there exists something, light, which when touched, automatically shoots away from the point of touching very fast.

I of course think this at least must have to do something with the rate of speed the Earth is traveling through space...possibly... probably

because? there is a more fundamental realm, of stuff, packed in the smallest confines of space, in which bulkier massier material stuff is clumped up on top of, and runs through, though everything is still intertwined, such that the fundamental space is a lake, and all material are fingers,

and holy heck forget it god did it

jkjkjkjk...

How can this phenomenon of light be explained... How can there be such a fundamental lake... so many of them (higgs, gravity)... intertwined

So a porousy ball clumped of different types and scales of material traveling submergedly through a lake, and any where on this ball, no matter what scale, if a particle of this ball moves, ripples flow out from the point of movement..

It is just such that, compared to the speed of the ball moving, and compared to the speed of any of the parts on the ball to move, when the fundamental water is touched, and measured, it ripples away bewilderingly fast..











edit on 4-7-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

edit on 4-7-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

edit on 4-7-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

Hi DanielKoenig, I am afraid I am not an expert on the Higgs. The reason for my postings here is that I believe what is being seen and called evidence of the Higgs is instead evidence of preons. However, I can offer you some response to what you have written.

I do know something about the standard model, but I am not an expert. While the standard model does involve things like quarks, leptons, the Higgs, and mass, these things aren't really thought about in the way most people think of things. Instead, the standard model is really a monumental mathematical theory. You can look at the math by clicking this link.. That rather enormous equation ties back to scattering and particle creation events that can be measured in a lab, so it does have some touchstones with reality. But the theory itself is built on many mathematical constructs, and quarks for instance shouldn't really be thought of as little balls of matter. In their truest form I believe that quarks are mathematical entities that are simply part of that big, glorious equation.

It is my understanding that the Higgs Mechanism is a mathematical operation that enables mass variables within the big equation to take on non-zero values within that equation. I understand that many of the components of the big equation are motivated by simple group theory constructs, and that the group theory would naturally lead to solutions where the mass is zero but the Higgs Mechanism allows the variables called mass to become nonzero. It is all math - we shouldn't try to ask common sense mechanical questions about it. But once the math is done, the predictions made by the math do agree with experiments. Unfortunately that is as far as I can go with this, and I've probably even gone too far already. I hope someone else here more knowledgeable than I can do a better job of explaining it.

My efforts have been to try to explain all known experimental results with classical ideas. I have made considerable headway, but my work is almost completely unknown. But because of that I can reply to some of what you write from a classical standpoint, as I do have some problems with it.

First up is the fact that photons exist and they have no mass. So that would appear to counterindicate some of what you write.

Also, even in classical physics mass comes in only in certain ways. The gravitational force is Gm_1m_2/r^2, where G is a constant, m_1 is one mass, m_2 is another mass and r is the separation of two entities that have those masses. Momentum involves mass, and momentum changes are related to force by the equation F = dp/dt, where F is the force, dt is a differential (very small) time interval and dp is a differential momentum change. p is momentum, which is equal to gamma*m*v, where v is the velocity and gamma is (1-v^2/c^2)^(-1/2) where c is the speed of light. Lastly, energy, momentum and mass are related via the equation E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. So those are the places where mass comes in classically. Those things appear to be a bit different from what you write, but I believe there may be some overlap.

There is evidence of "spooky actions at a distance" in some "quantum entanglement" experiments, and also - in my view - in the simple two slit experiment. So that is another reality of nature that I think is at odds with some of what you have written.

You have written quite a bit and gone in many different directions, and I hope the above goes some way toward providing answers to your posts.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks again Arbitrageur. Here I will answer your questions.

From me:

there should be no dependence of a mass on any other parameter.


From you:

Measured mass or actual mass?


Actual mass should have no dependence on any other parameter.


Sorry, I missed the 159.09, where is that coming from, or do you mean 125.09?


I meant 125.09. I mis-typed and didn't catch my error.

