|
0 members (),
39
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 84 |
Orac,
Thanks for the update.
"What is causing most of the issues here is mixing pre and post Higgs science."
So when did "post Higgs science" begin?
In other words, I should look for this information on websites dated after what year? 2005? 2008?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Better than charlatan religion ... ROFL We know what the one means in fundemental religion 1 = ONE NONE EXISTANT GOD = SEND MORE MONEY TO THE CHURCH
what is the real purpose for the "1" retard?
Whats funny about that response is the your tirade response when I called Socratus that perhaps go an review what you said. But thats right you are religious you never do what you preach bit like all the children molested along the way and covered up by the churches. What I really enjoyed was the maths that 8/0 = 8 I can see your logic if we take 8 normal people represented by 8 and divid them by a non existant GOD represented by zero we still have 8 normal people left. Unfortunately this is just another conclusive proof that your GOD does not exist rather than some mathematical truth. So having proved yet again that you GOD doesn't exist and is therefore an effigy I think we are in the position to say the following Science has proven you believe in a goat humping effigy as a god.
Last edited by Orac; 12/10/12 06:39 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Orac,
Thanks for the update.
"What is causing most of the issues here is mixing pre and post Higgs science."
So when did "post Higgs science" begin?
In other words, I should look for this information on websites dated after what year? 2005? 2008? The Higgs was announced on july 4 2012 but like all scientific theories the Higgs had to pass one of the pillars of scientific discovery that is was consistant with all known data and experiments. The paper showing the Higgs mechanism is consistant with classical physics and GR/SR was published and accepted by the scientific community on Sept 9 2012. http://phys.org/news/2012-09-higgs-boson-landmark-key-hurdle.htmlThe formal document is here http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931200857XI am not sure if it is record but that is a massive number of scientists on the acknowledgement. Some websites and documents were already convinced about the higgs mechanism for quite a few years before this so date may not help. Really most scientific sites will fall into 3 main categories the classical physics, GR/SR era physics and now post Higgs era. What you need to do is work out which scheme they are using for there discussion because you can not mix them.
Last edited by Orac; 12/10/12 06:59 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
You all know the classic physics stuff so lets talk about QM/Standard model phsics in which mass is invariant it is the same in all reference frames there is only one mass the rest mass of an object.
Objects don't become heavier under post higgs standard model as they approach the speed of light they just become heavier because as you add energy it interacts more with the higgs field. The mass of an object moving at the speed of light is still the same it was when the object was at rest it's just harder to accelerate. I think I see what you are saying there. It will take a while for me to get my mind around Higgs science so don't worry too much. After all I have been working on learning the current styles for a long time now. There is one question, and I don't think it is a big one. According to what you say the mass of an object doesn't increase as it speeds up, it just gets harder to push it through the Higgs field, kind of like moving a boat through the water. I assume that the gravitational effect of the object increases. Is this due to a change in the gravitational mass or is it the gravitation of the energy supplied to the object that causes an increase in gravity? I'm not real happy with that question, but hopefully you will understand what I am trying to say. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
What you need to do is work out which scheme they are using for there discussion because you can not mix them. that explains why the math has variable outcomes then. you cant mix real (classical) and fantasy (GR SR)
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Objects don't become heavier under post higgs standard model as they approach the speed of light they just become heavier because as you add energy it interacts more with the higgs field. The mass of an object moving at the speed of light is still the same it was when the object was at rest it's just harder to accelerate.
I think I see what you are saying there. It will take a while for me to get my mind around Higgs science so don't worry too much. After all I have been working on learning the current styles for a long time now.
The Higgs field is nothing special it is a normal field you see the same behaviour in an electric and magnetic fields you would know them as lenz's law and faradays law or back emf. As those laws show that movement in a field is normally resisted or opposed that conservation of energy thing. So the higgs field is simply another sort of field that reacts with quantum spins thus some particles see the field others do not giving the mass properties to the differenet particles and movement is opposed.
Is this due to a change in the gravitational mass or is it the gravitation of the energy supplied to the object that causes an increase in gravity?
