Some rather curious double vision. Some source of systematic error not properly corrected for?
So far, there's no evidence of the beam directions making an imprint on the Higgs decays. It's enough to rule out a simple spin-2 model at 90%.
The LHC is currently doing proton-lead collisions, and when it shuts down, it will have some major upgrades over the next few years. Its particles' energy should go up by about a factor of 2, and its "luminosity" should also be increased.
I'm the one who challenges theological-like woo by pointing to what Einstein/Maxwell/Minkowski etc said, and to the hard scientific evidence. Lpetrich rabbits on about the multiverse and similar speculative junk.
No you can't. I say things like hold your hands up and you can see the gap, the space between them, but you can't see time flowing. And I don't claim that time does not exist, I say it exists like heat exists.
No you can't. Drop a pencil. It falls down. Gravitational fields exist.
It's not my argument. See A Zeptospace Odyssey by Gian Giudice. He's a CERN physicist. When he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter it's not irrelevant.
Giudice also says the Higgs mechanism is the "toilet of the Standard model". Also see Particle headache: Why the Higgs could spell disaster where you can read this:
The electron is a bound state too. It's a body, Einstein referred to it as such when he said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.
Whatever the mechanism of confinement, the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.
See page 174 of Giudice's book, where he says this: "Although the nature of dark matter is still unknown, it is unlikely that its mass originates from the Higgs substance. In summary the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1% of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2% of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass"
That is wrong. You are the one who makes up theological-like woo by misinterpreting what Einstein/Maxwell/Minkowski etc said, and never citing the hard scientific evidence.
The well known fact that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter is not irrelevant.
Particle headache: Why the Higgs could spell disaster
That is nonsense. A free electron is not bound to anything. It is not in a bound state.
Fixed your statement
.So ~1%Originally Posted by lpetrich
Nucleons get most of their masses from color confinement. Their quarks and gluons cannot get more than about 10^(-15) m from each other without those particles' interactions getting superstrong. This means that those particles' wavefunctions cannot extend over a greater size, and thus that their masses should be about a few hundred MeV. Thus, the nucleons' masses.
You just proved his point, as you are wont to do, that you treat certain texts as holy. Anybody who is not a worshiper of those three people knows that they occasionally said things that were simply wrong. (Even Einstein admitted that some of what he wrote was wrong.) The way to avoid merely parroting a person is to engage in some understanding of what they wrote about. You refuse to do this, since you refuse to learn general relativity.
Again, since you admit that you cannot do GR, you cannot know GR. So you cannot understand the hard scientific evidence.
Whether or not he does it is irrelevant to your failings. It is good to see that you like to engage in attacks on others without foundation while you run to moderators to protect you from attacks that have foundation.
You refuse to ever defend this argument, you simply repeat it again and again and again. You have never said how you can see space. You have never said how we can see motion in a clock. If you cannot answer questions about this, then you have nothing.
This motion has essentially nothing to do with gravitational fields. It is entirely consistent with Aristotelean gravity. Again you demonstrate that you know nothing about "hard science".
This seems to merely be a deceitful claim.
I can't see space either. Just a lot of perceptions that I unconsciously interpret as an angular distance, and from there, a linear distance. Time is no different.
That's not the same as seeing a gravitational field itself. I don't see how time is a worse inference than gravity.
That's because the Standard-Model Higgs particle has certain theoretical problems, though these can be corrected with additional particles, like supersymmetry partners.
It is NOT. The electron satisfies the Dirac equation, just like the photon satisfying Maxwell's equations. Both equations are quantized, of course.
I fail to see the relevance of that issue.
Interesting that he links to that to try to support his claims that everyone is wrong, yet completely ignored it when previously posted in the same thread.
It isn't dissent, it's physicists telling it how it is. The issue is the Higgs sector of the standard model, not the standard model itself.
And it's important to understand that the Higgs mechanism is the weakest link of the standard model, that it's thought to be responsible for only 1% of the mass of matter whilst the rest is down to E=mc², and like Susskind said, is absolutely nothing to do with "cosmic treacle". Dismissing things like this because they're at odds with CERN publicity material for gullible saps does not advance understanding, it clouds it.
