Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Perpetual Student]

Over the last few weeks, I have spent some time with particle physics and QFT, so the discussion here has been of interest and the knowledgeable people here have provided some interesting and helpful perspectives. The Higgs mechanism is quite a discovery when one considers the abstract nature of the QFT mathematics that predicts its existence. Its a real challenge for a layman to grasp it all. Thanks to all for helping. Even Farside's home-spun pseudo-physics has resulted in some good responses that have been helpful.

 

[sol invictus]

Well, that's the main reason to respond to posters like Farsight. It's very rare that physics crackpots get convinced or learn anything - take Michael Mozina, for example - because they aren't posting here with any intention of learning, and if they were they would have understood the problems with their ideas long before. Instead, they're posting out of some combination of arrogant pride, Dunning-Kruger, and trollish "I'm going to see what kind of response I can get". But the responses they generate are sometimes educational, entertaining, or useful in organizing the thoughts of those that formulate them.

 

[Cuddles]

Indeed. I certainly didn't post because I expected Farsight to learn anything. But it can be an interesting subject even if you don't understand all the details of the physics. This is something that's been studied for over 50 years, with roots going back much further than that. Just looking at the history of how things were discovered and who did what first can be quite interesting., even before you throw in a bit of learning about what it all actually means and why it could be important. I've never understood why so many people seem to be desperate to live in their own fantasy world. Reality is so much more fascinating. It might be fun to pretend that you're a big fish, but what's so bad about being a small fish when there's such a big world out there to explore?

 

[Farsight]

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.

No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere. It's the conversion factor between distance and time, and frequency is the reciprocal of time. Try reading this. Space is like the guitar string. When its length is x it vibrates with a first harmonic frequency of 1/x, not x. That's why the n is there in λ = 4π / n c^1½. The 4π is there because you're sweeping a sphere. The c^1½ is there because youre doing it like a moebius strip. You're going round the equator at c and over the pole at ½c. And there's only one size sphere where you can get the spherical harmonic. The c^½ and the 3π is something on top of that, and it's a bit more complicated. But hey, since you don't understand the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content[/url], you aren't going to understand quantum harmonics. Next!

 

[Mister Earl]

words

I think it'd be just peachy if you'd respond to the issue of your not using units half the time.

 

[ben m]

No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere.

Edd made this provision correctly. The problem lies in your equation, not edd's understanding of units.

Let's see *you* do it. Calculate the proton/electron mass ratio using a mile:hour unit system. The speed of light is 670,616,629 miles per hour.

 

[edd]

No I didn't. You can't just set c to 1 without making provision elsewhere.

Oh dear. This looks frustratingly close to what we are trying to tell you. Just assume my distances are in light seconds and my times are in seconds. Is your formula still valid? If so why does it give a completely different answer? If not why does it care about some dead dudes in Paris slightly misestimating the size of the Earth?

Almost everything else you just said is gibberish.

 

[Farsight]

Oh, I missed this one. If I've missed any others do flag them up.

Why do you think this is useful? You either have a system of earth/cannonball with total momentum of 0, or you have a system of earth/cannonball/rocket exhaust of total momentum 0 It's still the case that in order to change the momentum of the cannonball something else's momentum has to change: that's what it means for momentum to be conserved.

It's because for every action there is a reaction. A force is only there if there's an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. But total momentum of zero just doesn't distinguish between two cannonballs sitting there going nowhere and two cannonballs flying apart at 2000m/s. Why can't people see that momentum is the time-based measure of energy-momentum interaction whilst kinetic energy is the distance-based measure of action? A cannonball coming at you at 1000m/s takes some stopping. You exert a force for a time and while you do the cannonball pushes you back a distance. You exert a force on it, and it exerts a force on you. But there's no such thing as negative distance, so kinetic energy isn't negative. There's no such thing as a negative time either, but people blather on about negative momentum, and fail to recognise that the sign is abusive term for direction.

Here's a simple example of momentum and kinetic energy being different things: a bomb at t=0 the bomb is sitting somewhere out in space with nothing else around, at rest in our reference frame both it's kinetic energy and its momentum =0

So far so good.

