Higgs Boson Discovered?!

[Farsight]

You cut out bits of text, wrap them in quote tags, and refer to them.

That does not mean that they back up your case.

You're so wrong, even Abraham Lincoln knew you were wrong...

Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

I have to go. Catch you later guys. Apologies if I've missed any salient posts. I'll take a look through the recent part of the thread tomorrow.

 

[godless dave]

Only one wavelength and therefore energy is the right energy to match h and convert a gamma photon moving at c into the standing-wave structure called an electron.

Again: why that one wavelength?

 

[lpetrich]

Change the record lpetrich. I'm the one quoting bona-fide references here. You're the one behaving like a theologian dismissing the science I'm referring to.

Take a closer look at theological "reasoning" some time, and you'll see what I mean.
(Wikipedia as a sacred book...)

It doesn't. It merely gives a fairly accurate description of current physics knowledge whilst demonstrates that I'm not just making this stuff up.

Justify that contention. Especially with your ignoring a no-sources warning added to one of the articles.

What's absurd is the notion that gluons are real particles. They aren't. They're virtual particles. ...

Why is that?

We do not see gluons spilling out of proton-antiproton annihilation.

Because of color confinement. If they are very energetic and much closer than 10^-15 m, then they act as almost independent particles.

(Can't get a fermion from a boson...)

Not that old canard. Pair production happens. You get an electron and a positron from your integer-spin field.

A *pair* of them. Two fermions together form a boson. I did not mention that case because I was addressing your electrons-are-photons contention. You can't get a *single* fermion from a boson or any set of bosons.

How you think you can get away with vague assertions about "classical-limit intuitions" beats me.

Because that's what you are doing. In any case, it all works out correctly when you do the math.

And note that spherical harmonics are used for atomic orbitals, where the electron exists as a standing wave. And that we can diffract an electron. Because it exists as a standing wave even when it isn't in an atomic orbital. Which rather suggests that harmonics also play a role.

I learned about wave-particle duality long ago. The Dirac equation is a wave equation, like other elementary-particle equations of motion.

(the Einstein-de Haas effect...)
Yawn. Wikipedia-thumping is no argument against the true nature of electron spin. A result of its field geometry, like photon polarization.

 

[ben m]

Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

The funny thing is, I actually wrote most of the content of the (former) Wikipedia articles on proton-antiproton annihilation and neutron-antineutron annihilation. You're welcome to quote me when you argue with me.

(Why are they deleted? Long story. There was a malicious bad-article-creating bot, and I'd found and edited two of those articles, but there was a clean-sweep cleanup of the bot's damage, from which I didn't bother to merge my edits into the "Annihilation" or "Antiproton" articles which are pretty good.)

 

[godless dave]

I'm still trying to figure out how we could see things moving without a perception of time. Wouldn't my fingers appear to be in multiple places simultaneously?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm not criticizing almost every scientist. I told you what CERN physicists think about this. Their views are at odds with the publicity pap that you lap up.

You've just offered insults rather than a defense. You have once again attacked the work of actual scientists without being able to follow their work. You claim that these people do not understand GR, yet you know that you cannot do it.

I haven't responded with insults and refusals. You simply waggle your hands and you see that they don't stay in the same place. When that happens, we call it motion. It's that simple.

Please explain what it means to observe motion.

 

[ben m]

I'm not criticizing almost every scientist. I told you what CERN physicists think about this. Their views are at odds with the publicity pap that you lap up.

You found a quote from a popular science book by Guidice. You interpreted this quote via your custom Farsight-is-right lenses, the same way you interpret everything you see everywhere.

Guidice is right, the rest mass of protons is something like 1% quark mass and 99% gluon field energy. Frank Wilczek, who I know in passing, is particularly fond of this point. By repeating it, you are disagreeing with no one whatsoever.

What is Guidice actually disagreeing with? You. It sounds like you have a nonsensical mental picture of how the Standard Model works. You made this up yourself; let's call it the Farsight Strawman Standard Model (FSSM). Guidice disagrees with the FSSM. Wikipedia disagrees with the FSSM. (Heck, everyone disagrees with the FSSM, because it's nonsense that you made up.)

You are misidentifying these disagreements. You think that Guidice disagrees with the actual standard model (SM)---so now, with the Guidice quote backing you up, you're rejecting the SM and insulting/belittling anyone who doesn't agree. (But you're mistaken. Guidice agrees with the SM, and contradicts the FSSM.)

 

[Reality Check]

Have a read of mass-energy equivalence on wikipedia. It isn't theological-like woo:

It is not theological-like woo: an ignorant attempt to interprete this as meaning that the Higgs mechanism does not work would be theological-like woo.

See above - it's from the kinetic energy supplied to the protons.

