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.

 

Have CERN got it wrong?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 

That guy must know the other guy that left a Baguette in the LHC which burned tha damn thing out for a year! LOL!
Split Infinity




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 

Well...like I said...I HOPE they found what has been advertised....it would make things all that much simpler. I will be the first person to be YELLING ALRIGHT! I will even use Pom Pom's! But...I find it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that what they have found is what is advertised.

Reason for this...it leaves too many holes in the concept of what Reality really is...but if I am wrong...I will be the first to admit it....I hope I am...but I am not. SUCKS doesn't it? Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
I think CERN have it wrong, I don't think the reading they are getting at 125 GeV is a particle which behaves like Quantum Field Theory theorises.

I'm not really going to try and back this assertion up, because no one would pay any attention, but I will use this quote to show how groundless the theory behind the Higgs boson is in my eyes:

"For a start, theory suggests the particle's own mass (which it gets by interacting with itself) should be huge"

That's right, current theory says the Higgs boson gets its own mass from itself. Circular reasoning?
edit on 7-7-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Ooops, Sorry if this thread put the willys up you. And I'm sorry to those who use science to tell them what, and how everything is, like a religion. "the numbers and data being the gospel". I was not trying to offend any institution or their followers. This was free thinking That's all. Don't crucify me please. Anyone want to build a new chur-ahem Herdron collider with me and try some thing not led by numbers, (which are man made by the way, catholic actually) the numbers don't synch with nature. I know this will proberly offend even more, I believe the numbers are wrong, and where carefully worked out to be wrong, not from the hedron collider, but the whole numericle system from when it started, leading us the wrong way. Everything is square then you lay the numbers out, Naturally everything is round. Please don't hit back with offensive remarks. I can't explain very well what I mean, it's something I believe to be true that I don't fully understand. Why do I believe? I trust my heart more than my head.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


The response you've had has nothing to do with "science being a religion" (that's completely false, by the way). What you call "free thinking" is baseless speculation from a position of (by your own admittance) ignorance. The rest of your post about about equating particle accelerators with churches (!), building a new particle accelerator that "doesn't use numbers" (!!) and claiming that "numbers are wrong" (!!!) and that they are Catholic (!!!!) and so on is complete nonsense. Why are you so quick to criticise the science when you have absolutely no understanding of it?


Why do I believe? I trust my heart more than my head.


Perhaps you should start using your head and educating yourself before discarding entire branches of knowledge simply because you don't understand them.
edit on 7-7-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Oh dear. It's all light hearted you know.
Ignorance is denial. I'm not denying anything, you are. I'm thinking of more possibilities. There is much more to this reality than matter you know.

edit on 7-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


actually,,if u seperate/stretch Mass,,,the less dence it becomes,, ie:Taffy Pull.


"should be huge" it is ,,,just taffeied.

edit on 7-7-2012 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by wirehead
 

Hate to tell you this but contrary to popular belief...a supposedly Massless Quantum Particle Wave-Form which is what a Photon is...has been discovered to have a Super-Micro Mass. Now this would seem to go against conventional wisdom since if it had a Mass...how could it obtain 186,300 Miles per Second and not also have that Mass become Infinite?


Oh yeah? Where has this been discovered?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
I think CERN have it wrong, I don't think the reading they are getting at 125 GeV is a particle which behaves like Quantum Field Theory theorises.

I'm not really going to try and back this assertion up, because no one would pay any attention, but I will use this quote to show how groundless the theory behind the Higgs boson is in my eyes:

"For a start, theory suggests the particle's own mass (which it gets by interacting with itself) should be huge"

That's right, current theory says the Higgs boson gets its own mass from itself. Circular reasoning?
edit on 7-7-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)


Well actually the Higgs field sets the energy scale at which particles acquire their masses. The Higgs boson, being a quanta of this field, naturally also has a mass (energy) scale.
edit on 7-7-2012 by wirehead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Hence the name god particle, it's neutral of positive and negative, and gives particles their mass/reality depending on needs/codes in the particles. Is that about right?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by wirehead
 


Hence the name god particle, it's neutral of positive and negative, and gives particles their mass/reality depending on needs/codes in the particles. Is that about right?


Just about. The Higgs boson has no charge, and also particles don't need mass to be real. But the particles that do couple to the Higgs field get their mass this way, now that the symmetry has been broken. Some particles do not couple to the Higgs field, and they are massless.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

"For a start, theory suggests the particle's own mass (which it gets by interacting with itself) should be huge"

That's right, current theory says the Higgs boson gets its own mass from itself. Circular reasoning?
edit on 7-7-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)


No. Entirely self-consistent reasoning.