At t=1 it explodes, and pieces going flying off in various different directions The total momentum is still zero, but the total kinetic energy is certainly not zero

You try catching a piece. Exert a force for a time. Is that a zero time? No. It's a non-zero time, so the momentum of that piece isn't zero. Now I catch a piece on the other side of the bomb. And whaddya know, I didn't exert a force for zero time either. So the momentum of that piece isn't zero. But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too. You exerted a force, and I exerted a negative force? Did I suck or did I blow? Or was that the other way round? And if I can exert a negative force for a distance, is the result negative kinetic energy? Hey look at that cannonball! It's got negative kinetic energy! Don't think so.

How is it possible that those two values are different?

It's like what I said. For every action there is a reaction. A force is an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. So the total always adds up to zero. But I still exerted a force on you and pushed you along for a hundred metres. And force x distance = energy, and distance is a scalar, and KE= ½mv² because there's an integral in it. That's a different value. You get two different values when you look at the same thing in two different ways. How long is it? How wide is it? Momentum is just one aspect of energy-momentum, and kinetic energy is another. And mass is another. Divide energy by c for momentum. Divide again by c for mass. But it's all just energy-momentum, like a cube coming at you, and you can see three faces.

Sheesh, look at the time. Bedtime.

 

[Mister Earl]

I see one you've missed. You haven't responded to the criticism of your missing units in equations.

 

[Farsight]

Oh dear. This looks frustratingly close to what we are trying to tell you. Just assume my distances are in light seconds and my times are in seconds. Is your formula still valid? If so why does it give a completely different answer? If not why does it care about some dead dudes in Paris slightly misestimating the size of the Earth? Almost everything else you just said is gibberish.

Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.

 

[edd]

But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too.
...
force x distance = energy, and distance is a scalar,

Being in your time zone I do agree it is bedtime. But first you do not see a teensy inconsistency above given energy is scalar?

Maybe a vector displacement rather than scalar distance combined with a vector dot product might make a touch more sense.

That bit at least is straightforwardly corrected anyway.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.

Strong words! Is this merely empty bluster or will there be a substantive and mathematically based demonstration to follow?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Oh, I missed this one. If I've missed any others do flag them up.

Oh my... there are so many errors in this one post it reads like a failing exam in my high school physics class.

It's because for every action there is a reaction. A force is only there if there's an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that.

No, it isn't. Vector momentum is not the same thing as Newton's Third Law of action/reaction. If you are referring to the impulse-momentum theorem (which is derived from Newton's Second Law), then you are doing it in a piss-poor manner.

But total momentum of zero just doesn't distinguish between two cannonballs sitting there going nowhere and two cannonballs flying apart at 2000m/s. Why can't people see that momentum is the time-based measure of energy-momentum interaction whilst kinetic energy is the distance-based measure of action?

What? Do you just pull these things out of your nether region? According to the impulse-momentum theorem, a change in momentum is identical to force integrated over a time interval, and work (a transfer of energy) is identical to force integrated over a displacement.

A cannonball coming at you at 1000m/s takes some stopping. You exert a force for a time and while you do the cannonball pushes you back a distance. You exert a force on it, and it exerts a force on you. But there's no such thing as negative distance, so kinetic energy isn't negative. There's no such thing as a negative time either, but people blather on about negative momentum, and fail to recognise that the sign is abusive term for direction.

Wow. Talk about misunderstanding the basics...

Farsight, when discussing impulse (what you call force x time) you need to remember that an impulse is equal to a change in momentum; so if the object loses momentum, the impulse is negative (because the force acting on the object is in the opposite direction of the motion). It has nothing to do with the concept of "negative time"!

You make a similar mistake with work and kinetic energy. According to the work-energy theorem, assuming no transfer of potential energy, the work done on an object is equal to the change in kinetic energy of the object. Therefore, if an object slows down (loses KE), then there is negative work done on it (i.e. energy is transferred away from the object); this is due to the fact that the work is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement, and if the force acting is in the opposite direction of the displacement then the work comes out negative. And, for the record, because displacement is a vector, it can be a negative quantity depending upon how it is oriented.

So far so good.

No, you are just digging the hole even deeper. You are doing nothing more than displaying your ignorance of not only cutting edge physics but high school physics as well.

