Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Perpetual Student]

I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.


...

It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.

Exactly!

 

[lenny]

That's a straw-man, Clinger, and you know it. We were talking about a cannonball in space with a given mass and a given motion relative to you. ... But the cannonball does not have two two totally different properties called momentum and kinetic energy. You cannot remove one without removing the other.

Tis seems a bit more like a counter example than a straw man.

He did not say they were "totally different" in fact he noted that they were related by the density of iron.

But to clarify, lets take your claim that you cannot remove one without the removing the other, all we need do is find a case where energy is more than kinetic energy:

Fire the cannon straight up on the moon (to remove air resistance)
When it leaves the mussel mv and 1/2 mv^2 are related.
At the top of its trajectory, it has the same energy, but zero momentum.

Does this not count as changing one without changing the other?

 

[Farsight]

I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.

I'm not denying my own words. And please, if you're going to link to my words, do link to my post instead of yours.

Ho ho ho. Here's exactly what you said:

"Energy and momentum aren't two different things".

Now you're claiming to have said they're "two different measures of energy-momentum."

Yep. Shall we have a look at what I did say in post 417? Here we go:

"Energy and momentum aren't two different things. They're just two different aspects of the same thing. Think of a cannonball in space travelling at 1000m/s. Try stopping it in a second. You exert a constant opposing force. In the first tenth of a second it pushes you back a long way. In the next tenth it pushes you back a lesser distance, and so on. After 0.5 seconds the distance you've gone is less than the distance you're going to go. That's where the KE=½mv² comes from. There's an integral in it, and it's a way of describing the stopping distance for a given force applied to a given "mass" moving at a given speed. Momentum however is a force x time measure. After 0.5 seconds you're halfway through the stopping time, so it's a linear p=mv. They're two different measures of something very real, not two different abstract quantities conserved by the invariant laws of physics. And like I said, it's called energy-momentum for a reason."

Make up your mind, Farsight. Are they two different things, or are they not two different things?

Neither. I made it clear enough. They're two different aspects of the same thing. They're two different measures of energy-momentum.

It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.

No it doesn't. What I said refutes what you're saying. Now do please try to make a sensible contribution to the discussion Clinger.

 

[Farsight]

Tis seems a bit more like a counter example than a straw man. He did not say they were "totally different" in fact he noted that they were related by the density of iron.

Noted, lenny.

But to clarify, lets take your claim that you cannot remove one without the removing the other, all we need do is find a case where energy is more than kinetic energy:

Fire the cannon straight up on the moon (to remove air resistance)
When it leaves the mussel mv and 1/2 mv^2 are related.
At the top of its trajectory, it has the same energy, but zero momentum.

Does this not count as changing one without changing the other?

No. When we fire the cannonball straight up, it's slowing down due to gravity. When it reaches its maximum height it's momentarily motionless. At that moment it isn't moving. So it has zero kinetic energy and zero momentum.

Conservation of energy means that the kinetic energy hasn't mysteriously vanished, it's now potential energy, which is in the cannonball. In previous posts I've referred to this as "hidden kinetic energy", but it's hidden momentum too. The thing that's hiding is energy-momentum, and it makes the cannonball's mass increase a little. In similar vein its mass increases a little when you heat it up.

 

[Tubbythin]

Conservation of energy means that the kinetic energy hasn't mysteriously vanished, it's now potential energy, which is in the cannonball.

Conservation of energy does mean the kinetic energy has vanished (at least in that reference frame). In fact that is exactly what the first law of thermodynamics has told us.

In previous posts I've referred to this as "hidden kinetic energy"

Well that is just plain stupid terminology that nobody other than Farsight uses and which could only confuse rather than enlighten.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I don't know why Farsight thinks he can get away with denying his own words, but I guess that's the best argument he has left.

I'm not denying my own words. And please, if you're going to link to my words, do link to my post instead of yours.

Sorry, Farsight, but when I'm addressing only one of your mistakes, clarity is served by linking to my own post in which I quote you committing that one specific mistake instead of linking to the multitude of mistakes to be found within your entire rambling post.

ETA: Readers who want to slog through your entire post can do so by clicking on the link provided by my quotation of your post.