All in all, I agree with pretty much everything you said this last time. My problem all along has been that I thought the variance was supposed to indicate a likely limit on what the central value is measured to be. I see now that something else is meant. I remain a bit lost as to what the meaning is, and would like to know more, but the important point is now clear.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: delbertlarson

According to your understanding, if the higgs did not exist, particles associated with higgs theory would have 0 mass?

One thing I want to try to express to you, though I think you already believe this is, gravity medium (aether), light medium(aether)?

A simple thing: it is said gravity works because space bends. Nothing cannot bend. Something needs to exist for 'bending' to be possible.

How heavy are the planets? How heavy does space need to be in order to maintain the proximity of the planets?

A simple, important thing a 'theoretical physicist' needs to keep in mind.


Then theres what I tried to express the post above the one im responding to, about light and its 0 mass.

viewing it as like a medium of water, and earth like a porousy ball traveling through the water: this is how gravity field and light must be viewed to some degree:

when you touch your finger to a lake surface, energy waves propagate away.

When an electron is accelerated, energy waves propagate away.

the water (space) 'bends' in the presence of objects.

So one of my sources of confusion and uncertainty, is how a necessary medium can be said to be massless?

I get that the energy wave propagates away without resistance, you cant trap it and hold it still,

I guess thats the thing, light can never be stopped, it is 'something', but its always moving,

and not moving like all things are always moving, because many of all things (atoms) can be brought into relative motionlessness, like rocks sitting on the ground, they are moving through space, as the earth is moving through space, but they can be brought to relative rest,

light cannot be brought to relative rest... because?

The water lake wave ripple from your finger can be brought to relative rest, by freezing the water,

but if it was impossible to freeze water, we may say the same, the water wave ripple could not be brought to rest, would you say the water wave ripple had no rest mass?

Light cannot be 'frozen',

because to do so, one would have to 'get on all sides of most fundamental medium, and compress it, making sure none of its inner parts moved?'

water is frozen by taking the movement out of it:

lets say we could box light in, trap light in an absolutely perfectly sealed container, and slowly have the walls go further and further in,

why can light not be made to stop moving?

in the water ripple wave wake situation, imagine if we couldnt freeze water, imagine trying to make a ripple/wave/wake stop moving? each time you put your hands to try to trap the wave energy in place, youd create different wave energies, and then try to trap those, and so on.

So at the end of it all, maybe, we cant stop light because, it is an object that was put in motion, and it will stay in motion?

it can have its direction changed but it cant be stopped, and held in relative place, because it was put in motion and will stay in motion, and its really as simple as that,



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: delbertlarson
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Well ok lets say this: Would you either say: without the higgs field, all particles would travel light speed, or all particles would be light?
The name of this thread is "Ask any question you want about Physics", not "get your physics PhD online in this thread". Given your barrage of questions it seems like you're aiming more toward the latter. I suggest getting some physics books and reading a lot yourself (or you can find a lot online), and then try to focus on one or two at the most direct and clearly stated questions per post. A lot of your questions are easily answered on google and show little motivation on your part to find answers yourself, and in that case others who might help aren't going to be any more motivated than you are to explain things for someone too lazy to look them up.

If you focus on the few things you did look up and tried to understand but were unable to, that is the kind of question or two to ask here.

So I'll just pick one question to answer for now, and let you do some actual work yourself to look up answers to your other questions.


Everywhere there is particles of mass (electron, quark etc.) that is only where there is excited higgs particles, or predominantly?
That depends on what you mean by "particles of mass", and "etc". Electrons get mass from the Higgs mechanism. Are neutrons and protons "particles of mass" included in your "etc"? They make up most of your mass and most of it it doesn't come from the Higgs mechanism:

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson


The Higgs Boson is awesome but it's NOT responsible for most of your mass!