The gravity issue has not been resolved with the Higgs mechanism and standard model it is not a theory of everything it does not answer the questions on gravity. The problem lies in the fact gravity is so weak and since the Higgs boson effect could mix with the scalar graviton, since there is no reason to forbid a coupling of the Higgs field to the gravitational scalar curvature it may or may not play a role in gravity. Theoretically gravity could be yet another field with a much weaker interaction it is sort of envisaged that way in the standard model or it could be a more exotic effect. In the standard model gravity is carried by a theoretical particle the graviton and it would interact either thru a new field or with the existing fields. We are less than 6 months into a new era when we have added in another force and there will be many many tests on the Higgs field to try and isolate it and probably at that point we will be in a much better position to speculate on gravity. The Higgs field and it's mass effects had wrongly been classed as gravity and this has hindered the understanding of gravity. I suspect the next couple of years will narrow gravity possibilities down and ultimately lead to conclusive tests similar to how science hunted down the Higgs.
Last edited by Orac; 12/10/12 04:58 PM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
I am assuming that you can detect the difference in the gravitational field of a particle moving near the speed of light. After all that was the intent of the math that Bill S. started this thread off on. Is that correct that the gravitational mass will increase with the relative mass?
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
ogoat some particles see the field others do not what they should do ( the einstonnedians ) is have the particles that cannot see properly see an optometrist so that they can get fitted with a nice comfortable pair of glasses or contacts to wear.  if you were to wear glasses you might be able to see that it is your god ( science ) that is humping you.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
In talking about "post Higgs science" are we jumping the gun a bit?
My impression was that the preferred terminology was to talk of the discovery as "a Higgs-like particle", or am I sadly out of date?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
That an effigy of you goat humping GOD paul?
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
In talking about "post Higgs science" are we jumping the gun a bit?
My impression was that the preferred terminology was to talk of the discovery as "a Higgs-like particle", or am I sadly out of date? Ok go back to why they built the LHC, I was going to do a number of links but wikipedia covers it as well as anything the first paragraph and the first summary box http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
Physicists believe that the electroweak interaction "divides" into two very different forces which act on different particles (electromagnetism and the weak force). This is known as 'symmetry breaking'. Although believed proven to happen, for many years it seemed impossible to find a way to explain it without 'breaking' other parts of particle physics. The Higgs mechanism is one way it could happen, if the right kind of circumstances exist. (More exactly, the Higgs mechanism is a description of how, given the right kind of field, gauge-dependent expressions for some particles' mass can arise even in a gauge-invariant theory and despite Goldstone's theorem).
The current preferred theory of how the Higgs mechanism happens for the electroweak interaction. Physicists think that a kind of unseen energy field (the Higgs field) exists throughout space that is responsible for these things. So far there is considerable evidence rather than proof. If this field exists, it would have a related particle, which would be a previously unknown type of boson. The field can be proven to exist and scientists can learn about it, by finding and examining the boson instead. Slightly different versions of the theory (known as "extensions") would allow the details of the Higgs field and number of related Higgs bosons to differ. If the Higgs boson is not found and the Higgs field does not exist then other ("Higgsless") approaches would be needed to explain how the Higgs mechanism happens.
The massive and fleetingly short-lived boson associated with a Higgs field. The existence of a Higgs boson would confirm the Higgs field exists, which in turn proves how the Higgs mechanism actually takes place. Further studies would still be needed to test which model among the Standard Model and its extensions best describes the experimental findings. At present as of 2012, a particle has been detected but not yet tested fully to show if it is a Higgs boson.
So if you accept the LHC found the Higgs you accept there is a Higgs field you don't get one without the other it's what the LHC was setup to test. The reason for discussing a Higgs like particle is the decay in some of the channels were a bit off enough for ever cautious scientists did not want to declare it the exact standard model higgs. The 2012 HCP conference has just finished and Resonaances has a nice summary http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/higgs-whats-new.htmlThe bottom line of that is the new boson is depressingly boring and looking exactly like the standard model higgs. So as scientists we basically now have to accept there is a Higgs boson and a Higgs field. We know there must be physics beyond this because we still don't have gravity involved so it's not the end of the story by a long way.
Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 12:33 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
if you were to wear glasses you might be able to see that it is
your god ( science ) that is humping you.
so I increased the text size so you can see the text without glasses.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
The relevant question now is whether the observed properties of the new particle match those of the standard model Higgs. From that point of view, today's update brought some new developments, all of them depressing. badabingbadabang To summarize, many particle theorists were placing their bets that Higgs physics is the most likely place where new physics may show up. Unfortunately, the simplest and most boring version of the Higgs predicted by the standard model is emerging from the LHC data. It may be the right time to start scanning job ads in condensed matter or neuroscience ;-) 
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Poor Paul his GOD has been proven time and time again not to exist so he gets ever more desperate :-) There is a reasonable history of your god available on the net http://www.invisibleoranges.com/2011/11/a-condensed-history-of-goat-worship/I personally like the circa 100 BC version I am sure it is fairly apt for your GOD. Trading insults isn't going to make your GOD exist Paul no matter how much you try. Your GOD was irrelevant before and it will remain irrelevant no matter how much you rant, you just look like a desperate raving religious nutter :-)
Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 04:00 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311 |
May take me a while to find it, Bill, but have patience: I,m trying. (Very!). I had to say that before someone else did. No, Bill S, I do not find you very "trying". But what I do find very trying is: much of the book of Revelation, the book of Daniel and the writings of particle physicists. 
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
But at least you don't have trouble with science Rev K because your religion puts GOD firmly outside science so you don't need science to show it exists :-)
This is the trap and problem for these fundementalists that they need and expect science to show GOD exists and when it doesn't and makes there GOD vanish they blame science.
I have no problem with fundementalists until they start trying to dictate things to science based around there understanding of GOD.
What I find interesting is they exhibit almost all the traits that supposedly is evil like lying, deception, intolerance etc in their attacks on science.
I have very little time for these people and their GOD because they epitomise everything that is evil and wrong in the world. If there is a thing called Satan these fundementalists would be it's cheerleader.
It is interesting that I can have pleasant and meaningful discussion with you a very religious person which I can not have with fundementalists which I think is a function that their GOD hangs literally on every answer.
Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 05:02 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
|
|
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 |
Okay, can we now get back to more science? Both of you are acting like children in playschool. Get with the science, and off the religion kick, or suffer the consequences.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
That is impossible with Paul in a thread he makes up his science and now maths .. walk back up a couple of posts.
Now 8/0 = 8 how can you even begin to discuss science with these sorts of basis.
So if your going to growl and threaten us about religion then do your job and moderate out anything that is not standard science or maths ... HELL THATS ALL I HAVE BEEN ASKING.
If you can't moderate out non science and mathematics then don't complain if it degenerates into a religous slanging match because it's the only common basis we have.
For Paul, GOD made the world all facts and understandings must be converted to meet that fact there is no other possibility ... how do you propose we reconcile that basis with scientific basis?
Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 05:17 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249 |
But at least you don't have trouble with science Rev K because your religion puts GOD firmly outside science so you don't need science to show it exists :-) That's hilarious.. 
It is interesting that I can have pleasant and meaningful discussion with you a very religious person which I can not have with fundementalists which I think is a function that their GOD hangs literally on every answer.
You're conversation so far hasn't been about science or God, but religion. Maybe that's why? Religion could be applied to either science or God.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
I have no problem with that TT in some ways science is a religion and like any religion we have commandments and rules.
At the end of the day this is supposed to be a science forum and thus it should follow science conventions otherwise rename it to NON SCIENCE A GO GO or NSAGG.
Rose needs to decided which we are and moderate accordingly. If she isn't prepared to moderate out Non Science then religion is the only common ground and is fair go as far as I am concerned because it is the only thing to discuss.
Last edited by Orac; 12/11/12 05:32 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
|