Some actual Farsight theological-like woo !
You're clutching at straws and engaging in wishful thinking, Farsight.

It's pathetic junk that explains nothing at all.

What is a Higgs Boson? video is a nice simple explanation of what the Higgs boson is.
That you cannot understand it and so have to fall back on inane insults is no surprise, Farsight !

People have speculated along these lines for decades, but no actual evidence for a new fundamental particle has shown up.

Actually: People have observed the existence of dark matter for decades and have speculated along these lines for decades, but no actual evidence for a new fundamental particle has shown up.

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.

No connection with dark matter.

He's just being honest.
...snipped a bit of irrelevant paranoia from Farsight...

You need to understand what you read: The quesrion is why is Giudice is concerned about that 1% number in his popular science book?
The science is that the Higgs mechanism should only account for 1% of matter.

Gluons are virtual particles, ...

You do not understand what the phsysics is.
Add up the mass of the quarks in a proton (or neutron) and you do not get the mass of a proton .
A proton is made of 2 up quarks and a down quark (8 to 11 Mev) but has a mass of 938 Mev.

Necleaon get 99% of thir mass:

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.

 

[Reality Check]

It's not as if Higgs or anybody else predicted a boson with a mass of 125GeV years ago. There's been postdiction on that, but not prediction.

Whoops, your ignorance is sort of showing, Farsight !
The Higgs boson was predicted with a mass of 125 Gev years ago. To be more exact

The Minimal Standard Model does not predict the mass of the Higgs boson.[65] If that mass is between 115 and 180 GeV/c2, then the Standard Model can be valid at energy scales all the way up to the Planck scale (1019 GeV).[66]

(emphasis added)

The claim for postdiction is ridulous given the many Higgs-mass predictions

Many physicists hope that the electro-weak Higgs scalar will be observed soon at the LHC. The literature contains a plethora of predictions or upper limits of the Higgs mass based on many different ideas, models and calculational techniques. Privileged among them is the value​

mH = 150 ± 36 GeV currently given by the LEP Electroweak Working Group, because it only relies on precision electro-weak data, non-observation of the Higgs today and the minimal hypothesis that the standard model is correct as it stands.​

In the LHC, protons are accelerated, and are given kinetic energy. The so-called Higgs boson is quite literally made using this energy.

That is right!
Pity that this has nothing to do with the rest mass of the proton being 938 Mev and the masses of the quarks in it making up ~1% of that rest mass.

 

[Reality Check]

And as for what's interacting with what to create this structure, see two-photon physics and note this.

You should note the insanity of implying that an electron is 2 photons.

In case you are ignorant of the fundamental physics that says this is impossible: Photons have spin 1. So a system of 2 photons has spin 0 or spin 1. An electron has a spin of 1/2.



A few more points:

• There are no bound states of 2 photons (that I know of).
• Photons have zero rest mass. Electrons have a rest mass of 511 Kev.
• Photons can any energy so if you locks at the equivalent mass then you have electrons with arbitrary "masses".

 

[Reality Check]

How plain wrong can it be when you can create an electron and a positron from a photon-photon interaction, and annihilate an electron and a positron to get photons?

How plain wrong can it be when you cannot understand that 2 photons ("photon-photon interaction") have a spin of 0 or 1 and so can create an electron and a positron (spin 0 or 1 again). And vice versa.

This has nothing to so with any ignorant implication that an electron is 2 photons. In fact you are disproving your asserton because by your logic, we can annihilate an electron and a positron to get four photons!
This is simple counting, Farsight:

An electron made up of 2 photons + a positon made up of 2 photons = 4 photons.
​

So maybe you are implying that an electron is 1 photon but then fundamental physics that says this is impossible: Photons have spin 1. An electron has a spin of 1/2. No fantasy about a helix will change this.
A few more points:

• Photons have zero rest mass. Electrons have a rest mass of 511 Kev.
• Photons can any energy so if you look at the equivalent mass then you have electrons with arbitrary "masses".

P.S. Dirac structure

...Dirac structure is a maximally isotropic integrable vector subbundle...

But maybe lpetrich was referring to the treatment of electrons as fundamental, structureless particles with quantum spin as in the Dirac equation.

There is a siimple physical reason why the Dirac equation treats the electron as a point particle

When the idea of electron spin was first introduced in 1925, even Wolfgang Pauli had trouble accepting Ralph Kronig's model. The problem was not that a rotating charged particle would have given rise to a magnetic field but that the electron was so small that the equatorial speed of the electron would have to be greater than the speed of light for the magnetic moment to be of the observed strength.
In 1930, Paul Dirac developed a new version of the Wave Equation which was relativistically invariant (unlike Schrödinger's one), and predicted the magnetic moment correctly, and at the same time treated the electron as a point particle. In the Dirac equation all four quantum numbers including the additional quantum number, s arose naturally during its solution.