Is this a skeptics forum or what? What's been found is a statistical bump on a graph, a "resonance" that lasts no time flat. It could be anything.
I point to what they said and I'm forever referring to hard scientific evidence, you dismiss it because you believe in nonsense. Have a read of mass-energy equivalence on wikipedia. It isn't theological-like woo:
No it isn't, it's of crucial importance. As is the issue of how the Higgs boson gets its mass. See above - it's from the kinetic energy supplied to the protons.
You're clutching at straws and engaging in wishful thinking.
It's pathetic junk that explains nothing at all. The Barracuda v Eddie-no-stranger-to-donuts is risible garbage.
People have speculated along these lines for decades, but no actual evidence for a new fundamental particle has shown up. Like me Giudice likes relativity. I imagine that he knows that the energy of a gravitational field, which acts gravitatively like any other form of energy, has a mass equivalence.Fixed your statement
I would speculate that Giudice is wrong. Dark matter is likely to be a new fundamental particle. Thus its mass will originate from the Higgs "substance". If it is a composite particle like a protpn or neutron then ist mass will originate from its fundemental particles (Higgs) and binding between them.
He's just being honest. What's noticeable is that it doesn't feature in the CERN publicity material. I imagine there's some tensions between the physicists and the management.
You don't understand what lpetrich said, you just latch onto it because of wishful thinking. Gluons are virtual particles, we've never seen a free quark, and like Einstein said, mass is a measure of energy content. Given that some amount of energy is confined by some mechanism, the mass of the resultant system is a measure of how much energy is confined. This applies globally, even when the resultant system is a particle.
Again, that completely irrelevant issue.
However, its decays gives us clues about its nature, and so far, it closely resembles the Standard-Model Higgs particle.
It certainly isn't the first time, and I doubt this will be the last time this is said, but it isn't either-or there.
You can literally see the gap between your hands. You know they're not together. And you can waggle those hands and see them move. So space and motion have an empirical foundation which "the flow of time" does not. Plus you cannot move through time like you can move through space, so time is patently different.
Time isn't, the worse inference is the flow of time and moving through time.
See this and other reports describing how the LHC results are "not consistent with many of the most likely models of Susy". Aslo see what Woit has to say. In short, SUSY is a busted flush.
Note the word "structure", and that in pair production we can construct electrons and positrons from gamma photons. Also note that low-energy annihilation typically results in gamma photons. And see LEP on wiki. With sufficient energy you can create other structures. Google it. Some of those structures are definitely bound. And see atomic orbital and note this: The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. Electrons exist as standing waves full stop, we can diffract them. They're self-bound structures.
It's what Einstein said in his E=mc² paper. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. And he referred to the electron as a body. The Higgs mechanism contradicts this, and asserts that the mass of a body is a measure of its interaction with the Higgs field. I know that you and others seek to support the standard model, but by backing the Higgs mechanism whilst playing dumb about E=mc² you’re threatening the standard model. Remember what Giudice said: it’s the toilet of the standard model. It needs to be replaced, lpetrich. By a symmetry.
I bring up physicists having concerns about the Higgs sector of the standard model. People are generally not aware that it's the cuckoo in the nest.
Edd, it's very simple. Either Einstein and E=mc² is right and the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, or the mass of some bodies is a measure of something else. You can't have it both ways.edd said:
LOL at this Wikipedia-thumping.
That's how the particle is created in the LHC, and it has nothing to do with their nature. It does NOT explain why this particle has a mass of about 125 GeV.
Energy as some sort of stuff -- that's so typical of pseudoscientific woo-woo. No amount of Einstein-thumping about how E = mc2 can change that.
But you haven't read about it in a physics textbook and you have never done any problems, done any experiments, or developed any applications that use the actual science of this equivalence. Yet you claim, on the basis of your wikipedia knowledge, to criticize almost every scientist working in the field on their knowledge of physics.
Please explain how waggling your hands is evidence of motion. Your reasoning on this point is not clear. Your earlier responses to requests for clarification on this issue were insults and refusals.