Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[ben m]

Pay attention and maybe you'll get to understand this. See my post 747. Do you you understand what I said, and do you agree with it?

Post 747 states that the second has a definition. The meter also has a definition. This is correct, they do.

So does the mile. So does the hour. The speed of light really is 670 616 629 mph. I can explain that number using cesium atoms and length-standards if you like, but it's irrelevant.

Go ahead and show me how you plug 670,616,629 into an equation that yields the proton/electron mass ratio.

 

[Kid Eager]

I've been following this thread with interest. A lot of the argument is beyond my level of physics knowledge, but has nevertheless been quite educational.

Congratulations to Farsight for such an excellent Poe (nobody could provide such non-answers without considerable time and effort).

It seems that he has trod this sort of path previously, with similar results:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/22029-clock-spaceship.html

 

[Farsight]

As I pointed out before, work (a transfer of energy) is defined as the scalar product of force and displacement (technically, work is the scalar product of force integrated over displacement). A scalar product is a mathematical operation performed on two vectors which yields a scalar result. One would expect that a self-described expert on these topics would know what is a scalar product, wouldn't you? One would further expect that such an expert would also then realize the role that displacement (a vector) plays in work (a scalar), right?

Like I showed above in post 743, it's all simple stuff. And like I said to ben, some people confuse their negatives.

But no, not you, Farsight. In your arrogance, you continue to ignore your basic mistakes on these and other points, yet you expect those of us trained (and those of us who teach the topic) in physics to bow to your self-declared superior knowledge?

Aw you've got nothing, other than a barrelful of hubris and feather-spitting pomposity because I'm doing the teaching here. Now shut up and pay attention in class. And don't think you can wriggle out of my point: Here's the cannonball just sitting there in front of you. Now try reducing its kinetic energy. Do you really think you can evade that with the "basic mistakes!" incantation? It's not going to save your face. Wake up, realise that you aren't just up against me here, you're up against Einstein.

Give me a break. I was willing to give you a fair shake, but now it is patently obvious to me that you have no idea what you're talking about, whether it be the Higgs mechanism or basic high school physics. Worse yet, you are not interested in learning anything - your loss, because there is much to learn here. If I were handing out grades to posters on this thread, you would get an 'F'. Congratulations.

No you weren't willing to give me a fair shake. You've been a naysayer from the off. And you're still saying nothing. Apart from huff puff, how dare you have the temerity to challenge what I say. Well too bad Mattus, it's a discussion forum. For skeptics.

Oh, and see your post 379 on page 10 where you said you were late to the discussion? On a thread you started? And you said what part of Einstein's work supports your claim?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239162&page=10

See my response post 409 on page 11? Good response wasn't it? I showed you Einstein's work. You know, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239162&page=11

See your your response post 501 on page 13?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=239162&page=13

What was it you said again? "You seem to be making a combination argument from ignorance and false dilemma" and "for all of your fawning over Einstein".

Fair shake? Pah. You aren't teaching your kiddies here Mattus. When you say things that aren't true, you're going to get found out.

 

[edd]

Aw you've got nothing, other than a barrelful of hubris and feather-spitting pomposity because I'm doing the teaching here. Now shut up and pay attention in class. And don't think you can wriggle out of my point: Here's the cannonball just sitting there in front of you. Now try reducing its kinetic energy. Do you really think you can evade that with the "basic mistakes!" incantation? It's not going to save your face. Wake up, realise that you aren't just up against me here, you're up against Einstein.

Nobody thinks a stationary cannonball can have its kinetic energy reduced. However, one moving towards you can, by applying a force in one direction over a displacement in the opposite direction. It's commonly called a deceleration. You are making very basic mistakes.

Einstein would not have an issue with this, and we do not have an issue with Einstein. We have an issue with what you think Einstein says, not with what he did say.

 

[Paulhoff]

Dig a hole and put the canonball it in, that will reduce it.

Paul

 

[Farsight]

I've been following this thread with interest. A lot of the argument is beyond my level of physics knowledge, but has nevertheless been quite educational.

Congratulations to Farsight for such an excellent Poe (nobody could provide such non-answers without considerable time and effort).

If you think they're non-answers, maybe you haven't been following quite closely enough. Would you care to explain the Higgs mechanism? Or comment on the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content and why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc²?

