Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[edd]

Field, with negative mass squared not negative mass, in a hypothetical situation that doesn't apply to reality, and you might want to go away and check on the distinction between a tachyon and a tachyonic field.

Actually I was obviously wrong and sol clearly referred to a tachyon particle.

 

[smartcooky]

Those formulas describe the energy and momentum of photons. They do not describe the relationship between energy and momentum for cannonballs

Actually I don't really give a fat rats backside what they do or do not describe, but what they ARE, is correct, as pure mathematical formulae.

"If E = hf and p = hf/c are valid, then p = E/c follows".

This is an indisputable mathematical fact, quite aside from the physics. If you write down the algebraical relationships of the first two formulae, then the third formulae given is valid.

A = BC
x = BC/n

therefore

x = A/n

Show me a mathematical proof that disproves this!

Clue: you must not mention the words "photon", "particle", "momentum" "scalar", "mass" or "cannonball" in your proof!

Now Farside may well be incorrect in his application of these formulae to the physics under discussion. I can't speak to that, because as I said earlier, the physics is a long way over my head, but your criticism that "his interpretation fails at the level of eighth-grade algebra" was unwarranted. There was nothing wrong with his algebra; the mathematics is correct!

 

[tsig]

Try to talk physics, Clinger. Try to resist sniping from the sidelines.

Nope. Cannonballs don't have zero mass. They have non-zero mass, and when they're moving relative to you, they have momentum. That's why the expression is [qimg]http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/qimg].

It's true Clinger. Photon energy is E=hf, photon momentum is p=hf/c, and if you trap that photon in a box, the mass it adds to the system is m=hf/c². Then if you move that box you say [qimg]http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/qimg].

No. You've merely confirmed what you said in post post 415 on page 11. You're not a physicist. And that you're somewhat lacking in the sincerity department.

Oh, and while we're on the subject, it might be an idea if you mentioned this thread. You know. The one where you said "The LaTeX server doesn't appear to be working, and I don't think it's been working for several months now. Is there any possibility of getting that fixed?". You know LaTeX, it's this kind of thing: [qimg]http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/qimg].

Jesus H Christ. This is like cage-fighting with kids.

Did Einstein throw in personal insults too?

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm not batting zero, you are because you didn't spot that I referred to [qimg]http://www.forkosh.com/mimetex.cgi?E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2[/qimg] in post post 430 on page 11 and in in post 473 on page 12. Wow dude, missing that is a bit of a howler, what? Then claiming I'm making elementary mistakes and butchering and misrepresenting Einstein, without any kind of backup, just isn''t going to cut it.

It was a howler on your part to use the correct equation at one time and use a completely incorrect equation at a different time. It is even more unbecoming that you are now trying to claim otherwise in spite of the fact that the evidence is plain as day for anybody to see. Everybody makes mistakes Farsight. Most of us are man (or woman) enough to admit to them. Pretending your mistakes were somebody else's is not going to do anything but undermine your claims and make you look like a bit of a clown.

 

[sol invictus]

I do. Farsight thinks E=mc^2 means all matter is "made of energy". When he sees "made of energy" he substitutes "made of photons", presumably thanks to various vague pop-science statements (like "matter and matter annihilate into pure energy") that he interprets to mean this. Therefore, he thinks that he's derived "mass comes from internal photons" from Pure Logical Rigor applied to E=mc^2. And, if E=mc^2 tells you what mass *is*, then the Higgs mechanism (which hypothesizes that it's not *that*) must not be Logical and/or Rigorous.

Hence the claim that there is a contradiction, without the ability to point it out. "There must be a mistake in there somewhere", Farsight thinks, "because if there were no mistakes, they would have concluded that mass is all trapped photons."

OK. But even if in Farsight's head electrons are little boxes of bouncing photons, maybe the the Higgs condensate interacts with the electron boxes in such a way that they contain more photons, or more energetic photons, or change size or something.

So even in a "model" like that I don't get the "contradiction" with E=mc^2. But probably logic is not the correct tool to apply here.

 

[sol invictus]

Actually I was obviously wrong and sol clearly referred to a tachyon particle.