Mass is due to the interaction between the particle and the Higgs field that fills all space.
The Higgs field couples to itself.
Therefore, the Higgs field gives mass to itself.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


So would this Higgs field be a perpetual motion torus that charges the particles within to create matter?

edit on 7-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by wirehead
 


So would this Higgs field be a perpetual motion torus that charges the particles within to create matter?

edit on 7-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure what that means, but quantum field theories don't contain anything resembling a "perpetual motion torus".



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


I'm guessing here to see if I just know. The Higgs particle creates the field. Via this field the Higgs gives the particles within the field the motion to create matter. I saw one of the first pictures they published of this and it showed particles blasting out from a central possition into a doughnut shape. These particles would have been guided by this field, or they would have just kept going outwards. The boson created in the centre reacted with the particles via the field it trapped them in and pulled them back to the centre.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by wirehead
 

Hate to tell you this but contrary to popular belief...a supposedly Massless Quantum Particle Wave-Form which is what a Photon is...has been discovered to have a Super-Micro Mass. Now this would seem to go against conventional wisdom since if it had a Mass...how could it obtain 186,300 Miles per Second and not also have that Mass become Infinite?


Oh yeah? Where has this been discovered?


Experimental checks on photon mass
The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[21] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.
A massive photon would have other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would cause the presence of an electric field inside a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[22] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10−14 eV/c2.[23]
Sharper upper limits have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the galactic vector potential. Although the galactic vector potential is very large because the galactic magnetic field exists on very long length scales, only the magnetic field is observable if the photon is massless. In case of a massive photon, the mass term would affect the galactic plasma. The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV/c2.[24] The galactic vector potential can also be probed directly by measuring the torque exerted on a magnetized ring.[25] Such methods were used to obtain the sharper upper limit of 10−18eV/c2 (the equivalent of 1.07×10−27 atomic mass units) given by the Particle Data Group.[26]
These sharp limits from the non-observation of the effects caused by the galactic vector potential have been shown to be model dependent.[27] If the photon mass is generated via the Higgs mechanism then the upper limit of m≲10−14 eV/c2 from the test of Coulomb's law is valid.

These observations as well as equations have been used in the Military Applications of Lasers as a Laser Beam is primarily Photons which a powerful version such as the Free Electron Laser has used these concepts for such a Laser to use an external electrical fields torque in conjunction with such a Lasers Photon emissions to obtain a Mass -Like Effect. If this was not the case...the FEL would be like any other Laser which is effected and reflected by atmospheric conditions. The Free Electron Laser is NOT.

So the question of whether a Photon has a Micro-Mass is bound by CONDITION. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by wirehead
 

Hate to tell you this but contrary to popular belief...a supposedly Massless Quantum Particle Wave-Form which is what a Photon is...has been discovered to have a Super-Micro Mass.


Can you source that?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by wirehead
 


I'm guessing here to see if I just know. The Higgs particle creates the field. Via this field the Higgs gives the particles within the field the motion to create matter. I saw one of the first pictures they published of this and it showed particles blasting out from a central possition into a doughnut shape. These particles would have been guided by this field, or they would have just kept going outwards. The boson created in the centre reacted with the particles via the field it trapped them in and pulled them back to the centre.


What you saw was a recreation of a proton-proton collision in the LHC and the resulting particles created in the explosion. It may or may not have been one of the events that likely generated a Higgs boson- the popular science media generally isn't good at stuff like that.

Regardless, the Higgs was discovered only after looking at the statistics of millions of such collisions, so there wasn't one event where they looked and said "hey! That's a Higgs boson!"

The reason some curve instead of exploding straight outwards is that a magnetic field is applied at the site of the collision; particles with positive charge will curve one way whereas negatively charged particles will curve the opposite way. Neutral particles will fly straight. This helps us disentangle exactly what particles were produced in a collision.

Technically, the Higgs field is interacting with every massive particle, all the time. If it didn't, nothing would have mass. But it doesn't make anything curve about.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


Source? It looks like you copy-pasted from some paper? I can't evaluate anything in that statement without knowing the source.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


Photons do not have mass. There are theorized Dark Particles, and a Dark Photon would theoretically have Mass. There are experiments being done at CERN which to date have yielded null results date. If they do find Dark Photons normal photons would still not ever have mass.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join