Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Tubbythin]

As above. They haven't. E=mc² isn't on the T-shirts for nothing.

That doesn't explain the origin of mass in any way, shape or form. You clearly do not understand what the equation tells us.

 

[Farsight]

Farsight: Why has your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" been ignored by scientists for 107 yrs?

Doubtless you will dismiss my answer above and continue to pretend that I haven't answered your question.

I will address a bit of ignorance: h is not an action (this has a precise menaing in physics). h is Plank's constant.

Go look it up. Take your pick of various sources, such as wikipedia. "The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics".

The Higgs mechanism does not have anything to do with angular momentum (quantized or not).

No, but this thread is starting to feel like wading through cosmic treacle. You're now dismissing the obvious simple stuff because you're so desperate to cling to something you can't explain and don't understand.

So what is so important about the trivial facts that

• h has the dimensions as angular momentum.
• In relativity, angular momentum is quantized.

And you are lying - everyone here can explain the Higgs mechanism: Higgs mechanism.

I'm not lying. Prove me wrong by explaining the Higgs mechanism.

No one here is likely to try to dumb it down enough so that you would understand it because you have shown no signs of understanding either Higgs mechanism or Susskind's lectrure.

Emperor's New Clothes. You can't explain it. Susskind didn't do too good a job either. His heart wasn't in it. Hence the "zilch". LOL.

ou would probably just continue to deny basic facts about it like it is a relativistic QFT. And then there is your history of not being able to understand SR in other threads.

That's enough RC. I'm the one doing the explaining here, you're continuing to deny basic facts about it. And now you're even denying the simple stuff that's on record and beyond doubt. Plus you're making ad-hominem accusatations to try to bolster your position. That's insulting. You know the rules. You're out.

 

[Farsight]

I'm going to make an exception to my own rule to respond to an accusation:

Nope. It was you Farsight, and you alone, that chose to present an equation which on one side had no units and on the other side had units of (ms^-1)^1/2. These two quantities can never ever ever ever ever ever ever be considered equal. This betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics - I don't mean the basics of quantum mechanics or the basics of relativistic quantum field theory, I mean the fundamentals of high-school level physics - that it beggars belief.

Not when you understand that you use the motion of light to define the metre and the second, and that harmonics and mass ratios are dimensionless. It's a variant on natural units where you can find things like this:

"The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc² can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The rest-energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the rest-mass of a particle, measured in Planck units of mass."

Had I said E=m, Tubby would say it betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics and beggars belief. Without understanding what I'm talking about, because he just doesn't want to.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm beginning to thing that this thread has run its course.

 

[Dancing David]

As above. They haven't. E=mc² isn't on the T-shirts for nothing.

argumentum populari vestimenta

Tommy Hilfiger wins!

 

[edd]

I'm going to make an exception to my own rule to respond to an accusation:

Not when you understand that you use the motion of light to define the metre and the second, and that harmonics and mass ratios are dimensionless. It's a variant on natural units where you can find things like this:

"The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc² can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The rest-energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the rest-mass of a particle, measured in Planck units of mass."

Had I said E=m, Tubby would say it betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics and beggars belief. Without understanding what I'm talking about, because he just doesn't want to.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm beginning to thing that this thread has run its course.

It's reasonable to drop factors of c especially in particle physics of course, and quote masses in GeV or whatever.

You however wrote

No. His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc². As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^½ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^½ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245

Let's use natural units then...
c^½ = 1
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 1 / 9.424778
r = 0.106
Actual = 1836.15267245

Do you see the problem now? You wrote a completely nonsensical formula down.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

No. E is greater and so is m. What's the problem?

There is no problem, obviously. So why do you think there is a problem with the Higgs field affecting the rest mass of an electron? After all, E is greater than, and so is m. So what's the problem?

If a cannonball's rest mass can depend on the interaction between the cannonball and the gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass depend on the interaction between the electron and the Higgs field?

Because the cannonball's rest mass depends on its energy content.

So does the rest mass of the electron.

The gravitational field merely provides a way to increase it.

Ditto for the electron. The Higgs field just provides a way to make the rest mass of the electron more than it would be if it were not in the Higgs field.

You could take that cannonball way out in space where there's no detectable gravitational field. It isn't interacting with a gravitational field. But when you try to push it, it still resists your attempt to move it. It hasn't gone featherlight and massless.

And outside of the Higgs field the electron would still have inertia too, just as the photon does.

If the cannonball's rest mass can be different in a strong gravitational field than it would be if there was no gravitational field, then why can't an electron's rest mass be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there was no Higgs field?

Because the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. It isn't a measure of its interaction with a field. All a field does is give you a mechanism by which to vary that energy content.

And that is all the Higgs mechanism does too. I asked you why the electron's rest mass cannot be different in a strong Higgs field than it would be if there were no Higgs field, but instead of answering that question you just said that the rest mass is not a measure of the particle's interaction with a field. Nobody ever said it was.

Can you answer the question I actually asked?