There's kind of a semantic confusion there. Physicists usually mean a field with negative mass squared when they say tachyon. Such fields really don't have "particles" in the conventional sense of localized excitations - the whole field is unstable everywhere, so if you try to produce a particle (or make any other perturbation) the whole field collapses and condenses to some non-tachyonic phase. Because they're Lorentz invariant, nothing ever propagates faster than light even in the unstable phase. If you want to you can interpret the condensation of the field as spontaneous pair-production of tachyon particles, but because it happens everywhere exponentially quickly you can't separate one particle from the next.

Then there are tachyonic particles in the sense of superluminal neutrinos - real, localized particles that move faster than light. If they exist they aren't described by imaginary mass fields. Fortunately, they don't exist.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

A digression on what constitutes correct mathematics...

Actually I don't really give a fat rats backside what they do or do not describe, but what they ARE, is correct, as pure mathematical formulae.

"If E = hf and p = hf/c are valid, then p = E/c follows".

This is an indisputable mathematical fact, quite aside from the physics. If you write down the algebraical relationships of the first two formulae, then the third formulae given is valid.

Of course.

Now Farside may well be incorrect in his application of these formulae to the physics under discussion. I can't speak to that, because as I said earlier, the physics is a long way over my head, but your criticism that "his interpretation fails at the level of eighth-grade algebra" was unwarranted. There was nothing wrong with his algebra; the mathematics is correct!

No.

Mathematics is more than algebraic formulas. Mathematics (even algebra!) also involves logic, quantifiers, proof structure, and context (which is part of a proof's structure).

Farsight's algebra was correct when he used the formulas for photons to conclude that energy is proportional to momentum.

Farsight's mathematics was incorrect when he used a universal quantifier ("always") in the context of cannonballs to say energy is proportional to momentum. ("You always divide by c to go from one to the other".) He then bamboozled you by performing algebraic manipulations on formulas that are correct for photons but incorrect for cannonballs. Correct algebraic manipulation of invalid formulas does not add up to correct mathematics.

It's as though Farsight were saying you always multiply the length of an edge by three to get the circumference of a regular polygon, and then tried to support his contention by performing correct algebraic manipulations on the formulas that apply to equilateral triangles. That wouldn't be correct mathematics either.

Farsight's argument fails at the level of junior-high-school algebra because correct algebraic manipulations of the correct formulas disproves his argument. I have posted that disproof at least twice.

You could also say Farsight's argument fails at the level of first-order logic. As many others have noted, Farsight's argument is based upon a bait and switch: He uses the equations for photons to do his algebra, and then pretends his result holds more generally. Introducing a universal quantifier without justification is another form of incorrect mathematics.

So Farsight's math is incorrect. That doesn't mean all of his math is incorrect, and you did indeed point out one algebraic manipulation that Farsight did correctly, provided you ignore the cannonball context of the paragraph in which he performed that manipulation, the invalidity of his formulas for cannonballs, and his invalid generalization of his conclusion to include cannonballs. When we say Farsight's math is incorrect, we're just saying Farsight's math is so riddled with errors that his argument is laughable on mathematical grounds alone, before we even get to the more esoteric physics.

 

[edd]

There's kind of a semantic confusion there. Physicists usually mean a field with negative mass squared when they say tachyon. Such fields really don't have "particles" in the conventional sense of localized excitations - the whole field is unstable everywhere, so if you try to produce a particle (or make any other perturbation) the whole field collapses and condenses to some non-tachyonic phase. Because they're Lorentz invariant, nothing ever propagates faster than light even in the unstable phase. If you want to you can interpret the condensation of the field as spontaneous pair-production of tachyon particles, but because it happens everywhere exponentially quickly you can't separate one particle from the next.

Then there are tachyonic particles in the sense of superluminal neutrinos - real, localized particles that move faster than light. If they exist they aren't described by imaginary mass fields. Fortunately, they don't exist.

Yep, the former is what I thought you meant initially, then I thought that you meant the latter (even though it's properly weird), so maybe my first reading of you was right

Anyway, cleared up the entire question I was having with a colleague over coffee this morning.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Actually I don't really give a fat rats backside what they do or do not describe, but what they ARE, is correct, as pure mathematical formulae.