It seems that he has trod this sort of path previously, with similar results:

http://www.thescienceforum.com/physics/22029-clock-spaceship.html

It's a tough old job, but there's a lot of woo out there, somebody's got to do it. By the way, I posted an explanation of Lorentz invariance in this thread. See post 767. You posted a one-liner at post 780. Are you just one of those one-liner guys who never says anything of value? You know, a troll. Oh my gollygosh, I've just been looking at your posts, and the answer is yes. Thank you and good night. I'm off to bed.

PS: guys, I've got work to do, and unless you can give me a sincere physics discussion about the Higgs boson we're going to have to call it a day. Anybody care to explain the Higgs mechanism? Or why the mass of a body isn't a measure of its energy content? And why E=mc² doesn't feature in this Sci-Am blog article?

 

[edd]

If you think they're non-answers, maybe you haven't been following quite closely enough. Would you care to explain the Higgs mechanism? Or comment on the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content and why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc²?

From one of our country's finest physicists Farsight (link to slides of one of John Ellis's talks):
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/ac...onId=8&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=78565
Page 7. It's hardly a detailed argument I know, especially when Professor Ellis is not there to give the voiceover, but it does rather suggest you're in severe disagreement with the most competent physicists, and does so unambiguously and in very few words. There is no contradiction.

 

[Perpetual Student]

PS: guys, I've got work to do, and unless you can give me a sincere physics discussion about the Higgs boson we're going to have to call it a day. Anybody care to explain the Higgs mechanism? Or why the mass of a body isn't a measure of its energy content? And why E=mc² doesn't feature in this Sci-Am blog article?

Aw shucks, I'm still waiting for the "surgical evidence" and I'm running out of popcorn.

 

[Roboramma]

Aw shucks, I'm still waiting for the "surgical evidence" and I'm running out of popcorn.

Me too: all I saw was words that seemed to be trying to explain why his equation really only needs to work with one set of units and not others (if that's not what you're saying Farsight, I really don't know what you are saying)

If your equation is valid, Farsight, it shouldn't matter what units you use, it should give the same result

I'm really blown away that you somehow don't agree with that

(By the way, thanks for responding to my posts, I think the responses of others to your response addressed the issues I saw in them and don't want to be one more guy piling on, but if you want a response I'm happy to give my take )

ETA I suppose you also might be saying that by applying your "conversion factor" no matter what units you use, you'll get the same result But if that's the case it should be very easy for you to simply demonstrate with some other system of units: do the conversion and apply it to your equation, and we'll all see if it works

If you can't do that, why all the words explaining that you can?

 

[Kid Eager]

If you think they're non-answers, maybe you haven't been following quite closely enough. Would you care to explain the Higgs mechanism? Or comment on the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content and why the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc²?

It's a tough old job, but there's a lot of woo out there, somebody's got to do it. By the way, I posted an explanation of Lorentz invariance in this thread. See post 767. You posted a one-liner at post 780. Are you just one of those one-liner guys who never says anything of value? You know, a troll. Oh my gollygosh, I've just been looking at your posts, and the answer is yes. Thank you and good night. I'm off to bed.

PS: guys, I've got work to do, and unless you can give me a sincere physics discussion about the Higgs boson we're going to have to call it a day. Anybody care to explain the Higgs mechanism? Or why the mass of a body isn't a measure of its energy content? And why E=mc² doesn't feature in this Sci-Am blog article?

Thanks for the Gish Gallop.

Meanwhile, here's an interesting article on the Higgs Boson, that postulates what might happen if the Higgs Field were zero:

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-apparently-elementary-particles/the-known-particles-if-the-higgs-field-were-zero/

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It's a tough old job, but there's a lot of woo out there, somebody's got to do it. By the way, I posted an explanation of Lorentz invariance in this thread. See post 767.

My post #768 in that thread pointed out that your explanation of Lorentz invariance was wrong at the level of junior-high-school algebra.

My post #769 in that thread is just one of many posts that have explained why your crackpottery is as absurd as anything to be found on the Internet.

 

[Farsight]

It was a couple of little typos Clinger. I fixed them in post 797 on that thread. My explanation of Lorentz invariance was correct.