Electrons can't travel at the speed of light. And the cannonball's rest mass is greater when its out in free space where there's no detectable gravitational field. You're clutching at straws Stimpson.

No, I am telling what the Standard Model actually claims. You assert that an electron cannot travel at the speed of light, but the Standard Model claims that an electron that is not inside of the Higgs condensate would travel at the speed of light. Now, you may believe that this claim is wrong, but you have asserted that the Higgs theory is not just wrong, but also inconsistent with E=mc^2. And the reason you have cited for why it is inconsistent with E=mc^2 is that the rest mass of a particle cannot depend on a field. But the fact that the rest mass of a particle can and does depend on a field clearly refutes that argument. I have also explained that the rest energy of the electron is, in fact, just potential energy, fundamentally no different from the extra rest mass that a bowling ball gains when you lift it up in a gravitational field.

Note, by the way, that all of this is exactly analogous to what happens to photons moving in and out of a superconductor. In fact, it's exactly the same type of phenomenon. If a particle with zero rest mass enters a Boson Condensate that interacts with the particle, then the particle acquires a rest mass that depends on the strength of that interaction. This has been known for decades, and has been repeatedly experimentally verified.

It's called effective mass, and it backs up what I've been saying. When you slow down a photon to below c you say it has an slight effective mass, the ratio of effective mass to energy-momentum depending on how much you've slowed it down.

It is exactly the same mechanism. Have you even bothered to read any of the links to explanations of the Higgs mechanism people have been posting? According to the Standard Model, the observed rest mass of the electron is obtained in exactly the same way that the photon acquires rest mass in a superconductor. They even refer to the Higgs field as being a type of superconducting field. I don't care whether you call it "effective mass" or not. The bottom line is that according to the standard model an electron in the Higgs field gets its observed rest mass in the same way that a photon in a superconductor does.

When you slow it down to zero by trapping it in a box as a standing wave, 100% of the energy-momentum is effective mass. And it is indeed effective. The box is now harder to move. That's why the mass of a body is a measure of energy-content. But note that the photon is interacting with the box, not with some Higgs field.

And likewise in a superconductor the photon is interacting with Cooper pairs, which are electrically charged particles. And likewise the electron in a Higgs condensate is interacting with the Higgs field. The mechanism is exactly the same as for the photon in the superconductor. The only difference is the types of particles involved.

The electron is similar but it's like a photon in a box of its own making. Ditto for the positron.

No, it is like a photon in a superconductor.

You made them both in two-photon physics, where light interacted with light. Go and look at light bends itself into an arc. Imagine what would happen if it was a tight arc, that went all the way round in a circle. You'd have a standing wave, wouldn't you? And in atomic orbitals, "electrons exist as standing waves". The electron is like the standing wave in a box, minus the box. It still offers to resistance to change-in-motion, only now you call it inertia instead of momentum. Annihilation is like opening one box with another, only afterwards there's no boxes left. Because there weren't any boxes in the first place. Just the standing waves.

Maybe in your model that is how it works. But I don't care about your model. I am telling what the Standard Model says. I am disputing your claim that the Standard Model violates E=mc^2. What your model claims has absolutely zero relevance to that dispute.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm going to make an exception to my own rule to respond to an accusation:

Oh good.

Not when you understand that you use the motion of light to define the metre and the second, and that harmonics and mass ratios are dimensionless. It's a variant on natural units where you can find things like this:

The speed of light is used for convenience to define the metre now, in 2012. In the past they used a standard ruler. Back in the day there was no definition of the metre. You used the speed of light as measured in m/s as some kind of magic constant that some how explain the proton to electron mass ratio. Which begs the question: what was the proton to electron mass ratio before some French bod came up with an arbitrary definition for the metre back in the day?

"The equation c = 1 can be plugged in anywhere else. For example, Einstein's equation E = mc² can be rewritten in Planck units as E = m. This equation means "The rest-energy of a particle, measured in Planck units of energy, equals the rest-mass of a particle, measured in Planck units of mass."

Sure. But you used the speed of light measured in metres per second. I'll repeat this - you used the speed of light measured in metres per second.

Had I said E=m, Tubby would say it betrays such an atrocious understanding of the basics of physics and beggars belief. Without understanding what I'm talking about, because he just doesn't want to.

Entirely incorrect. I have on many many occasions used natural units to simplify calculations.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm beginning to thing that this thread has run its course.

Not at all. There are still many interesting aspects of the Higgs discovery to be discussed. But feel free to disappear and we can get back to discussing those things rather than your misunderstandings of scalars, vectors, the first law of thermodynamics, momentum, pair production etc etc.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, and I know nothing about particle physics.

...

On the other hand, I am no longer stuck on Higgs's first sentence. I can now read the entire paper, noting the details I still don't understand.