The Higgs mechanism is meant to account for the mass of everything, right? Well no, only the fundamental particles, which means that electrons derive their mass entirely from the Higgs interaction but protons and neutrons, made of quarks, do not. In fact the quark masses are so small that they only make up about 1% of the mass of the proton (and a similar fraction of the neutron). The rest of the mass comes from the energy in the gluon field. Gluons are massless, but there is so much energy in the field that ...This is where most of your mass comes from and the mass of virtually everything around you.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

yes light is frozen in the black hole



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
a reply to: delbertlarson

If something existed, it would be expected to have 'that which has been termed "mass"'.

Do we agree, that if only nothing existed, there would be only no mass?

Mass is the concept that, theoretically, conceptually, actually, if something existed, it would have a 'substantial somethingness' to it, about it.

The essential, somethingness of somethingness, is the concept of mass.


Incorrect assumption at the core of the questions. A field can absolutely be massless, yet it exists. Photons are an example of a particle which is, as far as any measurement has been able to show, is massless. Your philosophical ramblings are not backed up by the actual measurements or theory.

It is incorrect and also a little arrogant to make an assume a simple statement to be an absolute, when it may absolutely not be, and then build your world around that concept. It is a straw-man argument.

Theoretically Photons have zero mass, many scientists have been trying to prove it otherwise but, to zero success, it is quite well documented. So why build a few posts of huge lists of questions on this singular misunderstanding.

The equation Einstein presented is shortened into E=mc^2 but its more correct form is E^2C^2 = P^2C^2+M^2C^4 which is the invariant mass equation. Here what we see is that if M=0, energy can still exist as momentum and... guess what? It works as far as we can tell.
edit on 5-7-2017 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Electrons get mass from the Higgs mechanism. Are neutrons and protons "particles of mass" included in your "etc"? They make up most of your mass and most of it it doesn't come from the Higgs mechanism:


Do the quarks in the neutron and protons get their or a portion of their mass from higgs?

If you could snap your fingers and have the entire higgs field/mechanism disappear, electrons would travel light speed?

And you wouldnt be able to stop/contain electrons in relative place, in relative rest?



a reply to: ErosA433
Yeah I admitted later that I now may understand better (I guess my can of worms may be opened again when asking such a thing like: whats the deal with hearing about the potential interchangability between certain particles/decay and photons: that particles 'substance' can 'disappear' under conditions and in their place 'photons' may appear)

I wish you would have picked something like this to touch on, because I think its very interested and related.


It is said gravity works because space bends/curves. Nothing cannot bend. Something needs to exist for 'bending' to be possible.

How heavy are the planets?

How heavy does space need to be in order to maintain the proximity of the planets?

Do you understand these questions? If you have a massive boulder, and you have a "slide made of fabric" in some arc suspended from a later, and you want to push the big boulder off the ladder so it slides down the fabric slide and lands 1000 feet away from the ladders base, that fabric must be 'strong and taught'.

Now instead of a big boulder imagine the Earth, and well, throw in all the other planets too. There must be a heavy, strong, taught 'fabric' that keeps the planets riding on their arc.

In the boulder scenario, if the fabric is not strong and taught enough, the path of least resistance will be quickly straight down and tear through.

If 'space' is not heavy, strong, and taught enough, the planets would have immediately 'flung off' away from the sun as they attempted to arc/revolve around it.

Pretty interesting right?



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Do the quarks in the neutron and protons get their or a portion of their mass from higgs?
The sentence structure has problems but guessing what you meant, yes.


If you could snap your fingers and have the entire higgs field/mechanism disappear, electrons would travel light speed?

And you wouldnt be able to stop/contain electrons in relative place, in relative rest?
When Peter Higgs and colleagues were trying to make models that worked, they were apparently unable to make a working model without the Higgs mechanism. Since to my knowledge nobody came up with an acceptable working model without the Higgs field, what model are you supposed to use to make predictions without the Higgs field, and furthermore why do you care?

Your questions show a curiosity to know more about physics, and also that you have a lot to learn about this universe that we live in. So why waste time worrying about what would happen in another universe without the Higgs when we have enough difficulty predicting what will happen in our universe with the Higgs? It's also worth noting that no matter what answer is given to such a question, it's completely meaningless since even if a universe without the Higgs exists we have no way to go there to test it and it would likely have other differences too. Maybe the universe without the Higgs field if there is such a thing doesn't even have electrons.