From another thread, Farsight also seems to think that the potential energy associated with gravitational fields is positive. I see that he is also extending this misunderstanding to the concept of binding energy as well. The hits just keep on coming.

It is. Do you want me to explain it?

What, no responses to post 747? We use the motion of light to define the second and the metre. The kilogram will use the second and the metre instead of a lump of metal in future. Come on guys!

 

[edd]

747 doesn't need responses because it misses the point. Your original formula was highly dependent on the ratio of the metre to the light second basically.
Nature obviously doesn't care about the length we give the metre, so your formula cannot be right.

 

[Farsight]

Post 747 states that the second has a definition. The meter also has a definition. This is correct, they do.

And they're defined using the motion of light. Which you then use to measure the motion of light. So you always get the same answer. If I snap my gedanken fingers and halve the speed of light, your second is twice as big, the slower light and the bigger seconds cancel out so your metre is unchanged, and you still measure the speed of light at 299,792,458 m/s. Do you understand this?

So does the mile. So does the hour. The speed of light really is 670 616 629 mph. I can explain that number using cesium atoms and length-standards if you like, but it's irrelevant.

No, it isn't irrelevant. It's crucial. Don't dismiss what you don't understand.

Go ahead and show me how you plug 670,616,629 into an equation that yields the proton/electron mass ratio.

Pay attention and I'll explain it. Read post 747 and confirm that you're happy with it. A whole cascade of units hangs on the motion of light. Try plugging miles an hour into E=mc². You know there isn't some fivefold increase in energy. You know it doesn't work until you change the units for energy and mass too.

 

[Farsight]

747 doesn't need responses because it misses the point. Your original formula was highly dependent on the ratio of the metre to the light second basically. Nature obviously doesn't care about the length we give the metre, so your formula cannot be right.

Sigh, the usual dismissal. Whatever I say, despite the evidence and the explanation and the Einstein, you're going to dismiss it.

Time for tea. Let's try to have a physics discussion here guys. A sincere one.

 

[edd]

This is painful. Farsight - the second is (ok, was originally) a certain fraction of the Earth's rotational period. The metre is a slightly incorrect estimate of a certain fraction of the beeline distance from the North Pole to the Equator via Paris, if I'm not mistaken.

You think those are special and related?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Farsight, having dug himself into a very large hole, continues to dig:

It was a couple of little typos Clinger. I fixed them in post 797 on that thread. My explanation of Lorentz invariance was correct.

You fixed the trivial typo, and you confirmed my guess about the second typo as well, but your corrected post is still wrong at the level of high-school algebra.

Your explanation of Lorentz invariance is still not correct. In particular, the calculation you think you're using to demonstrate that invariance still yields a real number in one case and a non-real complex number for the other. That's not very invariant.

You still have time to edit your post. I promise not to mock your "corrected" post until it is no longer possible for you to edit it.

Your most recent post #774 in this thread (just above this one) is refuted by my post #769 in that other thread, as well as by a dozen or more posts in this thread. As you continue to miss the point, we will continue to remark that your formula for the proton/electron mass ratio was and remains crackpottery of the highest order.

 

[sol invictus]

Try plugging miles an hour into E=mc². You know there isn't some fivefold increase in energy.

Obviously not. If you use units of miles/hour for c, and (say) slugs for m, you'll get a correct result for E in units of slug (miles/hour)^2. Nothing changes in the formula, and the result is always correct regardless of the unit system used. The reason is, the units of energy are mass times length^2/time^2. So the units on the left side of the equation equal the units on the right side, as is the case in all well-formed equations.

Try the same thing in your formula. You'll get a different result for the proton/electron mass ratio - because the proton/electron mass ratio does not have dimensions, while c does. But obviously the proton/electron mass ratio does not depend on units. Therefore, your formula is patent nonsense.

 

[ben m]

It sounds like Farsight is really new to this "unit conversion" concept. Farsight, this is something that every Freshman physics student---not just physics majors---is made to grapple with. You are exhibiting the typical mistakes/confusion of, say, an 18-year-old bio major who has never seen any of this before.

 

[edd]

This is despite him bringing up dimensionality on his own several times in the past...

You know, I don't think I've ever actually had a sneering expression on my face in all this despite what Farsight might think. My expression is usually somewhere between that of my user icon and that of a startled rabbit.