 

[ben m]

Let me pre-clarify, in case Farsight is paying attention, that when I say "Guidice agrees with the Standard Model", I mean he holds the usual particle-physics position: belief that the methods of modern QFT are sound; belief that SU(3) x SU(2)L x U(1) is correct in the low-energy limit; belief that a new experimental discovery (as opposed to, say, fixing of of a huge previously-unnoticed mistake) will be needed to clarify the high-energy behavior of particles and fields.

What I mean, Farsight, is: don't post something like "Guidice has written about supersymmetry, which is outside the standard model, therefore he doesn't believe in the SM, therefore you're a moron" with the implication "... and I will continue claiming that a CERN physicist agrees that the electron is a bound state of two photons or whatever"

 

[Farsight]

I haven't posted something like that. I told you what Giudice said about the 1%, and that he called it the "toilet" of the standard model. What I didn't tell you is what he meant by that: that it's full of ****.

By the way Jodie posted this up on a time travel thread:

What If the New Particle Isn't the Higgs Boson?

I don't like the way it peddles SUSY the busted flush, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

[Farsight]

Again: why that one wavelength?

Read The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction." A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action h, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. You can see a trace of it in pictures of the electromagentic spectrum. All the waves are the same height. The electromagnetic wave is not wholly dissimilar to gravitational waves that LIGO is trying to detect via length-change. There's a real distance involved. Or a displacement if you prefer. That wavelength is a 2Π multiple of it.

 

[jj]

Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

This kind of insult is really quite rude, and is a professional insult directed at Iptr*.

Furthermore, it's one he does not deserve.

You haven't provided any supporting references, except in a way that runs according to your own special pleadings. You didn't say anything about the spin issue, for instance, after your photon-photon interaction was charbroiled into extinction.

You simply engage in ad-hominem attacks. That looks more like malice than physics to me.

ETA: I see Reality Check has also pointed out one of the fatal flaws in your imagination.

 

[lpetrich]

Read The role of the potentials in electromagnetism by Percy Hammond and see the bit near the end: "We conclude that the field describes the curvature that characterizes the electromagnetic interaction."

That is NOT a literal space-time curvature, but a curvature-like quantity in the electromagnetic fields themselves.

A photon is essentially a singleton electromagnetic wave which is a spatial curvature propagating at c. All electromagnetic waves share the same action h, which has the dimensionality of momentum x distance. You can see a trace of it in pictures of the electromagentic spectrum. All the waves are the same height.

Farsight, you interpret those diagrams as literal-mindedly as a fundie interpreting the Bible.

Those are *schematic* diagrams, and such diagrams are NOT intended to be literal pictures. When you see a line drawing of something, do you then act as if that line drawing is a photographic representation?

The electromagnetic wave is not wholly dissimilar to gravitational waves that LIGO is trying to detect via length-change. There's a real distance involved. Or a displacement if you prefer. That wavelength is a 2Π multiple of it.

More literal-mindedness, this time about the "displacement" in "displacement current".

 

[lpetrich]

I haven't posted something like that. I told you what Giudice said about the 1%, and that he called it the "toilet" of the standard model. What I didn't tell you is what he meant by that: that it's full of ****.

Thumping his statements as if they were quotes from a sacred book. Sheesh.

 

[tsig]

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.

Goalpost moving often accompanies hand waving.

 

[tsig]

Such a strange way of arguing.

a) Contradict a bunch of physicists.
b) Say, "No, my view is obvious"
c) Post an unrelated (but true in context) snippet from a popular or secondary source
d) Say, "See?! See?!" as though your bizarre reading-between-the-lines process results in a truth so obvious you don't have to explain it.

Above: your own words are muddled contrarian gibberish. You leap from one phase suggesting QCD is wrong, to a random quote of experimental facts perfectly consistent with QCD (p pbar -> mesons), a false (or very poorly phrased) non-fact (p pbar -> pure direct photons? Never.), and generic muddleheaded contrarianism ("where are the quark and gluon fields?").

The text you quote from Wikipedia is correct, and indeed this sort of thing is a prediction of the quark/gluon theory of hadrons and more generally of the Standard Model, and it disagrees with you.

Thanks for the analysis, I knew there was somethings wrong with the post but I couldn't put my fingers on them.

 

[tsig]

Aw, you've got nothing. Tell you what, I'll give the physics and the supporting references, you just sit on the sidelines and snipe.

I have to go. Catch you later guys. Apologies if I've missed any salient posts. I'll take a look through the recent part of the thread tomorrow.

They also serve who only sit and snipe.