I suggest using "Newton's flaming laser sword" to focus on questions which actually have meaningful answers and are therefore not wasting everybody's time.



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So why waste time worrying about what would happen in another universe


I wasn't asking what would happen in another universe. I asked something very reasonable, I asked if you took a componenet out of the model, how you believe the model would then function, to see if you truly near fully understand and comprehend the components of the model.

If I ask a car mechanic, or a baker, "would this car be able to function, how would this car be able to function if: I removed part A, if I removed the breaks, if I used this type of oil or that type of oil, this type of gas or that, these types of tires or that, how would the aerodynamics change with these slopes of hood, or these materials of hood or that", "how would this bread or cake be in this pan or that, with this amount of this type of yeast, a little less, a little more, baked for a little less time or a little more", a person who fully understands the system they are dealing with, usually, understands each part, and each parts relationship, and how the system as a whole and parts of the system might be different, if parts of the system are different or altered".

Physics, theoretical physics, is attempting to understand the recipe of the universe, to comprehend all its possible parts, how they interact, how they exist, and my questions may help understand that further. Its not unreasonable to ask, for fun, or not, "If you know the laws of physics, and location of planets, (and there are programs that can simulate the bodies movements) how would the orbits of the planets change if Jupiter suddenly vanished. Its a test, a test of understanding, to then be able to plug all that is known, into this new condition, to then see if one has so sufficient understanding in these subjects, that they can know how a case of universal orientation would play out, if A was different, if B was different, if C was different"

My question was not unreasonable, your answer was false, what you meant to say was "I do not fully understand the higgs concept, field, mechanism or fundamentally what and how and electron is, well enough to answer your question", not a major deal, simply a pity for us both. None the less, still fun, interesting, and potentially enlightening to think about.

You claim: The electron would have 0 mass if the higgs field did not exist.

I know this is not your claim, because things are more complicated than this: I know I cant just pick and choose and take out this or that, as the whole system evolved and meshed and grew and grafted together and so every constant and variable may be dependent on many others, so if I said, what if I could snap my fingers and all photons disappeared, or the higgs field disappeared, (or if jupiter disappeared, or if half the yeast in the bread in the oven disappeared) that its not so clear how things would play out after that moment.


You said: mr.higgs couldnt work out the model without the higgs mechanism.

Which equates to saying: What we know of as "the electron", could not have mass unless, "a (does the higgs field have mass?) field existed which prevented "what we know of as the electron" from going light speed,

I guess maybe one of my issues is: there is a very particular physical reason light goes light speed. (just as there is a reason a ripple in a lake goes its speed)

So its though there is some 'mesh' or 'strainer', whose porousness is too 'wide' for photons to be caught up in, but electrons consistently, at all times of all of their existences, are continuously 'snagged', which slows them down, and it is this slowing them, which is, giving them mass.

If the higgs field was removed, it is thought electron would have 0 mass, and it is thought that which has 0 mass must travel light speed.

Well one of my hang ups is, it is admitted, this is one of the most important parts I hope you respond to, there can exist particles which have mass without the higgs field? A particle can have mass because it has mass? An electron has 0 mass, but needs the higgs field to give it mass?

What I am asking is: why can it not be said that: the electron has mass without the higgs field?

What are the crucial elements which make it absolutely impossible, for the electron to intrinsically have mass. What is the essential dealbreaker/s which say: Particles can have mass, the electron is not one of those particles? Why is that said? I know... experiments, just give me a simple theory of what about the electron, theoretically, just a tad, a tid bit of understanding, the simplest expression:

A universe exists in which particles exist within it. Particle A has its own mass. Particle A has mass. Particle A does not need a universal web to slow it down to give it mass.

Particle E has 0 mass. Particle E needs a universal web to slow it down to give it mass.

