Joining the effort to drag this forum back in the direction of science, perhaps someone could help me to get to grips with the following.


“If a heavy object with rest mass M moves past you with a velocity comparable to the speed of light, you will be attracted gravitationally towards its path as though it had an increased mass.”

No problem so far. I assume this is due to the mass/energy equivalence.

“If the relativistic increase in active gravitational mass is measured by the transverse (and longitudinal) velocities which such a moving mass induces in test particles initially at rest near its path, then we find, with this definition, that M (rel) = gamma (1+beta sq.)M.”

The maths got the better of me at this point. How are gamma & beta defined?

Would I be right in thinking that the active gravitational mass is the mass that gives rise to gravity, as distinct from the passive gravitational mass, which is acted upon by gravity? Is there really a difference?

“Therefore, in the ultrareletavistic limit…”

What is the ultrareletavistic limit?

“…the active gravitational mass of a moving body, measured in this way, is not gamaM but is approximately 2gamaM.”

How does one arrive at this answer?.

As simply as possible please.

Where did you get that? I have no idea what gamma and beta are, maybe if I saw the source I might be able to figure out some of it.

Bill Gill

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.

Eureka!

Not only was that quicker than I thought it would be; I found the whole article, so I may be able to make something of it myself.

http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/mass_articles/Olson_Guarino_1985.pdf

From the look of some of those equations, though, I wouldn't hold out too much hope.

It seems that gamma - as in gammaM - represents the increase in relativistic mass with increasing speed.

One step in the right direction!

I think the opposite would be true.

the time exposure would be a very large factor in determining
the amount of force you would feel.

if something moves past you at the speed of light , you probably would never feel it or see it.

f=ma

a = f/m


186 thousand miles per second and the amount of space that you
take up along with your mass , you might not even budge at all.

just think of the distance to the moon each second.
the moon is apx 180,000 miles away.
the force that you would feel would be a gradient from
0 - what ever the gravity is of the mass
then for 186,000th of a second you would feel the full force of its gravity.
then after the 186,000th of a second the gradient decreases back to 0

if you were floating in space you would begin to accelerate slightly
(that would all depend on the mass its velocity , your mass and its distance from you.)
but any resistance to movement here on earth would probably be greater that the moving mass could supply as a gravitational force to accelerate you.


note: I don't believe that a mass increases with velocity.

you can try this with two magnets.

hold 1 in each hand.

now very quickly move one of them past the other.

now try the same thing only move it much slower.

I know that the above is magnetic not gravitational just
in case someone wanted to point that out to me.

I am trying to not leave myself open to those obvious replies.

something else to ponder.

if a bullet were traveling at the speed of light
in space , I would be more willing to believe that the bullet
would be compressed into an even smaller size.

now , if I build my spaceship thinking that it will compress vs expand at c then it wont implode.

note: just for those who might comment on the fact that
there isn't much in space to cause the ship to compress
I will reply that at c there might be plenty.

even in our accelerators where we consider it a vacuum there
are plenty of particles inside , we have never made a complete vacuum.

and at c running into those particles would tend to compress a spaceship.

Paul, do you recognise a distinction between relativistic mass and invariant mass?

My understanding is that when physicists talk of mass increasing with speed, they are talking about relativistic mass, which is, as I understand it, a measure of an object's inertia. I agree with you that invariant mass does not increase with speed, but I am quite happy to accept that inertia increases with speed. If physicists choose to refer to this as an increase in mass, I want to know why that is preferable to simply referring to it as increased inertia.

Unless we know why people use specific terms, and what those terms mean to those who use them, we are unlikely to achieve any meaningful dialogue.

Bill S: "I am quite happy to accept that inertia increases with speed."


That's why photons have a gravitational field, even though their rest mass is zero.

Thanks for the link; http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/mass_articles/Olson_Guarino_1985.pdf

A photon is a quon, so how can we know anything about its gravitational field without a quantum theory of gravity?

no I don't recognize relativistic mass or invariant mass.

I only recognize mass and rest mass



I also recognize inertia and moment of inertia.

I don't recognize any of the relatives of einstein.



no info here , good luck with that.

I try very hard to stick with the way things work , and
its pretty easy for me to see when people are jiggling
things around to meet a predefined goal.

note: if you are planning to take a course in physics then
Im affraid that you must fill your brains with the relative nonsense just like you did in high school taking algebra.

so you might want to learn that junk for that purpose only
it like algebra will never pan out in a real life situation.

and of course it might make you look smart on discussion forums.

