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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by yampa
I've already said I don't believe whatever has been found will eventually turn out to be the Higgs boson, because I don't agree with the theory behind it.


You don't understand the theory behind it! Or perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong by discussing spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism? Maybe throw in a little discussion about how this effect shows up in superconductivity? And then mathematically detail its inclusion into the Standard Model and point out exactly where it goes wrong?

Or, you know, keep talking about cheesecake, whatever.


I don't understand it, you are right. I have no understanding of why people would get so excited about a mathematical framework which provokes comments like this from a mathematical savant:


'And that in turn is determined by a parameter that one inserts into the model. So to get the observed masses of the particles, one’s just inserting one parameter for each particle, and then arranging it to give the mass of the particle.
That might seem contrived. But at some level it’s OK. It would have been nice if the theory had predicted the masses of the particles. But given that it does not, inserting their values as interaction strengths seems as reasonable as anything.


But I don't think you will understand what *I* am getting at, so let's call it quits.




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
You didn't address my point, either. I said the idea that the Higgs boson could give mass to itself is circular. Then you said because the Higgs boson belongs to Higgs field theory, then it has an energy scale. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'scale' but afaik a scale is something that humans make up to measure or chart something. How can a scale give physical properties to anything?


It's kind of like, why does an electron have a mass of 0.511 MeV instead of 10,000 MeV? That's the "scale."



How does the Higgs boson give mass to itself by interacting with itself? Do you not see that is circular? Moreover, how does a massive particle give properties to a less massive particle? Since when did elemental physics work on a reverse hierarchy?


The Higgs boson doesn't "interact with itself" in the sense you're talking about. It's the quanta of the Higgs field so naturally it will have an associated mass/energy (in this case 125 GeV).



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Moduli
 


Is that knowledge of the theory "spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism" necessary for my existance here on earth. I consider a farmers knowledge worth a lot more myself.


You're probably right. But knowledge of the math is prerequisite to understanding these theories to the extent necessary to level solid criticism.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by wirehead
 


We aren't allowed to state where we would like our tax money spent? I would rather see it spent on something that helps us to find a way to make energy without hurting the environment and at the same time not creating a toxic mess for our grandchildren like we presently do with nuclear waste. The big laser they were developing in California sounds more necessary. It could shoot an asteroid out of space. It could create more power than it took to run if utilized to generate power..



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by yampa
You didn't address my point, either. I said the idea that the Higgs boson could give mass to itself is circular. Then you said because the Higgs boson belongs to Higgs field theory, then it has an energy scale. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'scale' but afaik a scale is something that humans make up to measure or chart something. How can a scale give physical properties to anything?


It's kind of like, why does an electron have a mass of 0.511 MeV instead of 10,000 MeV? That's the "scale."



How does the Higgs boson give mass to itself by interacting with itself? Do you not see that is circular? Moreover, how does a massive particle give properties to a less massive particle? Since when did elemental physics work on a reverse hierarchy?


The Higgs boson doesn't "interact with itself" in the sense you're talking about. It's the quanta of the Higgs field so naturally it will have an associated mass/energy (in this case 125 GeV).


You are so bluffing.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wirehead

Originally posted by yampa
You didn't address my point, either. I said the idea that the Higgs boson could give mass to itself is circular. Then you said because the Higgs boson belongs to Higgs field theory, then it has an energy scale. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'scale' but afaik a scale is something that humans make up to measure or chart something. How can a scale give physical properties to anything?


It's kind of like, why does an electron have a mass of 0.511 MeV instead of 10,000 MeV? That's the "scale."


Actually why does an electron have a mass of 0.511 MeV, and even ignoring hadrons for now, why the mass ratio of muons to electrons, and their neutrinos?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


"why the mass ratio of muons to electrons, and their neutrinos?"

because their Dence



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by chr0naut
 

You can tack all the numbers you want onto something and substantiate it with millions of facts but it doesn't make a difference if what you are trying to prove is not pertinent to the subject. If you take things apart and try to prove each part individually sometimes it adds up to a conclusion far from the truth. I'm not going to say they are right or wrong, my statement is whether their research has any bearing or reliability when compared against the big picture they are trying to decipher.

CERN could have everything wrong. A mechanics can replace many parts of a car and not solve the problem because they were looking in the wrong direction. This same thing can apply to those high in science, they are not immune to deception created by their own knowledge and teachings. I cannot say that the OP's concern is wrong because I have not investigated the direction of the research of CERN. Even if I did and found problems nobody would listen to me because of my lack of credentials.