How did they essentially reach this conclusion? I know I know, spin, quantum numbers, colors, but that doesnt really explain it. Because there can be fundamental inaccuracies in those theories, which forced them to invent this idea: our numbers arent working, we cant get the numbers right, so what if we made this dues ex machina, that conveniently gifts our particle in troubled question the right numbers it needs to make the equation work... oh, sweet... if we just have a problem with the interactions between particle A, B, C, D, E,...Z and their relations in close quarters and large numbers, with details of movement, if there is any problem, we can just say there exists an invisible field which gives the particle in question the exact number that our equations are coming short and failing with, this is awesome.


Essentially what I am asking is: What was it that was lacking in the theory of electron, in the equations, that required the assumption of higgs field?

Why did it not work: electron intrinsically has mass = ______ (positive value)

What about that did not work, do you know?

Electron does not need higgs field, higgs field does not exist. What is the problem?

The electron falling into nucleus? Why the electron curves in the detector? at a certain angle? at a certain energy? attraction/repulsion? pauli exclusion?

Do you know this answer: Why is it theorized the electron cannot possibly be a particle which intrinsically has its own mass, without the need for a 'mass giving field'?

Please tell me.

Also what do you think of my gravity expression above in the same post you responded to? Thats a heckckckckckck of a lot of mass in "space/""""""vaccum"""""", and the electron just travels through that, the photon just travels through that (besides when its curve by it)

A heck of a lot of theorized real fields """"overlapping""""/"""compressed""" together occupying the same """"space"""", quantum foam right, particles popping in and out of existence (what, the opposite of solid, foundation)



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Another interesting query I have mentioned before, but I hope you respond to all above first.

If you have a 5 pound weight A, and 100 pound weight B, one each hanging over 2 separate pools of water X and Y:

you drop A in pool X, B in pool Y:

Do the waves/ripples propagate at the same speed/velocity outward from impact?

So a man is in each pool, at the edge not disturbing the water, with a detecter hanging in over the edge dangling right above the surface of the water (as the wave will be taller than the surface), which measures the waves energy: (the A and B of this I dont think is important in relation to what I am attempting to get at right now following here, but I think I mentioned it just to conceptualize, or wonder, if regardless of mass, the energy wave propagation would propagate at the same speed)

The detector registers an energy signature of the wave as the wave collides with the detector.

The water is stilled, and the mass is raised again, this time however, the detector is on a type of pulley system, from a zipline like thing from the ceiling, which when the mass is dropped, and the waves propagate, the detector will at 5 mph travel towards the location of mass drop, travel towards the outwardly propagating waves.

This is done again except this time the zipline detector travels 1000 mph.

These would result in a different detection of energy right? And if the moving zipline detectors only had the moving zipline data, it would be difficult for them to know the 'actual' speed/velocity of the wave propagation?

The first question I asked was about detecting the speed or the velocity of the wave. With cameras and clocks it can be tracked over distance, if the mass of total water is known, the mass dropped in, things about surface tension, water density, maybe gravity, or just comparing its movement to other objects moving over the same area of space, its velocity can be stated.


Now about light.

The propagation of light takes place in a 'fundamental space', that is not 'steadily in a resting reference frame on earth', such a pool, or a nascar, or a ball floating down a river, or a gazelle, or a football player running over 100 yards of indication.

These are things made of earth, 'trapped' in the collective gravity well. That move in relation to the collective body.

Light (em field), its existence, and mode of propagation, exists 'beyond earth', entirely surrounding earth and in every crevice.

It is not like a rock that can be rolled down a hill or across a lawn. It is "some universal material that exists at all points, that no matter where you go, if you have an electron, and accelerate it, it will 'shake' this material and propagate energy waves away from the point of shaking'.

So what I am trying to get at with this is:

When we measure light on Earth, its velocity, its energy, from a car headlight or a stuck match (yes I understand this might in some way be related to red and blue shift, but I think im getting at something more, something maybe more overlooked, I admit I could be wrong, but I dont know)

The Earth is moving through space. (fast...how fast? how do we know?)

The Earth is always like the detector attached to the zip line.

