It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# CERN is clueless, science is confused

page: 2
4
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Angry Danish

For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. "We know something is missing, we simply don't quite know what this new something might be," wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.

Source

t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.

Allow me to explain:

This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.
edit on 8/23/11 by Angry Danish because: made it prettier

I have thought for a very long time that it is the other way around. That existence of mass creates space-time. Both space and time is a product of there being mass.

I have always thought it was the

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:08 AM
reply to post by Angry Danish

all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction merely demonstrates that the mass of an object tends to infinity as its velocity approaches c. It says absolutely nothing about where the mass comes from.

Your statement quoted above is a mere tautology and explains nothing.

Science is not confused. CERN is not clueless.

Back to the drawing-board for you, young genius.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:59 AM

So where matter got its mass?and where is the antimatter from the big bang?
Actually i haven't seen any explanations in this thread except using HIGGS,so if you can enlighten me i would really appreciate it

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:01 AM
"If you can't explain something simply, you don't understand it well." ~Albert Einstein
Yes, all those equations are confusing.
The whole CERN thing is confusing too.However, I hope the scientists aren't confused.
edit on 24/8/11 by applebaum because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:42 AM

Can you give an example of matter that does not have mass?

The photon does not have any mass, considering it travels at the speed of light it would be infinite if it did. I am starting to think that our particle explanation of the photon is also wrong. Firstly there is how light acts as a wave and a particle. Then there is how the electron is responsible for the effects of light and other electromagnetic radiation that we are aware of. Different materials also affect the speed that light travels at indicating there is a clear relationship between matter and light. The photon does appear to be the explanation of how one atom communicates to its neighbour and is based on energy and not mass.

As for mass, I see it as an intrinsic part of matter. There is a strong relationship between density and gravity as can be seen with the strong gravitational force of a black hole compared to the weak gravitational force of interstellar space.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:48 AM
According to current theory the Higgs should be there. They built a machine to find it.

If they find it great. If they don't find it they will have to go with another amended theory.

Thats how science works. Its all good either way. Not finding it is as interesting/worthwhile as finding it.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 01:55 AM

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by Angry Danish

t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.

Allow me to explain:

This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.

Can you give an example of matter that does not have mass?

Care to elaborate instead of just calling me stupid and walking away?

The Lorentz-contraction equation is used in special-relativity to calculate differences in length and time due to velocities(WRT c). Mass does not even come into the equation.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:39 AM

Originally posted by kwakakev

Can you give an example of matter that does not have mass?

The photon does not have any mass, considering it travels at the speed of light it would be infinite if it did. I am starting to think that our particle explanation of the photon is also wrong. Firstly there is how light acts as a wave and a particle. Then there is how the electron is responsible for the effects of light and other electromagnetic radiation that we are aware of. Different materials also affect the speed that light travels at indicating there is a clear relationship between matter and light. The photon does appear to be the explanation of how one atom communicates to its neighbour and is based on energy and not mass.

By definition a photon does not qualify as being matter as it is an electromagnetic wave.

Typically, matter includes atoms and other particles which have mass. A common way of defining matter is as anything that has mass and occupies volume.

Source

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:42 AM

How is this relevant?

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:52 AM

You said the Lorentz factor is not used to calculate masses. But the factor is used to calculate the relativistic mass. Of course the real mass is invariant, but to an observor at rest the mass appears appears bigger the faster the frame travels, even though the mass is not bigger.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 12:59 PM

Originally posted by 547000

You said the Lorentz factor is not used to calculate masses. But the factor is used to calculate the relativistic mass. Of course the real mass is invariant, but to an observor at rest the mass appears appears bigger the faster the frame travels, even though the mass is not bigger.

Ahhh but to calculate the relativistic mass you must have the "rest/actual/invariant mass" first.

The OP's equation deals primarily with observed contraction

[gamma] = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

To inversely calculate the mass we need it within the equation
Hence the equation

M = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

However if we know the energy in the system we can calculate m using

E = Mc^2

Though I think this would require some form of crystal ball as it would be pretty hard to calculate E without knowing m.

For anyone trying to follow ....

m = actual (or rest, or invariant) mass

M = relativistic mass

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 07:43 PM

Originally posted by kwakakev
The photon does appear to be the explanation of how one atom communicates to its neighbour and is based on energy and not mass.

Then explain solar sails.

If photons communicated mass (therefore gravity), then a solar sail should be 'sucked' back to the light source.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:14 PM

"CERN's statement said new results, which updated findings that caused excitement at another scientific gathering in Grenoble last month, "show that the elusive Higgs particle, if it exists, is running out of places to hide."

oh well, that's only 4 billion Euro spent on something that doesn't exist then.. I'm afraid I don't buy the 'that's just the way science works' argument for this type of experiment. The standard model, QED and QCD have dozens of blatant theoretical holes in them - these should be answered with basic theory before investing in hugely expensive data collection projects.

Photons do have mass. They are a fundamental particle of matter. The standard model likes to remember this when it is convenient, forget it when it isn't - see 'Virtual Particles' - en.wikipedia.org...