You try catching a piece. Exert a force for a time. Is that a zero time? No. It's a non-zero time, so the momentum of that piece isn't zero. Now I catch a piece on the other side of the bomb. And whaddya know, I didn't exert a force for zero time either. So the momentum of that piece isn't zero. But wait a minute, that's OK, force is a vector quantity too. You exerted a force, and I exerted a negative force? Did I suck or did I blow? Or was that the other way round? And if I can exert a negative force for a distance, is the result negative kinetic energy? Hey look at that cannonball! It's got negative kinetic energy! Don't think so.

Again, the work done is equal to the change in kinetic energy in this case, not the kinetic energy. Therefore because the change in kinetic energy can be negative (i.e. the object loses KE), then the work can be negative.

It's like what I said. For every action there is a reaction. A force is an interaction. I can't exert a force on you without you exerting a force on me. Vector momentum is just another way of saying that. So the total always adds up to zero. But I still exerted a force on you and pushed you along for a hundred metres. And force x distance = energy, and distance is a scalar, and KE= ½mv² because there's an integral in it. That's a different value. You get two different values when you look at the same thing in two different ways. How long is it? How wide is it? Momentum is just one aspect of energy-momentum, and kinetic energy is another. And mass is another. Divide energy by c for momentum. Divide again by c for mass. But it's all just energy-momentum, like a cube coming at you, and you can see three faces.

Saying the same wrong things over and over again doesn't make you any more correct, Farsight.

Sheesh, look at the time. Bedtime.

Please, follow these steps:

1. Go to the library.

2. Get a book on basic physics.

3. Read the book, and work the problems.

4. Realize your errors.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Strong words! Is this merely empty bluster or will there be a substantive and mathematically based demonstration to follow?

Don't hold your breath. I'm still waiting for Farsight to mathematically prove in another thread his assertion that the potential energy associated with a gravitational field is positive.

*crickets chirp*

 

[ben m]

And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.

I have yet to see anyone "see" these things you think "everyone will see".

You keep bragging about this record-breaking score you're racking up on an imaginary scoreboard, and the huge imaginary crowds you think are cheering for you, in this match you're refereeing yourself.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Oh dear edd. I give physics, you just sneer. You know, there was a time when I thought you had some sincerity. Not any more. Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it? In order to bring this home, I will look out for what you say, and I will carefully offer a counterargument that isn't gibberish. In addition I will provide surgical evidence and logic and references. And when you then exclaim "gibberish!", everybody will see that my surgical evidence took your gibberish apart.

The problem is that what you write simply is mostly gibberish. You need to seek professional help.

 

[Tubbythin]

You need to seek professional help.

From a good physics teacher!

 

[edd]

Not when your response is gibberish! That's no counteragument, now is it?

I think it's a reasonably accurate description of what you wrote, and in some cases I think it's a sufficient counter. If I visit http://snarxiv.org/ and take an abstract from it:

Clebsch-Gordon Decomposition in Chiral CFTs
D. Schwinger
Comments: 7 pages, reference added
Subjects: High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc); Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO)
The cosmological constant problem offers the possibility of studying the extension of type IIA supported on a squashed symmetric space. Motivated by this, we check evidence for hypersurface defects at the GUT scale. We take an anomaly mediated approach. Therefore, the compactification of Clebsch-Gordon decomposition in M-Theory living on T^6 produces an intricate framework for constructing black branes at the Tevatron. We solve the mu/B_mu problem. Models of flavor are also analyzed. After constructing bubble nucleation at the center of the galaxy, we calculate that QCD deformed by local F-terms (involving orientifold planes at SNO) can be found from a massive black hole at $\Lambda_{QCD}$. Our results are similar to work done by Poincare.

then I don't believe I need to discuss the niceties of Clebsch-Gordon decomposition and M-theory and produce a detailed counterargument in order to declare it incomprehensible and incorrect.

edit to add: I accept however that my arxiv vs snarxiv score is sometimes less than perfect.

 

[Tubbythin]

edit to add: I accept however that my arxiv vs snarxiv score is sometimes less than perfect.

I am about equivalent to a monkey . On the plus side I did discover that somebody has really written a paper entitled "Neutrino Counter Nuclear Weapon".

 

[MattusMaximus]

From a good physics teacher!

Hey, I've already tried. Farsight has shown that he is impervious to learning physics.