Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 368 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 10 of 17 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 17 >
Topic Options
#47349 - 01/05/13 03:22 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Thanks Orac, that almost made sense. I will let it sit in the back of my mind and cure for a while. Maybe someday I will actually begin to get a feel for it.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
.
#47386 - 01/07/13 12:29 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
So now we have a spinning field across an area of spacetime and spacetime itself isn't spinning so we are getting closer......

Bill S the above may help you with your thinking about whether a field is inside or outside spacetime.....


I have no problem visualising a field that's spinning across an area of spacetime that is stationary. In fact that's easier than trying to imagine spacetime spinning.

You use the word "across" rather than "in", presumably because it implies neither in nor out. I suspect that I should be able to infer something from this, but the cogs aint turnin.

As far as the temperature experiment is concerned, I felt, after reading the article, that their conclusions could not have any application in the real world. Your couples world seems to confirm that.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47387 - 01/07/13 12:35 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
At risk of appearing a pest, I would like to come back to a point from earlier on which I would appreciate a comment.

If the Higgs field is linked to inflation it must have been created in the first instant of the Big Bang.

If the Higgs field is the inflaton it must have preceded the start of inflation.

If it is not the inflaton it could have been created after inflation started, and might have been the influence that "stopped" the initial fast inflation.


Is there any accepted theory as to whether or not the Higgs field is the inflaton?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47390 - 01/07/13 02:02 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

You use the word "across" rather than "in", presumably because it implies neither in nor out. I suspect that I should be able to infer something from this, but the cogs aint turnin.


Correct I used the word across to not imply either in or out and apply a bit of logic at this point

There are 3 options

1. The field is in spacetime
2. The field is out of spacetime
3. The field is in and out of spacetime

Think carefully about the exchanges neccessary especially think about what is happening as a pole magnetic builds up and read about inductive lag.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

As far as the temperature experiment is concerned, I felt, after reading the article, that their conclusions could not have any application in the real world. Your couples world seems to confirm that.


Correct it only has application in an area of spacetime that you can bring under proper and precise QM control.

It is useful in that it is proof that QM has correctly identified what temperature is and it may be useful for other QM tests.


Edited by Orac (01/07/13 02:02 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47391 - 01/07/13 02:30 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
At risk of appearing a pest, I would like to come back to a point from earlier on which I would appreciate a comment.


Asking serious question is never a pest to me

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If the Higgs field is linked to inflation it must have been created in the first instant of the Big Bang.


That we can't answer yet. The reason is quite simple the temperatures and forces at the intial start point are very very different to now. You enter a domain we think resembles a Quark-gluon soup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_gluon_plasma

The LHC is do modifications to probe this area

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-large-hadron-collider-hiatus-stage.html

One of the not really hyped portions of the standard model (as opposed to the media hype around the higgs) is that it makes another prediction called QCD matter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter

You you will probably have to wait until 2015 to get the answer you seek.


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If the Higgs field is the inflaton it must have preceded the start of inflation.

If it is not the inflaton it could have been created after inflation started, and might have been the influence that "stopped" the initial fast inflation.


They are the very sort of questions the LHC is setting up to probe as of right now I can only offer speculation.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Is there any accepted theory as to whether or not the Higgs field is the inflaton?


The Higgs is not accepted as the inflationary driver it's value is to low at 125Gev. It would need to be in the range 129 GeV-195 GeV to be the driver (I will see if I can dig up a simple reference for you).

There are people playing with 125Gev driver models such as hill-top potential in sensor-scalar gravity (I.Masina, A.Notar) and a few other notable works but most have given up on the idea.