"If E = hf and p = hf/c are valid, then p = E/c follows".

This is an indisputable mathematical fact, quite aside from the physics. If you write down the algebraical relationships of the first two formulae, then the third formulae given is valid.

A = BC
x = BC/n

therefore

x = A/n

Show me a mathematical proof that disproves this!

Clue: you must not mention the words "photon", "particle", "momentum" "scalar", "mass" or "cannonball" in your proof!

Now Farside may well be incorrect in his application of these formulae to the physics under discussion. I can't speak to that, because as I said earlier, the physics is a long way over my head, but your criticism that "his interpretation fails at the level of eighth-grade algebra" was unwarranted. There was nothing wrong with his algebra; the mathematics is correct!

Are you being intentionally dense? No one is disputing that p = E/c for a photon (or any other massless particle). However, it does not follow that energy and mass are the same thing -- that is the point being discussed here.
Analogy: F = ma. It doesn't follow that force is mass. Just like the factor of acceleration is essential in that equation, the factor of 1/c is essential in the former. And, p is a vector and E is not, just like F is a vector and m is not.
Also note that the relationship p = E/c applies for massless particles only. For massive particles, the relationship is E = p²/2m.

 

[Tubbythin]

For massive particles, the relationship is E = p²/2m.

That's just the non-relativistic equation for a massive particles' kinetic energy.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I didn't make any mistake, I referred to the expression in post 430 on page 11. I also referred to it in post 473 on page 12 where I said this: 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.

As Tubbythin already pointed out, you did make an error when discussing the mass of an electron in this post.

Then Tubbythin corrected you here.

Then I clarified here.

And this has been backed up on this thread by the other physicists (some of whom are actual researchers; alas I am merely a physics professor). Yet you continue to ignore your basic errors.

Folks, I have a suggestion. It is apparent to me that Farsight isn't actually interested in learning anything; he's just here to spout his nonsense theory. I suggest that we basically ignore him and his rants and get the thread back to the actual topic at hand: the latest research on the Higgs.

 

[Perpetual Student]

That's just the non-relativistic equation for a massive particles' kinetic energy.

Yes, this discussion is about relativistic particles, so E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² would have been appropriate, sorry. Relativistic or not, momentum is not the same thing as energy, as everyone here (except Farside) and any high school student understands.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

20% random out-of-context quotes from Einstein and/or Google
20% explicitly nonsensical physics he's making up as he goes along
20% explicitly nonsensical physics he's cribbing from his crackpot book
20% flat insults to other posters' intelligence and education
20% boo-ya, come-at-me-bro crowing about how well he thinks he's doing

Indeed, this is what rankles at getting moderator warnings about saying the facts about Farsight. There is a mistake that many make that attacking an arguer is not germaine to attacking an argument. In this case, there really is no argument, there is merely a pattern of obstinate (and worrying) behaviour. Heck, Farsight has even made an appeal to authority in this thread with himself as the authority.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I do. Farsight thinks E=mc^2 means all matter is "made of energy". When he sees "made of energy" he substitutes "made of photons", presumably thanks to various vague pop-science statements (like "matter and matter annihilate into pure energy") that he interprets to mean this. Therefore, he thinks that he's derived "mass comes from internal photons" from Pure Logical Rigor applied to E=mc^2. And, if E=mc^2 tells you what mass *is*, then the Higgs mechanism (which hypothesizes that it's not *that*) must not be Logical and/or Rigorous.

Hence the claim that there is a contradiction, without the ability to point it out. "There must be a mistake in there somewhere", Farsight thinks, "because if there were no mistakes, they would have concluded that mass is all trapped photons."

It's the first standard crackpot pathology identified by Wilfrid Hodges in one of my favorite papers: Bulletin of Symbolic Logic Volume 4, Number 1, March 1998, AN EDITOR RECALLS SOME HOPELESS PAPERS

Good summary!

 

[Tubbythin]

Yes, this discussion is about relativistic particles, so E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² would have been appropriate, sorry. Relativistic or not, momentum is not the same thing as energy, as everyone here (except Farside) and any high school student understands.

Nicely illustrating my point that most people who have made an obvious mistake with a formula will just admit to it .