Make up your mind, Farsight. Are they two different things, or are they not two different things?

Neither.

So your argument is based upon equivocation: When you find it convenient to say energy and momentum are not different things, you conflate them. When called on it, you deny having said they are not different things.

It may not refute what you're now trying to pretend you said, but it refutes exactly what you did say.

No it doesn't. What I said refutes what you're saying. Now do please try to make a sensible contribution to the discussion Clinger.

The readers of this thread can and will decide for themselves whose contributions have been sensible.

When the core of your argument is equivocation, as when you say energy and momentum are "neither" different things nor not different things, your argument is not sensible.

 

[dafydd]

No. When we fire the cannonball straight up, it's slowing down due to gravity. When it reaches its maximum height it's momentarily motionless. At that moment it isn't moving. So it has zero kinetic energy and zero momentum.

https://www.facebook.com/events/458005354243626/?notif_t=plan_reminder

Remember to get out of the way after you have fired the cannonball vertically.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Am I losing my mind or did a bunch of posts disappear? I distinctly remember responding to Farsight's last response to me, and reading his response to that.

The inertia of body depends upon its energy content. How many times do I have to say it?

Why do you think I am disputing this? I am well aware that an object's inertial mass is proportional to its total energy. I am also well aware that this is perfectly compatible with the Higgs mechanism.

For example:
An electron has, due to the Higgs mechanism, a rest-mass of 0.511MeV/c^2. That means that even when it is not moving its inertial-mass is 0.511MeV/c^2. But when it's not moving its total energy is 0.511MeV. So its inertia is proportional to its energy content. As it speeds up it gains energy.

An electron moving at 0.8c would have a total energy of about 0.851MeV. That's about 0.340MeV of kinetic energy on top of its rest-mass energy equivalence of 0.511MeV. In this case the electron's total inertial-mass is 0.851MeV/c^2. So its inertia is still proportional to its energy content.

So where is the principle of inertia depending on energy content being violated? The Higgs mechanism just puts a non-zero value on the minimum energy that a particle can have (which obtains when the particle is not moving). It doesn't change the relationship between inertia and total energy at all. It does change the relationship between inertia and kinetic energy. But as I explained before, that in no way violates E=mc^2.

which means they have non-zero inertia even when they are not moving. They then have more inertia when they are moving, because their relativistic mass (the m in E=mc²) is greater.

Wrong. The given expression is (...). That doesn't quite get to the bottom of things, but no matter, the important point is that the m in E=mc² is rest mass, not relativistic mass.

No, the equation can be used to relate any mass to its energy equivalent. For example, the following are both valid:
E_t = m_ic^2: Here E_t is the total energy, and m_i is the inertial mass.
E_r = m_rc^2: Here E_r is total energy of the particle when it is at rest (the energy equivalent of its rest-mass), and m_r is its rest-mass.

And this is the critical point: If you solve for E=mc^2 with m=rest_mass then what you get for E is not the the total energy of the particle. It is just the rest_energy. And if you solve for E=mc^2 with E=total_energy of the particle then what you get for m is not the rest_mass of the particle. It is the total inertial_mass of the particle.

And vice versa, wherein kinetic energy in the guise of a photon is given as E=hf, the momentum being p=hf/c. In pair production we start with a photon which has no mass term m, and we end up with an electron and a positron which do. If we say they aren't moving there's no momentum term p. After annihilation there is but there's no mass term m. There's a flipflop between mass and momentum.

Nope. Doesn't work. You need two photons to form an electron-positron pair. And if you go the inertial frame where the total combined momentum of those two photons cancel out, the total energy of those two photons as measured in that frame must exceed 1.022MeV. And the total combined momentum of the electron and positron will again be zero in that frame.

Likewise, annihilation is always into two photons. Again, going to the inertial frame where the combined momentum of the electron and positron is zero, the combined momentum of the two photons will also be zero. And of course their total energy as measured from that frame will be equal to 1.022MeV plus the combined kinetic energy of the electron and positron.

So no, there is no flip-flop between mass and momentum. Momentum is always conserved. There is a flip-flop between rest-energy and kinetic-energy.