PS .... CHEATS FOR BILL.S IF YOU WANT :

If an electrical charge is moved, the effects on another charge do not appear instantaneously. The first charge feels a reaction force, picking up momentum, but the second charge feels nothing until the influence, traveling at the speed of light, reaches it and gives it the momentum. Where is the momentum before the second charge moves? By the law of conservation of momentum it must be somewhere. This utility leads to physicists believing that electromagnetic fields actually exist, making the field concept a supporting paradigm of the entire edifice of modern physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved_spacetime


The most striking application of the theory is Hawking's prediction that Schwarzschild black holes radiate with a thermal spectrum. A related prediction is the Unruh effect: accelerated observers in the vacuum measure a thermal bath of particles

This formalism is also used to predict the primordial density perturbation spectrum arising from cosmic inflation, i.e. the Bunch–Davies vacuum. Since this spectrum is measured by a variety of cosmological measurements—such as the CMB -- if inflation is correct this particular prediction of the theory has already been verified.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

In December 2012, a research team in China announced that it had produced findings which seem to prove that the the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. The team's findings were due to be released in a journal in 2013 ... Stay tuned

You should now be able to guess which of your 3 options science believes in.


Edited by Orac (01/07/13 07:05 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47401 - 01/07/13 04:14 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Speed of gravity initial press release still hasn't been picked up by mainstream yet

http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2013/01/scientists-find-evidence-speed-gravity

I will see if I can dig you up some good higgs inflation data out in public later today.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47405 - 01/07/13 08:50 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Thanks again, Orac. Quite a lot to wade through; but "I'll be back." to quote a famous American politician. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47428 - 01/09/13 01:26 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
The Higgs is not accepted as the inflationary driver it's value is to low at 125Gev.


What about the possibility that it could have been the thing that put the brake on inflation?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47439 - 01/09/13 10:39 AM Re: Mass & Velocity : docsity.com [Re: Bill S.]
SunnyXX Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 01/07/13
Posts: 5
Well it is not true that light has zero mass, according to quantum mechanics theory light is composed up of photons which surely have some weight.

http://us.docsity.com/en-video/Wave_Theo...ecture_18_of_25

Top
#47459 - 01/09/13 10:41 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
I feel as though I'm getting a bit bogged down with the Higgs issue, possibly because I'm not able to spend a reasonable length of time on it. Coming back for a few minutes now and again is certainly not the best approach.

I'm going to try recapping a few things - one at a time.

Orac, I suspect you are going to disagree with this one, but it's just a thought, out there for comment.

The question arises as to how much difference the discovery of the Higgs particle might make to the future of physics. At an intuitive level this would seem to depend to some extent on the nature of the discovered particle/field. The Higgs has been a theoretical part of the standard model for a few decades, and a lot of work has been done on it. If the Higgs is as per standard model, it seems reasonable to suppose that its discovery would make very little difference to the immediate course of physics. On the other hand, if it turns out that the Higgs is very different from predictions, or if there turned out to be more than one Higgs particle, there would need to be quite a lot of rethinking of theories.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47463 - 01/10/13 07:54 AM Re: Mass & Velocity : docsity.com [Re: SunnyXX]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: SunnyXX
Well it is not true that light has zero mass, according to quantum mechanics theory light is composed up of photons which surely have some weight.



Incorrect Sunny QM predicts the value of a photon to be zero.

Just read the wikipedia entry it's quite good

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

The easiest way to view photons for a layman I think was expressed by Prof Matt Strassler. Photons since they have no mass, they have no mass-energy, and that means their energy is “purely motion-energy”.

If you prefer you can think of photons having relativistic mass if it helps you with simplification.

It's all a conceptual simplification howvere you can not attribute classical concepts like mass to things that are not classical.


Edited by Orac (01/10/13 09:12 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47464 - 01/10/13 08:49 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If the Higgs is as per standard model, it seems reasonable to suppose that its discovery would make very little difference to the immediate course of physics.


So first and importantly they discovered a higgs and they have determined its mass at 125-126GeV. The two facts are equally important.

Ok pre the discovery of the Higgs here are the 96 theories predicting a Higgs particle. Any theory predicting that there was no higgs including hundreds of string theory variants was immediately invalidated.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.3344.pdf

So although the standard model existed before the higgs scientists spent time discussing literally hundreds of theories as well as the standard model.