But on Earth, because every Thing has mass, and is relatively resting in the common gravity well, everything else is 'on the same zipline',

What I am questioning is, the em field is not on the earths zipline, (enter expansion theory, enter cosmological constant theory, to try to make the EM field itself on some zipline)

The Earth is spedily flying through space, the football field is flying through space at that speed, but the resting gazelle is flying through space at that same speed, so the moving gazelle can accurately be measured in this relation.

The theory is that, the EM field is never resting. The theory is that the em field, photons, are flying through space much faster than Earth.

So I guess what I am trying to ask is: how can we accurately measure the speed of light, if our detectors are always necessarily moving (at the speed of earth, in relation to the actual speed of light)

there is no way to anchor a detector to the side of the pool, the pool (of light, em field) exists at all points of space, (rocks, gazelles, runners, rivers, solid things, dont exist at all points in space, 'compacted on the most smallest scale'. these travel as a unit, a body/planet, through the pool, and every where on the planet, every charge on the planet, that is accelerated, is touching the very tiny, fine grain dimension of em field,

masses are always being accelerated in it.

wakes/waves/ripples are always propagating from the points of mass (charge) acceleration

the detector (earth) (anyone on earth) is always moving in relation to the pure independent propagation of the energy field/pool/wakes

The em field is not some small object that exists on earth in earths reference frame. The earth is a small object compared to the em field.

all measurements, detections of lights velocity on earth, is the metaphorical case scenario of the detector on the zipline, traveling into (or away from..yea blue shift) the wakes/waves/ripples in the pool.

Do I rest my case that the independent true velocity of light is not known? Only some relation of the velocity of light plus/or times the velocity of earth?



posted on Jul, 5 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanielKoenig

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
So why waste time worrying about what would happen in another universe


I wasn't asking what would happen in another universe. I asked something very reasonable, I asked if you took a componenet out of the model, how you believe the model would then function, to see if you truly near fully understand and comprehend the components of the model.

If I ask a car mechanic, or a baker, "would this car be able to function, how would this car be able to function if: I removed part A
Removing the Higgs mechanism is nothing like removing a car part. We have models that can predict what will happen if you remove a car part. The models we tried to develop without the Higgs didn't work. Not only that, without the Higgs, the electron wouldn't have the properties it has so it couldn't even be called an electron so the question itself is internally inconsistent.


You claim: The electron would have 0 mass if the higgs field did not exist.

I know this is not your claim, because things are more complicated than this: I know I cant just pick and choose and take out this or that, ...
Yes, things are more complicated. Here's a paper written for laypeople that tries to explain it:

The symmetry and simplicity of the laws of physics and the Higgs

It is often said that the Higgs field gives a mass to all other particles. In fact, from what we said so far, we could add masses for the other matter particles, such as the electron, with or without the Higgs. The real reason we need the Higgs to give mass to the electron is related to a strange property of the weak interactions. To explain this weird feature, we need to describe in more detail some of the properties of elementary particles. We need to take into account that the electron has spin. First we will describe spin, and then describe the weird feature of the weak interactions...
I suggest reading the entire paper since you have so many questions, many of which should be answered with a thorough reading, though I'll warn you it's simplified for laypeople so technically it's not completely precise or accurate.


Also what do you think of my gravity expression above in the same post you responded to?
Gravity isn't fully understood. Gravitons have been hypothesized but nobody knows if they really exist or not and there are problems with attempts to make a quantum theory of gravity work at high energies, so gravity still isn't part of the standard model.

We know mass affects things around it and can describe the effects but exactly how it really works, with or without gravitons is unknown.


originally posted by: DanielKoenig
Do I rest my case that the independent true velocity of light is not known? Only some relation of the velocity of light plus/or times the velocity of earth?
The theory of relativity says that the speed of light doesn't depend on the observer, but what does depend on the observer's reference frame is the frequency of the light or EM radiation. Many experiments are consistent with the predictions of relativity.

edit on 201775 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
without the Higgs, the electron wouldn't have the properties it has so it couldn't even be called an electron so the question itself is internally inconsistent.