It's no misconception. Either the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, or it doesn't. It either depends upon the energy content of that body, or on something else, such as interaction with a field that pervades all of space. If you plump for the latter, you've just said Einstein was wrong.

Nonsense.

Inertial mass is proportional to total energy. Rest mass of some particles is affected by the Higgs mechanism. If a particle has nonzero rest mass due to interaction with the Higgs field, that does not contradict the fact that its inertial mass is proportional to its total energy. I suppose you might think it would if you did not understand that a particle's rest energy is proportional to its rest mass. But then it would be you contradicting E=mc^2. Or at least misunderstanding it.

 

[sol invictus]

It's no misconception. Either the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, or it doesn't. It either depends upon the energy content of that body, or on something else, such as interaction with a field that pervades all of space. If you plump for the latter, you've just said Einstein was wrong.

This seems to be Farsight's basic confusion. Inertia indeed depends on energy content, as Einstein taught us. But energy content depends on all sorts of things, including interactions with fields that pervade the universe.... and therefore inertia depends on interactions with fields that pervade the universe.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Tubbythin]

This seems to be Farsight's basic confusion. Inertia indeed depends on energy content, as Einstein taught us. But energy content depends on all sorts of things, including interactions with fields that pervade the universe.... and therefore inertia depends on interactions with fields that pervade the universe.

Pretty simple, really.

I'm not even sure what he means when he says inertia. Is he using it as a synonym for mass or momentum or what? I've always thought of it as a concept, not a property of an object.

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not even sure what he means when he says inertia. Is he using it as a synonym for mass or momentum or what? I've always thought of it as a concept, not a property of an object.

He means mass, I think.

In the Higgs mechanism, an electron at rest has energy E that comes from its interaction with the Higgs field. Since m=E/c^2 the electron therefore has a non-zero mass, and hence inertia (when you act on it with a force F, its acceleration is F/m).

 

[Tubbythin]

He means mass, I think.

That was my best guess. Why he can't just say mass though..?

In the Higgs mechanism, an electron at rest has energy E that comes from its interaction with the Higgs field. Since m=E/c^2 the electron therefore has a non-zero mass, and hence inertia (when you act on it with a force F, its acceleration is F/m).

Sure.

 

[Farsight]

Why do you think I am disputing this? I am well aware that an object's inertial mass is proportional to its total energy. I am also well aware that this is perfectly compatible with the Higgs mechanism.

Read Einstein's 1905 paper. Note "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content". No way is that in any way compatible with "the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with a space-pervading field".

For example: An electron has, due to the Higgs mechanism, a rest-mass of 0.511MeV/c^2. That means that even when it is not moving its inertial-mass is 0.511MeV/c^2. But when it's not moving its total energy is 0.511MeV. So its inertia is proportional to its energy content. As it speeds up it gains energy.

Not proportional to its energy content. Is a measure of its energy content.

An electron moving at 0.8c would have a total energy of about 0.851MeV. That's about 0.340MeV of kinetic energy on top of its rest-mass energy equivalence of 0.511MeV. In this case the electron's total inertial-mass is 0.851MeV/c^2. So its inertia is still proportional to its energy content.

Is still a measure of its energy content.

So where is the principle of inertia depending on energy content being violated?

Where it's replaced by something else.

The Higgs mechanism just puts a non-zero value on the minimum energy that a particle can have (which obtains when the particle is not moving).

It doesn't actually do that. I mentioned binding energy yesterday. When an electron binds with a proton, in the 1s orbital there's a 13.6ev mass deficit. The system has less mass/energy than the individual components at rest.

It doesn't change the relationship between inertia and total energy at all. It does change the relationship between inertia and kinetic energy. But as I explained before, that in no way violates E=mc^2.

It casts it aside Stimpson. Imagine you have a photon in a gedanken mirror-box. The mass of the box is so negligible that we can ignore it, like Susskind said in the lecture Robo linked to. The photon adds mass to that system, and like Susskind said about his box of radiation, it's got nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. The box is a body, its inertia depends upon its energy content, its mass is a measure of its energy content. When it radiates, its mass is reduced. The electron is a body too. When it radiates in annihilation, its mass is reduced to nothing and it no longer exists. It would violate what Einstein said to assert that the mass of some bodies is a measure of the energy content, and the mass of some other bodies isn't.