In fact if you remember my prediction I said no higgs because I liked a variants of string theory not the standard model.

So the falsification of hundreds of theories is actually good for science because it settles alot of arguments and thoughts. It may damage a few egos along the way but it means we are not wasting time testing and arguing about tests on hundreds of different theories.

Ethan put up a good discussion on the compaction

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/17/have-we-reached-the-end-of-particle-physics/

So it actually works the other way to what you think these moments of compactions in fields actually aid science because we don't waste time discussing and experimenting and arguing over things that are clearly wrong.

Thus the field advances much faster in these periods because there is only a few theories left that havent been falsified.

So yes the standard model was around before the higgs discovery but it was not universally accepted I was testiment to that. Post the higgs we know that whatever theory comes next must be at a minimum compatable with the standard model and then it will expand out to explain new stuff the standard model doesn't.



Edited by Orac (01/10/13 08:52 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47476 - 01/10/13 03:41 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Any theory predicting that there was no higgs including hundreds of string theory variants was immediately invalidated.


I assume there are still plenty of string theory variants left that include the Higgs.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47481 - 01/10/13 10:45 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
I see in Matt Stassler's report from the Higgs Symposium that the question as to whether the Higgs might be the driver of inflation is still alive.

Anyone have any thoughts on the possibility that the Higgs might be a composite particle?

"Riccardo Rattazzi (professor at EPFL in Lausanne, who has shown up on this blog a couple of times before, here and here) then gave a beautiful talk about the possibility that the Higgs particle is a composite object, the way the proton is a composite object made from smaller things. This possibility is now highly constrained, but not ruled out yet; for it to work presumably requires that the matter particles of the world (the quarks and leptons) are partly composite (meaning they are mixtures of elementary particles and composite particles.)"
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47486 - 01/11/13 04:06 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I assume there are still plenty of string theory variants left that include the Higgs.


You would be correct but as with Prof Riccardo Rattazzi above they adjust there theories so they are not excluded but in the process they lose the reasons for the original belief.

What I am getting at we can all change things so the net result is consistant even in mathematics 2 + 2 = 4 becomes 2 + 1 + 1 = 4 but you have to have some fundemental basis for the change if you get what I mean.

I personally think many of these are adjustments are just random and some scientists are doing it rather than facing the more inevitable conclusion that there initial line of thinking was wrong.
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47487 - 01/11/13 11:42 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Leo Vuyk Offline
Member

Registered: 10/29/07
Posts: 47
Higgs Composite or not.

If the Higgs is able to deform then you could make all ather particle out of it,

see 3D alternative standard particle model:
http://vixra.org/abs/1103.0002

Top
#47490 - 01/11/13 03:51 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/31/10
Posts: 1858
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Originally Posted By: Orac

I personally think many of these are adjustments are just random and some scientists are doing it rather than facing the more inevitable conclusion that there initial line of thinking was wrong.

Just to put in my 2 cents worth. I have had my doubts about string theory for a long time. Ever since I read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It seemed to me to be just too complex, and they had no way to come up with anything that matched our universe. But at the same time all the work that has gone in to string theory has paid off in other ways. Matt Strassler has credited the mathematical techniques developed by the string theory crowd with enabling the massive data processing required by the LHC to detect the Higgs particle. So while I never have believed in string theory it has led to some very practical uses.

Bill Gill
_________________________
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.

Top
#47491 - 01/11/13 04:01 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Leo Vuyk]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Leo I not being unkind or seeking to discourage you because you have put in alot of time into your theory but can I make some comments and some things to think about

1.) The motivation or idea behind seems to almost be 3D geometry shapes. My criticism is you are attempting to make non classic QM objects real and 3D.

If you understand anything of QM you should realise such concepts as shape are completely foreign to a virtual particle and nonsensical. Show me any reference that says a virtual particle has any shape other than a point filling some area of space as defined by a probability table .. so how does it suddenly become a 3D shape and solid in your theory?