Bill S,

It is my understanding that anything with momentum has (relativistic) mass and mass is
the source of a gravitational field.

I think that is the basics and the "details" need to be figured out.

I hope I'm not behind the times. 8^)

Ok, I read the paper, well I tried to read the paper. I didn't understand the paper at all, but I think I am getting the hang of what it was about. I don't know if a description will be much help, but I will try.

Basically the authors were trying to describe a method of calculating the mass of a particle traveling near the speed of light by measuring the displacement of a reference particle that was motionless in an appropriate frame of reference. They point out that if particle M, the moving particle, is in orbit around particle m, the stationary particle, calculating the mass of M is relatively simple, there is already a method for making the calculation available.

But if M is just passing m, then there are some problems. The significant one is that as M passes m then the direction of M's motion will be changed. The change in direction of course requires an acceleration, and there will be some gravitational radiation produced by the acceleration. This means that the energy of M will be decreased by the amount of energy contained in the radiation. That of course is the same thing as a decrease in in the relativistic mass, so it has to be compensated for in the calculation. I don't know whether the calculation in the paper is supposed to give the relativistic mass of M before or after it is perturbed by m.

Since I don't at all understand the math that is the best I could come up with. I hope it helps.

Bill Gill

I'm going to have to think through this one as I write, so bear with me.

The problem with the difference between mass and inertia is that it is very difficult to separate the 2. Here is a brief discussion of the matter from Wikipedia.



In particular I point to the quote "And at the same time mass was the quantitative measure of inertia of a body." So that to some extent mass and inertia are interchangeable.

But there is also the question of gravitational mass. Gravitational mass is the measure of how strongly a mass M attracts other masses. So there are 2 different definitions of mass, Inertial Mass and Gravitational Mass. But there doesn't seem to be any way to separate them. So that to some extent inertia and mass are exactly the same thing. I assume that most scientists have chosen to use mass instead of inertia because it is more familiar. We have a kind of instinct for what mass is, since we move masses around all the time, but inertia is not quite as intuitively obvious.

Back to your quote from the top of this answer. I'm not sure that there is such a thing as an "invariant mass". The mass (or inertia) of an object will vary continuously as its speed with respect to any frame of reference varies. I think you are thinking of the invariant mass as the rest mass, but once again that will only be the mass of the object if it has a velocity of 0 with respect to the frame of reference. But that is a special case, not a representative case. We tend to use a lot of short hand for things like that, but that does produce some minor inconsistencies. In fact as far as I can see the use of the term relativistic mass is short hand that means: it is traveling with sufficient speed that we are able to measure the difference in mass.

Hope that confuses you enough.

Bill Gill

I haven't read the paper.



you would never measure it , if you are dealing with particles.
binary solar systems could not even produce a measurable amount.

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Boughn/boughn.html



note: I just posted the above because you guys believe that junk.

if you are considering massive object's then you should use
massive object's vs particles.



Ms - 0 = Ms

no loss in the state of M



and you guys consider relativistic mass as
mass x velocity
or
the momentum of an object
or
the inertia of an object.

you just use different words.

so, this is where I have to ask , what are you guys trying to accomplish?

is the relativity and Qm junk a part of the duming down process?
the intentional / deliberate dumbing down of people's ability to perform intellectually.

the gravitational influence that m places on M
will cause the inertia of M to increase.

increasing M's inertia increases it's kinetic energy.

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

And if you are planning to join a fundementalist religion all you have to do is take your brain out of your head and all your money out and donate them at the door.

After all wouldn't want you really trying to get many animals into a square box or think why an omnipotent god needs your money or any of the countless other stupid problems you are confronted with.




And like you they can flip burgers for a living and get laughed at on forums :-)


Thats how you religious nutters thrive on ignorant stupid followers and the more you can make and encourage the better for your religion and hence your behaviour on the forum.

Momentium and inertia are easy to seperate and test in a fundementalist world.

Momementum is the number of brain challenged invididuals to keep your religions numbers topped up from natural drop out rate to those who find there brains.

Inertia is the the ministers and office bearers try to milk cash out of the gravy train from those people who checked there brains out before they find them again.

Now can we get back to actual science in a science section this sort of garbage belongs in NQS can you and your goat humper GOD beliefs please go there where you belong.

ocrap

has it already been 7 days
or are you trading (things / services) for internet privileges.