Without the higgs the electron wouldnt have the properties it has, or the property, of mass?
The higgs gives the electron property/s besides mass?



Yes, things are more complicated. Here's a paper written for laypeople that tries to explain it:


It is often said that the Higgs field gives a mass to all other particles. In fact, from what we said so far, we could add masses for the other matter particles, such as the electron, with or without the Higgs. The real reason we need the Higgs to give mass to the electron is related to a strange property of the weak interactions. To explain this weird feature, we need to describe in more detail some of the properties of elementary particles. We need to take into account that the electron has spin. First we will describe spin, and then describe the weird feature of the weak interactions...
I suggest reading the entire paper since you have so many questions, many of which should be answered with a thorough reading, though I'll warn you it's simplified for laypeople so technically it's not completely precise or accurate.


"The real reason we need the Higgs to give mass to the electron is related to a strange property of the weak interactions."
Perfect! exactly what I suggested!

"How did they essentially reach this conclusion? I know I know, spin, quantum numbers, colors, but that doesnt really explain it. Because there can be fundamental inaccuracies in those theories, which forced them to invent this idea: our numbers arent working, we cant get the numbers right, so what if we made this dues ex machina, that conveniently gifts our particle in troubled question the right numbers it needs to make the equation work... oh, sweet... if we just have a problem with the interactions between particle A, B, C, D, E,...Z and their relations in close quarters and large numbers, with details of movement, if there is any problem, we can just say there exists an invisible field which gives the particle in question the exact number that our equations are coming short and failing with, this is awesome. "

They dont fully understand and comprehend the fundamental concepts and natures of what they are dealing with, so they weave more and more tangled web. They dont fundamentally understand the weak force, how it physically actually exists, too much abstract math, not enough physical conception (its not that theres too much abstract math, its that some of it is wrong, and if the smallest bit is wrong, but perceived to be right, and other things here and there can be altered to make it match experiment, in one or some scenarios it may work, but because there is some fundamental faulty error, down the line it may show that something is wrong with that particular part of the theory, which may incline one or some to invent absurd patchs). At least theres plenty of fudge.

After thinking they knew what they were working with, with their model of 'weak interactions', and not being able to get the model to fit with the experimental data, they had to invent a magic 'only give mass to the electron' fairy.

"we could add masses for the other matter particles, such as the electron, with or without the Higgs."

BUT BECAUSE WE DONT FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH IN RELATION TO WHAT WE HAVE CALLED THE WEAK FORCE WE HAVE TO MAKE UP A NONSENSICAL IDEA



Gravity isn't fully understood. Gravitons have been hypothesized but nobody knows if they really exist or not and there are problems with attempts to make a quantum theory of gravity work at high energies, so gravity still isn't part of the standard model.

We know mass affects things around it and can describe the effects but exactly how it really works, with or without gravitons is unknown.


Total ignorance of the simple to understand necessary existent physical framework I detailed.


The theory of relativity says that the speed of light doesn't depend on the observer, but what does depend on the observer's reference frame is the frequency of the light or EM radiation. Many experiments are consistent with the predictions of relativity.


Total ignorance of the simple to understand necessary existent physical framework I detailed.
edit on 6-7-2017 by DanielKoenig because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DanielKoenig

Please point out the framework as so far all iv seen in your posts are general claims that everything people have been doing for the last... 60 or so years is 'garbage' without anything to suggest you know at all what you are talking about...

You do not appear to actually understand anything about the standard model and yet feel totally comfortable claiming that theoretical particle physics is completely wrong.

Sorry if it seems ignorant of me to not to go searching through your massively rambling posts, but, given the level of "I am right because... because... and everyone else is a fraud/idiot" you have done, ill just let you point it out to me exactly where this theory is and what it entails... because id be quite astounded if a simple page of ramblings can replace thousands of pages of theory backed up by petabytes of experimental data.




top topics



 
72
<< 320  321  322    324  325  326 >>

log in

join