I totally agree, but a search for knowledge has to give us a better and truer result than plugging our ears, shutting our eyes and saying "La, la, la, la... ".

The Scientific Method, is that we firstly form a theory of what may be; and then we test that theory by experimentation.

The standard model is a theory and the measurements we get from the colliders give us experimental assurance that the theory appears to be correct. The issue with the standard model is that there is so much we don't know and every discovery leads us a little further towards confidence and knowledge.

The discovery of what may be the Higgs is a large step forward in this understanding.


edit on 8/7/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Two particles are not smashed together to form the higgs boson, but rather two particles are forced to collide causing them to break up so we can observe the particles it's made of, and thus we spotted the higgs boson.

Think of it this way, take a radio and smash it on the ground, now look at all the pieces, from the outside casing of the radio you can not see nor tell, what it's made of, but you can guess. Now if the radio is glued together and you can not open it but to break it open, you would smash it to see what's inside right? Thus the Large Hadron, Collider. Collide being the key word, not fuse, not join, collide.

If you don't understand the science, don't make preposterous claims.

The boson is responsible for the existence of EVERYTHING! With out it, that particle you want to shoot around the Collider would not exist in the first place.
edit on 7/8/2012 by Ilyich because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Ilyich
 


Your trying to make it sound less destructive. I'm not buying it. they smash them two smithereens.
If I throw my radio on the floor to see what it's made of, yes I'll see, but it won't look like a radio any more and it won't work. And all along in my other hand I had a screwdriver.
edit on 9-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Actually why does an electron have a mass of 0.511 MeV, and even ignoring hadrons for now, why the mass ratio of muons to electrons, and their neutrinos?



That is a very good question. Hopefully with more study of the Higgs field we can actually have an answer to that!



Originally posted by yampa

You are so bluffing.



Lol, okay. Wouldn't it be nice if you knew enough of the physics to actually call me out...?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Please enlighten us as to what your alternative approach would be then, considering you are so enlightened on the topic (even though you admitted to knowing nothing about the topic in your other thread).



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Please enlighten us as to what your alternative approach would be then, considering you are so enlightened on the topic (even though you admitted to knowing nothing about the topic in your other thread).




Remember the one, orbit, helix, triple helix ect devouring itselfe like the ancient symbol of the snake consuming it's own tail.
flic.kr...
Like the hungry caterpillar it consumes and consumes, getting fatter and fatter. The boson is created as the hole in the centre of the ring is closed, thus the outer most orbit has to resist against itself in the centre,causing the Higgs field. Then it interacts with its self. Because the magnetism, it's can never hit its self, but at that moment when it should, something wonderful happens.

It was this thread I wrote I knew nothing of the subject buy the way



edit on 9-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Aaaaand that's why it's best to leave these sorts of matters to the scientists at CERN who know what they're doing.
edit on 9-7-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


Didn't expect you to see it, coz I'm coming at it from a different angle. Avoiding destruction, plus I only use one. No numbers are needed. If its magnetised, shoots round at the speed of light and it doesn't hit it's self,flic.kr... the ring getting fatter and fatter until the hole in the centre closes. What happens at that point when it has nowhere else to go? It has to interact with its self. At this point it gains mass.
edit on 9-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Creation starts with Conciousness, pure absolute and formless awarness. This Conciousness manifests Mind composed of Awareness, Thought, and Indentification with Form. An individual mind projects a deusion of it's own form-self being the doer, unaware that it's driving energy is sourced from conciousness itself. This projection creates a fractal patten of a time-space by repeatedly mirroring the conciousness giving it a tempory form that exists in a period of time. The form of physical manifestation is projected into the space that is created in the null points of the formelss energy of pure awareness.

The Higgs Boson is indeed the expression of the transitional interchange field created when the formless takes form or vice versa.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by eywadevotee
 


That's exactly what I'm trying to explain. The awearness of oneself is the one in my experiment. Though to see how this works, it needs to be done with physicle particles. One tiny particle could make a huge solid sphere if magnetised and shot in a circle. Speed or orientation of the self orbit would adjust the mass, density.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


I don't see it because you have absolutely no idea what you ate talking about, something you yourself even admitted.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


I don't see it because you have absolutely no idea what you ate talking about, something you yourself even admitted.


Have you even tried, you claim to know that I'm wrong, prove it. I don't need a particle accelerator to see it, neither do you. What happens in my experiment, visually in your mind, when the centre of the ring closes and the particle cannot hit itself? I know, do you?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


What you are claiming has no basis in reality. It's pretty ignorant to criticise a topic you admit to have no understanding of.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join