Good post, Clinger. I think I will be picking up that book

 

[MattusMaximus]

No. His ideas about the origin of mass gave us E=mc². As far as I know he never worked out the proton/electron mass ratio, which is c^½ / 3π with a small binding-energy adjustment:

c^½ = 17314.5158177
3π = 9.424778
c^½ / 3π = 17314.5158177 / 9.424778
r = 1837.12717877
Actual = 1836.15267245

Units? These numbers mean nothing without units, you know.

Basic stuff, Farsight, basic stuff

 

[edd]

The formula is even more crazy when you realise he could have just gone for good clean numerological woo by announcing the proton to electron mass ratio is 6π⁵... much closer to the true value too!

 

[Tubbythin]

The formula is even more crazy when you realise he could have just gone for good clean numerological woo by announcing the proton to electron mass ratio is 6π⁵... much closer to the true value too!

Excellent. How long did it take you to come up with that?

 

[edd]

I believe it's a frequently rediscovered 'classic', Tubbythin. I can't make any claim to it!

 

[Tubbythin]

I believe it's a frequently rediscovered 'classic', Tubbythin. I can't make any claim to it!

Disappointing.

 

[ben m]

c^1/2 = 8.41529061292597326e+05 inches^1/2 minutes^-1/2
3π = 9.424778
Therefore the proton-electron mass ratio is 89000.

This works great!

 

[MattusMaximus]

The formula is even more crazy when you realise he could have just gone for good clean numerological woo by announcing the proton to electron mass ratio is 6π⁵... much closer to the true value too!

Does anyone even know what the heck he was even trying to show with that "calculation"? I mean, besides his atrocious use (or non-use) of units...

 

[MattusMaximus]

Btw, I think we now see why Farsight is so reluctant to show us the math behind his "theory"

 

[Tubbythin]

Does anyone even know what the heck he was even trying to show with that "calculation"? I mean, besides his atrocious use (or non-use) of units...

I think he may have expected us to have been wowed by stunning discovery and thus be forced to accept his every word thereafter.

 

[Reality Check]

No they haven't. They've known about E=mc² for 107 years. They've know that mass is a measure of system energy content for all that time.

You are just reinforcing my point, Farsight!
No scientist in the past 107 years has stated that E=mc² is an explanation for the origin of mass. That is your own very strange idea.
E=mc² is the mass-energy equivalence equation. Thinking that it explains the origin of mass is ridiculous because you then have to explain the origin of energy and you are stuck in an infinite loop.

You however have only recently learned that the Higgs mechanism is said to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter.

And that would be a lie based on the delusion that you can read my mind

Farsight: Why have scientists ignored your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass" for over 107 years?
Farsight: Where are the textbooks using your "explanation by Einstein for the origin of mass"?
The answer is obviously that this is your fantasy, not science..

There's loads of them.

That is a lie - you have only cited one and it has nothing to do with your fantasy.

On the Origin of Elementary Particle Masses by Johan Hansson.

The oldest enigma in fundamental particle physics is: Where do the observed masses of elementary particles come from? Inspired by observation of the empirical particle mass spectrum we propose that the masses of elementary particles arise solely due to the self-interaction of the fields associated with a particle.

No mention of E=mc² !
My guess - you have the delusion that every paper that tries to explain the origin of mass is about E=mc².

 

[Reality Check]

Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates SR

Doubtless you will dismiss my answer above and continue to pretend that I haven't answered your question.

No doubt you will understand that you are wrong (not!) .
You answered my question: No scientist in the past 107 years has stated that E=mc² is an explanation for the origin of mass. That is your own very strange idea.

wikipedia.

The Planck constant (denoted h, also called Planck's constant) is a physical constant that is the quantum of action in quantum mechanics.

As that article states: h is not an action. h is a number that appears as the quantum of action in quantum mechanics. .

Prove me wrong by explaining the Higgs mechanism.

That is easy: Higgs mechanism. You are thus wrong.
If you think that someone is going to explain the Higgs mechanism in baby talk to you then you are even more wrong. There are plenty of sources explaining the Higgs mechanism. If you cannot understand them then that is your problem, not ours.

There is Susskind's lecture where he does try to make the explanation as simple as possible (QM = things like angular momentum are quantized + uncertainty principle)
But there is little evidence that you understand what he says. You may think that the Mexican hat potential is an actual Mexican hat !

It looks like I will have to make this explicit:
Farsight: It is delusional to think that a relativistic QFT violates special relativity, e.g. contradicts E=mc².
Higgs mechanism states that it is a relativistic QFT.
Peter Higgs states that it is a relativistic QFT:
Farsight: What does Higgs mean by Lorentz-covariant and relativistic ?
The answer is easy: obeys SR, e.g. E=mc² .

This basic fact about the Higgs mechanism was pointed out on 1 November 2012 and you still cannot understand that this means that the Higgs mechanism obeys SR. One day could just be laziness - you could not be bothered to actually read the Higgs mechanism article. One week and it is a bit of denial. 20 days and we are into the territory of delusions. You should have red the article. You should have read the paper. But you are still are ignoring or in denial of the science.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Isn't it E² = (mc²)²+(pc)²?