 

[Hellbound]

20% random out-of-context quotes from Einstein and/or Google
20% explicitly nonsensical physics he's making up as he goes along
20% explicitly nonsensical physics he's cribbing from his crackpot book
20% flat insults to other posters' intelligence and education
20% boo-ya, come-at-me-bro crowing about how well he thinks he's doing

Indeed, this is what rankles at getting moderator warnings about saying the facts about Farsight. There is a mistake that many make that attacking an arguer is not germaine to attacking an argument. In this case, there really is no argument, there is merely a pattern of obstinate (and worrying) behaviour. Heck, Farsight has even made an appeal to authority in this thread with himself as the authority.

In other words (with apologies to SpongeBob Squarepants):

Farsight:

99% Far
1% Sight

 

[Garnabby]

Someone here pointed out how nice it is to see the occasional short paper come along. Reminds me of the joke about the student who got 99/100 on a test. (He said that he showed up for one of the lectures.)

Anyway, to segue to my question, has anyone asked about a Higg's wave?

 

[smartcooky]

Are you being intentionally dense?

I already said that the physics was way over my head. There is no need for you be insulting and be rubbing my nose in it.

No one is disputing that p = E/c for a photon (or any other massless particle). However, it does not follow that energy and mass are the same thing -- that is the point being discussed here.
Analogy: F = ma. It doesn't follow that force is mass. Just like the factor of acceleration is essential in that equation, the factor of 1/c is essential in the former. And, p is a vector and E is not, just like F is a vector and m is not.
Also note that the relationship p = E/c applies for massless particles only. For massive particles, the relationship is E = p²/2m.

Once again, for the fourth time, and for the removal of doubt, I was NOT questioning the physics; I'm not even in a position to question the physics. I was questioning Clinger's assertion that Farside's algebraic transposition was incorrect and a fail at eighth grade level. It was not, and Clinger has now acknowledged that in post 627.

From what little I understand of this, Farside is almost certainly wrong in just about everything he is saying here, but there is no need for his opponents to to stoop to stating falsehoods into order win the argument, when truth and scientific accuracy does a much better job.

Just sayin'

 

[Perpetual Student]

I already said that the physics was way over my head. There is no need for you be insulting and be rubbing my nose in it.

Noted and sorry.

Once again, for the fourth time, and for the removal of doubt, I was NOT questioning the physics; I'm not even in a position to question the physics. I was questioning Clinger's assertion that Farside's algebraic transposition was incorrect and a fail at eighth grade level. It was not, and Clinger has now acknowledged that in post 627.

From what little I understand of this, Farside is almost certainly wrong in just about everything he is saying here, but there is no need for his opponents to to stoop to stating falsehoods into order win the argument, when truth and scientific accuracy does a much better job.

Just sayin'

Not quite. Clinger said:

Mathematics is more than algebraic formulas. Mathematics (even algebra!) also involves logic, quantifiers, proof structure, and context (which is part of a proof's structure).

Farsight's algebra was correct when he used the formulas for photons to conclude that energy is proportional to momentum.

Farsight's mathematics was incorrect when he used a universal quantifier ("always") in the context of cannonballs to say energy is proportional to momentum. ("You always divide by c to go from one to the other".) He then bamboozled you by performing algebraic manipulations on formulas that are correct for photons but incorrect for cannonballs. Correct algebraic manipulation of invalid formulas does not add up to correct mathematics.

The context is the key here. Clinger said, "...mathematics was incorrect when he used a universal quantifier ("always") in the context of cannonballs..."
The point is that misapplying a mathematical expression is just as wrong as using a wrong expression.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Once again, for the fourth time, and for the removal of doubt, I was NOT questioning the physics; I'm not even in a position to question the physics.

By the way, I am a mere layman in this area too. Nevertheless, it does defy logic and even common sense that some lay person like Farside could believe that a foundational area of physics like quantum field theory is totally off base, only he is able to interpret Einstein and that thousands of physicists throughout the world have been so misguided all these years. He quotes Einstein like a mystic quotes sacred scripture in some ancient tongue with fractured comprehension.
I have no doubt that if Einstein were alive today, he would be deeply immersed in the research of the Higgs field and all its implications.