No, the equation can be used to relate any mass to its energy equivalent. For example, the following are both valid:
E_t = m_ic^2: Here E_t is the total energy, and m_i is the inertial mass.
E_r = m_rc^2: Here E_r is total energy of the particle when it is at rest (the energy equivalent of its rest-mass), and m_r is its rest-mass.

See this bit of wiki and note the quote at the bottom: "It is better to introduce no other mass concept than the ’rest mass’ m".

And this is the critical point: If you solve for E=mc^2 with m=rest_mass then what you get for E is not the the total energy of the particle. It is just the rest_energy. And if you solve for E=mc^2 with E=total_energy of the particle then what you get for m is not the rest_mass of the particle. It is the total inertial_mass of the particle.

I know about rest mass and inertial mass.

Nope. Doesn't work. You need two photons to form an electron-positron pair. And if you go the inertial frame where the total combined momentum of those two photons cancel out, the total energy of those two photons as measured in that frame must exceed 1.022MeV. And the total combined momentum of the electron and positron will again be zero in that frame.

I know this too. Check around and you'll see that I'm forever saying +1022keV.

Likewise, annihilation is always into two photons. Again, going to the inertial frame where the combined momentum of the electron and positron is zero, the combined momentum of the two photons will also be zero. And of course their total energy as measured from that frame will be equal to 1.022MeV plus the combined kinetic energy of the electron and positron.

And that. I assume you meant two or more photons, see this.

So no, there is no flip-flop between mass and momentum. Momentum is always conserved. There is a flip-flop between rest-energy and kinetic-energy.

Yes there is. You aren't paying enough attention to energy-momentum and you're being led astray by the vector-quantity aspect of momentum. Take a look at energy-momentum relation on wikipedia. See where it says the equation simplifies to E=mc² for a body in its rest frame. Then a bit lower down it says if the object is massless then the energy momentum relation reduces to E=pc as is the case for a photon. Two photons each have momentum p=hf/c. When you insist that one has negative momentum, countering the positive momentum of the other, E=pc or E=hf and p=hf/c then forces you to claim that E is negative. It isn't. It's like what I was saying to edd about the cannonball. It's got no momentum if its sitting there in front of you, but if it's coming at you, it has. It doesn't matter if you say it's got positive momentum when it's coming at you this way → and negative momentum coming at you this way ←. It only has negative momentum in a book-keeping sense. You know you can't stop that cannonball in -5 seconds. You know you're going to have to duck.

[Re It's no misconception. Either the inertia of a body depends upon its energy content, or it doesn't. It either depends upon the energy content of that body, or on something else, such as interaction with a field that pervades all of space. If you plump for the latter, you've just said Einstein was wrong. ]
Nonsense.

It isn't nonsense Stimpson. That's where the buck stops. When you say the inertia of a body doesn't depend upon its energy content but instead depends on that body's interaction with the Higgs field, you've contradicted Einstein.

Inertial mass is proportional to total energy. Rest mass of some particles is affected by the Higgs mechanism. If a particle has nonzero rest mass due to interaction with the Higgs field, that does not contradict the fact that its inertial mass is proportional to its total energy.

Einstein said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Not something else. So when you assert that the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field, you're contradicting Einstein.

I suppose you might think it would if you did not understand that a particle's rest energy is proportional to its rest mass. But then it would be you contradicting E=mc^2. Or at least misunderstanding it.

I'm not misunderstanding it. I've bought the T-shirt. And it says E=mc² not E∝m.

 

[Farsight]

Sorry, Farsight, but when I'm addressing only one of your mistakes...

My post 417 makes it clear that I didn't make a mistake, and so readers of this thread will be able to decide for themselves about your sincerity.

 

[edd]

Poor old Einstein. I'm sure he wouldn't have the sort of problem with the Higgs mechanism that you suggest - this sort of interaction with a field was surely not something he was thinking about when he wrote what you quote so often above. That he apparently omitted something does not mean that he intentionally excluded it.