There is a lot of real work to do here, and none of it is going to involve public relations exercises/engineering industry subsidies like the LHC. No one should be allowed to build anything of this scale until they have proper physical mechanical theories about basic questions like 'why doesn't the electron crash into the proton?'

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 09:39 PM

Ahhh but to calculate the relativistic mass you must have the "rest/actual/invariant mass" first.

The OP's equation deals primarily with observed contraction

[gamma] = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2)

To inversely calculate the mass we need it within the equation
Hence the equation

M = m / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

This is correct.
I’m afraid my earlier post did not make it clear, and when I realized my error it was too late to rectify it.

Well done, OccamAssassin.

edit on 24/8/11 by Astyanax because: aesthetic considerations demanded it.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:35 PM

Then explain solar sails.

There is a lot more in the the solar winds than light, there are many other sub atomic and atomic particles that do contain mass and momentum. There is also the effect light can have on a surface of an object as its electrons are excited by the energy of the photons.

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 10:38 PM
reply to post by Angry Danish

well put easy to understand
i also see fordrew still awol

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 11:14 PM

No, it’s the light itself that exerts pressure.

Photons have no rest mass. But then, photons are never at rest.

The actual physical situation is rather difficult to comprehend. Photons are theoretically massless, but they do have momentum, whose value is dependent on their wavelength. When a photon impacts another particle (such as an atom in a solar sail) some of this momentum is imparted to the other particle. That’s how a solar sail works.

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Angry Danish

For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. "We know something is missing, we simply don't quite know what this new something might be," wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.

Source

t = sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2 )

The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction equation, well actually, the inverse gives the result of mass.

Allow me to explain:

This equation calculates the increase in mass of an object in relative motion to an observer. Which is to say, matter never "got mass" from anything. "Mass" is nothing more than a result of the occupation of spacetime - all matter occupies spacetime therefore all matter has mass.
edit on 8/23/11 by Angry Danish because: made it prettier

Im kinda fuzzy on this.

Does spacetime just move over for the matter, or do they coexist in the same place, or are they one in the same.

If they are one in the same, matter would be spacetime wouldnt it ? And if so, how does mass come from something that was nothing ? I mean is spacetime a fabric on which matter hangs out ?

edit on 25-8-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:47 AM

If they are one in the same, matter would be spacetime wouldnt it ?

There is one theoretical framework called DBL physics that is looking at things this way www.abovetopsecret.com... . There are some very interesting correlations with the SI Units when looking into it.

No, it’s the light itself that exerts pressure.

There is the Crookes Radiometer that does support this conclusion, however this device does not operate in a vacuum so there is still some question about what actual pressure is being measured.

Photons have no rest mass. But then, photons are never at rest. The actual physical situation is rather difficult to comprehend. Photons are theoretically massless, but they do have momentum, whose value is dependent on their wavelength. When a photon impacts another particle (such as an atom in a solar sail) some of this momentum is imparted to the other particle. That’s how a solar sail works.

Our explanations of how a solar sail operate are very close, expect I use the term energy and you use momentum when describing how a photon interacts with an atom. The explanation about light and momentum you provide is the same as others on these boards but I am not convinced that 'momentum' is the most accurate description of just what is happening. Light is directional and polarised so any momentum effects are produced in the atom as the photon transfer this energy around.

Buy using the term momentum for the photon it gives the impression that an object in motion continues that motion unless another force is acted upon it. What happens with light though is that as it passes through different materials is the speed of propagation changes, it can slow down and speed back up again depending on the material. There is no external force to account for the light accelerating after being slowed down, only the properties of the medium that the light travels through.

I am of the impression that the photon is an imaginary particle and does not exist, just like there is no particle specificity for sound waves. As sound waves are transferred the compression of all atoms and molecules, electromagnetic radiation is transferred through the compression of electrons.

posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 05:00 AM

Our explanations of how a solar sail operate are very close, expect I use the term energy and you use momentum when describing how a photon interacts with an atom.

But this is a very important difference. Momentum is a vector; it has magnitude and direction, which can be transferred on impact from one body to another. Energy, on the other hand, is scalar; it has no component of direction.

If it is merely energy (in whatever form) that is being transferred from the photon to the material of the sail, how come the sail moves in a direction that can be predicted by Newton’s laws of motion? If your explanation were the right one, it seems to me that the sail would merely glow – radiate energy in all directions – but go nowhere.

By using the term momentum for the photon it gives the impression that an object in motion continues that motion unless another force is acted upon it. What happens with light though is that as it passes through different materials is the speed of propagation changes, it can slow down and speed back up again depending on the material. There is no external force to account for the light accelerating after being slowed down, only the properties of the medium that the light travels through.

Please see this post of mine in a different thread for a short, simple explanation of what happens to light when its speed of propagation changes. The matter is not as counterintuitive as you suggest.

I am of the impression that the photon is an imaginary particle and does not exist, just like there is no particle specificity for sound waves.

Yet these ‘imaginary’ particles are visible to the naked eye, knock other particles about and leave tracks on photographic film. All that sounds pretty real to me.

As sound waves are transferred the compression of all atoms and molecules, electromagnetic radiation is transferred through the compression of electrons.

The compression of electrons? Care to explain how one compresses an electron?

new topics

top topics

4