2.) Secondly unless I am misunderstanding you there is a massive problem with introducing an actual 3D shape to particles called Bell's Inequality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Bell_inequalities

We know Bell's inequality and it shows there is no local reality for two observers and now you are introducing a 3D object into this and expecting ALL OBSERVERS to see the same spin.

To do this you need to defeat Bells Inequality and here is the challenge to do so

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168

Joy Christian had a similar geometric idea and if you want understanding of what happens to an actual scientist who refuse to accept an absolute falsification read his story.

So unless I misundertsand your theory about introducing a actual 3D shape you have a massive problem with QM.


Finally I am going to give you a thought problem that was given to Einstein.

We have two like eletric charges seperated by some distance or two repelling magnets if you prefer those. I rapidly move one charge or one magnet towards the other we know that the first movement occurs and the change starts the second object moving at a slight time difference being the time light takes to travel from the moved object to the second object .... WHY?

I can give you the religious version that god sees you move the first object and he waits for the speed of light time before he then moves the second but you are into physics so explain to me how the transfer of object 1 momentum to object 2 works with your theory?

See this becomes an intersting problem when you want to make particles REAL AND SOLID because I should be able to observe the interaction and it is what caused Einstein no end of problems.


Edited by Orac (01/11/13 04:44 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#47535 - 01/13/13 06:58 PM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
If we are dealing with magnets the situation becomes complicated by overcoming inertia, which looks as though it is the answer to the question.

Let's stick with two electric charges. Call them A & B. I move A towards B, thus imparting momentum to A.

B cannot know that A has moved before a message, travelling no faster than light, has time to reach it.

I think the question you are asking is: where is the momentum before B starts to move?

The only answer I can think of is that it exists as a distortion of the electromagnetic field between A and B.

This, of course, raises another issue: elsewhere we have considered a disturbance in a field to be a particle.

Does the momentum become a particle when passing from A to B?

Is it a particle or a virtual particle?

Is there a difference?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#47542 - 01/14/13 01:14 AM Re: Mass & Velocity [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

If we are dealing with magnets the situation becomes complicated by overcoming inertia, which looks as though it is the answer to the question.


No it doesn't the magnets don't ever touch and the second magnet can clearly be shown to start moving the speed of light time distance between the two. So it doesn't change the problem how does the second magnet know to start when to start moving how does a field do this????

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

The only answer I can think of is that it exists as a distortion of the electromagnetic field between A and B.


How can the field distort all you have done is moved A. You are turning the field into GOD and it now knows whats going on.

How would a field know if one half of what the field is established between is moving how does it exchange this information??????

See the problem smile


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

This, of course, raises another issue: elsewhere we have considered a disturbance in a field to be a particle.

Does the momentum become a particle when passing from A to B?



And now you are getting closer to understanding what QM says that there are virtual photons continually exchanging between the two charges or two magnets it is what a field is.

The momentum does indeed become series of virtual particles under Quantum field theory and the speed of arrival at the speed of light makes it obvious for the arrival time of movement.

So this raises a question is the concept of virtual photon exchanges just a mathematical tool since you can never see them?

Physicists Hendrik B. G. Casimir and Dirk Polder were the first to actually work out how one may be able to see the particles at work we call it the casmir effect.

The rest as they say is history we moved through to calculations and experiments etc and end up at a fully fledged Quantum Field Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory

The only real change was

Quote:

In QFT, photons are not thought of as "little billiard balls" but are rather viewed as field quanta – necessarily chunked ripples in a field, or "excitations", that "look like" particles. Fermions, like the electron, can also be described as ripples/excitations in a field, where each kind of fermion has its own field.


And hence you end up with the view that no particle is real and solid


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Is it a particle or a virtual particle?

Is there a difference?


To me no, but to many they still like the idea that a particle is real and solid like small billiard ball hurtling thru space.


Edited by Orac (01/14/13 01:16 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 10 of 17 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 16 17 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.