 

[Farsight]

This seems to be Farsight's basic confusion.

I'm not confused at all sol.

Inertia indeed depends on energy content, as Einstein taught us.

At last! Somebody else has paid attention to what Einstein actually said.

But energy content depends on all sorts of things, including interactions with fields that pervade the universe.... and therefore inertia depends on interactions with fields that pervade the universe. Pretty simple, really.

Energy content depends on how much energy you put in. Sounds like you've got a basic confusion there sol.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm not confused at all sol.

You may well not be confused. In that case you are just plain wrong.

At last! Somebody else has paid attention to what Einstein actually said.

Well you certainly don't.

Energy content depends on how much energy you put in. Sounds like you've got a basic confusion there sol.

Dear God.
I start with a million dollars. I buy a house worth 511,000 dollars. I'm left with a house and 489,000 dollars. The cost of the house was set by the realtor and determined by the size location and so on of the property.
I start with a million electron volts. From that million electron volts I create an electron (using some magical process). I'm left with an electron and 489,000 electron volts. The energy "cost" of the electron was determined by it's rest mass which is determined by how the particle interacts with the Higgs field.

 

[Farsight]

Poor old Einstein. I'm sure he wouldn't have the sort of problem with the Higgs mechanism that you suggest - this sort of interaction with a field was surely not something he was thinking about when he wrote what you quote so often above. That he apparently omitted something does not mean that he intentionally excluded it.

That's a handy way to try and dismiss Einstein. Assert that he wouldn't have a problem with something that totally contradicts him.

I'm sure Einstein would have a big problem with it. He would reiterate that mass is a measure of energy-content, not something else. He'd point out that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy. He'd remind you how a massless photon in a box adds mass to that system. Then he'd point out that when a wave is propagating linearly at c we call its resistance to change-in-motion momentum. But when it's a standing wave in a box we call its resistance to change-in-motion inertia. Then he'd be pointing out that an electron is a body, and likening electron-positron annihilation to a radiating body losing mass, and showing you atomic orbitals where electrons exist as standing waves. And when you dismissed all that too, he would push his chair back, say ho ho ho in his rich deep voice, and show you the door.

 

[Tubbythin]

Two photons each have momentum p=hf/c. When you insist that one has negative momentum, countering the positive momentum of the other, E=pc or E=hf and p=hf/c then forces you to claim that E is negative.

Nope. The p in E=pc is the magnitude of the momentum vector which is always positive. Thus if I have a photon with momentum p₁ (a vector) it will have energy E=|p₁|c - a positive number times a positive number.
If I have a photon with momentum p₂ (a vector) it will have energy E=|p₂|c - a positive number times a positive number.

The combined energy of the system is then

|p₁|c + |p₂|c (a positive scalar)

while the combined momentum is

p₁ + p₂ (a vector).

If the two momentum vectors are of equal magnitude and antiparallel then

p₂ = - p₁

and the combined momentum is

p₁ - p₁ = 0.

However, the total energy is

|p₁|c + |p₁|c = 2|p₁|c (a positive scalar).

 

[Tubbythin]

That's a handy way to try and dismiss Einstein. Assert that he wouldn't have a problem with something that totally contradicts him.

It doesn't totally contradict him. That is your assertion based on not understanding Einstein and particle physics.

I'm sure Einstein would have a big problem with it.

You're sure pair production violated momentum conservation too.

He would reiterate that mass is a measure of energy-content, not something else.

Nobody is saying anything else.

He'd point out that the LHC ingredients were protons and kinetic energy.

Everybody knows that. Why would he bother to point it out?

He'd remind you how a massless photon in a box adds mass to that system. Then he'd point out that when a wave is propagating linearly at c we call its resistance to change-in-motion momentum. But when it's a standing wave in a box we call its resistance to change-in-motion inertia. Then he'd be pointing out that an electron is a body, and likening electron-positron annihilation to a radiating body losing mass, and showing you atomic orbitals where electrons exist as standing waves. And when you dismissed all that too, he would push his chair back, say ho ho ho in his rich deep voice, and show you the door.

I see, in Farsight's world Einstein == Santa Claus.