Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Mass & Velocity

The better question is the Higgs the only hidden particle remember we still have gravity that we can't explain and we haven't yet seen a graviton in our wire frame world.



The speed of light limit only exists inside our lattice universe there is no reason a higher limit can't exist outside it.


Physic.org has an article about the work we are talking about unfortunately to layman it doesn't really say much but you could try and read what you can of the referenced paper.

http://phys.org/news/2012-12-physicists-quantum-entanglement.html



Again the proper question is does time exist outside our universe but we will pick this as we get along a bit. We need to cover some ground first. Unless you want me to brute force it for you but we need to get thru Energy really first.

What we are sort of doing here is pasting together a post-higgs universe none of us can give you the exact science that will come in years to come. All I can really do at this level is sort of paint a broad image.

When thinking about how possible is the story we have created above perhaps it is best illustrated with an image. Try looking at the real hologram image from a cobalt crystal (http://physics.aps.org/story/v3/st34)

I looked at the holographic image, and was quite impressed, but I'm not at all sure that I get the link with the discussion about the Higgs, mass, velocity etc.

I have just extracted from this thread the bits that seem to be of value to me in terms of scientific learning. It will probably not surprise anyone to learn that it amounts to a relatively small proportion of the thread, but the encouraging thing is that we seem to be moving away from the slagging, and back towards sane discussion. Lets try to keep it that way, so there will be hope for a positive future.

In my search for clarification of my original question about longitudinal and transverse motion I found a simple explanation of wave propagation.

http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/waves/wavemotion.html

It may be a bit elementary for most, but I liked it.

Sorry I was sort of pre-empting a question which students usually ask which surprised me noone here did which is how much space is there in a solid.

There next question that is usually asked and I am sort of surprised Bill Gill didn't ... you have our world the Higgs ocean how does energy work between the two?

Bill S, in your signature you say:Is this the same as saying:There always was something? Any idea, from Orac or anyone, what that "something"" was?

The easy answers must be "God" and "don't know", but neither of those leaves much room for scientific debate, so I suggest "the cosmos" as a starting point, but we all know where that leads.

An answer that keeps me happy is this: In the beginning, just before the creation of matter, the collective we--which I symbolize as GÕD--got so bored with being perfect that we decided to take some risks and have some fun.

Thus we, as philosophers (especially theologians), scientists and artists created--and became one with every vibrating particle of the raw material we call the cosmos. Out of this came prehistory, ancient history, modern history and the NOW--warts and all.

Right NOW, IMO, we are busy creating the illusion that I call the future.

Whether or not it is a cruel and unhappy illusion, or one filled with all that is Good, Orderly and Desirable moving in a Good, Opportune and Dynamic Direction is up to--and here WE GO--WEEEEEEEEEEE!

The symbolic bored God approach... how unique.

Unlike the wrathfull God, The emotional God, or the......

Always some kind of human insufficiency

Hmm still couldn't get anyone to pick up the Energy argument and run with it.

Lets see if we can re-ignite some interest ... lets start here

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...-yet-some-dont/

It's an interesting discussion .. why are some particles stable and others not.

Finally binding energy

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...hings-together/

Thanks Orac. The first link was pretty clear, but I am going to have to study the second one some more before I catch on.

Bill Gill

Matt Stassler is always worth a read.

Time's short, so I shall probably have to take it a bit at a time. Couple of questions from the first one to start with.

"Mass Energy of Particle 1 = Mass Energy of Particle 2 + Motion Energy of Particle 2"

Does the Motion Energy of particle 2 come from the action of decay?

"Since motion energy is positive, particle 2 must have mass energy less than or equal to the mass energy of particle 1."

“Less than” seems OK, but how could energy/momentum be conserved if mass energy of 1 = mass energy of 2, but only 2 has motion energy?

I suspect there will be lots more questions, but let’s get these out of the way

Presumably the "collective we" is an eternal entity. Are you happy with a division in eternity?

Entity. It is a complex concept, agreed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity
ME? I assume we are in eternity, NOW. If this is so, so far, I am happy. How about you?

BTW, would you like to rephrase your question?

=======================

Dictionary.com says:

It's what he calls the "Now"

Finally one of you has picked up on the issue ... now lets go back to our Higgs discussion.

In all our classic physics we killed the idea of absolute space because we realised we can only talk about relative terms of things.

But our relativistic mass as proposed by the Higgs mechanism gives us an absolute reference for the rise of relativistic mass. We are saying that relativistic mass arises from the relative movement of mass in this universe from the Higgs ocean or in the Higgs field whichever way you like to look at it.

So the higgs field or higgs ocean is an absolute reference frame and the question that opens up is that frame stationary?

We have ourself a new bucket argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument)

See there is a problem if the higgs ocean or higgs field is itself rotating for example it would be passing thru our matter and what would have a consequence.

We have a field we understand and study to look at what would happen

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


The second issue is not just the issue of relative motion of decay but what actually is decay. The bottom of that question is are virtual particles actually real because decay of a real thing has implications, if particles are truely virtual then like a rainbow they can simply disolve but reality is a bit more tricky.

The corollary to those 2 questions can be bound in what Bill S asked why do particles motion behave the way they do when they decay. Think for example how a comet breaks up in space and compare that to particle decay.

Here is Matts answer
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-an...cles-decay-why/

Bonus points if you spot the problem :-)

Orac, I've not had time to follow the links yet, but my initial impression is that you are saying that if the Higgs field is not stationary, in an absolute sense, the masses of particles would vary depending on their direction of travel through the Higgs field?

I am not saying it is, I am challenging you to think ... if it was moving which it is not forbidden in the standard model what would happen?



And now you have realised the implication you get mass without needing anything extra.

These sorts of thoughts are not new ... if we look at the proposed origins of mass

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

We get theories that involve gravity and those that don't. If they don't involve gravity then gravity is a fictional force that arises from some other mechanism.

As I said if you accept the Higgs exists like scientists do then you have to accept far more than just the particle and we can start to narrow things down.

Basically I am getting you to start doing what the scientists of the future will be pondering because we can start to refine and reject theories.

I am also trying to stretch your thinking with energy.

If we accept the higgs mechanism exists then it gives rise to relativistic mass. E=Mc2 so it opens a question, does quantum spin equal energy? This goes back to that question is energy real?

What I have hopefully showed you in all this is although the mathematics and theory behind QM may be complex in the same way as much in science it can be simplified down so anyone can pose reasonably basic questions it is not as complex as people imagine.

If the way the interaction is measured is observer dependent, so that what matters is the relative velocities between observer and observed, would this not keep the whole thing in line with special relativity?

Yep thats the general idea.

See these concepts even catch the experts out and even professors :-)

http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/10/15/why-the-higgs-and-gravity-are-unrelated/

Matt goes to an elaborate explaination to prove the Higgs can't be gravity but he has an underlying assumption that the Higgs isn't itself moving.

My guess is in line with Matts that gravity is a different force but I emphasise it is a guess not a fact and one must be very careful to look at what the guesses are based on.

The article cause quite a stir within some sectors of science :-)