I was under the impression that we were , until you barged in
with your normal ranting and raving.

and talk about getting laughed at , you are the main attraction
to people here on sagg , I noticed that when your locked away
for the 7 days the number of people online decrease greatly , that's because they came here to laugh at you , if it was me
then the number's would increase while your little goat ass was
gone.

I guess the above hurt your feeling's so in a post or
two R2 will jump in and moderate me.

If you attack science itself on a science forum simply because your pathetic little GOD is challenged and science people react don't be surprised. If I went on a religious site and started posting there wasn't a god etc I would expect such a reaction.

Notice you have to personally abuse me while I simply point out the truth that you are the way you because of indoctrination by your religion and hence I target your goat humper GOD.

I am sure your religion is struggling to find enough simpletons willing to check out there brains and money to follow it so science is causing it no end of problem.

I don't want or expect R2 to intervene I am not offended by anything you have to say and similarly since I am only attacking your non existant, pathetic goat humper FALSE GOD figure I don't see any issues in our exchanges other the boring the crap out of readers do you?

I am happy to trade tirades at your non existant GOD for as long as it takes to sink in and get some basic rules and behaviour.

For those interested in science and not voodoo GOD theory you can't mix classic physics concepts and modern QM/standard model theories.

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.

You can rewrite the mass energy relationship as

E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

You will find all your classic and GR/SR now hold.

That was correctly deduced by Einstein by reduced to E=MC^2 because they created a static reference frame or reality because Einstein like casuality and not QM.

The discovery of the Higgs changes all that a fact QM had been pointing out to science via Bell's inequality.

It is going to take a while for post Higgs science to make it's way thru science publications and get corrected on websites and books.

What is causing most of the issues here is mixing pre and post Higgs science.

There is a reasonable university student level paper released
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2146
full paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.2146v2.pdf

All I can suggest for those actually interested in science and not goat humping GOD'S is hit the search engines for Higgs Mechanism.

charlatan math...

LOL

what is the real purpose for the "1" retard?

let me answer it correctly for you.

the 1 ensures that nothing can ever travel faster than the
speed of light.

lets say the speed of light is 2 mps

the mass is 2 kg

the mass has a velocity of 2 mps


E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 4/4)

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 1)

E = 8/sqrt(0)

E = 8/0

you cannot divide by 0 , so you still have 8

E = 8

kinetic energy = .5 x (m x v^2)

Ke = .5 x ( 2 x 4)

Ke = .5 x 8

Ke = 4


your formula is not correct.

unless somehow the magic of QM and SR and all that junk
has allowed magic to become mainstream science.

why do I say that the 1 ensures that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light using the above energy equation that you provided.

because its the same type of equation you or someone provided
before , in this situation the actual energy of the mass has
doubled.

and when you guys see an energy increase you naturally think that mass has increased.

that must be why the "1" is in there


and if mass increases then more energy is required to maintain
velocity , and the closer you get to c the more energy is required to maintain velocity.

thusly , therefore , and as predefined , nothing can
ever travel faster than the speed of light.

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?

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



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.

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.html

The formal document is here
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037026931200857X

I 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.

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

that explains why the math has variable outcomes then.

you cant mix real (classical) and fantasy (GR SR)

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.



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.

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

ogoat



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.

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?

That an effigy of you goat humping GOD paul?

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



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.html

The 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.

you must not wear your glasses when your ranting and raving on sagg.

so I increased the text size so you can see the text without glasses.

badabingbadabang

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 :-)

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.

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.

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.

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?

That's hilarious..

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 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.

And with any religion commandments and rules originate somewhere, and then they are interpreted somewhere else.

Yes religion should always be specific when separating God from science and science from God.




Definitely no God here @ SAGG...

You confuse it with science which there is very little of on SAGG because of the reigious nutters

Perhaps Rose should let me moderate I guarantee you there will be no religion in the science section nor anything that isn't science. Paul can go rant in the NQS section and everyone would be happy.

your formula required the division, odunce!



lets say the speed of light is 2 mps

the mass is 2 kg

the mass has a velocity of 2 mps

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 4/4)

E = 8/sqrt(1 - 1)

E = 8/sqrt(0)

E = 8/0

you cannot divide by 0 , so you still have 8

E = 8

I didn't write the formula.
you or some other dunce did.

if you use a correct formula it will give correct results.

if you think that 8/0 = 8 is wrong then thats just because
your orac , and thats the problem.

if you don't divide something then you still have all of it.


note:

everyone open your calculator up.

enter a 1

then subtract any positive number you want.

the result will be a negative number no matter what number you use.

in the above charlatan math formula we clearly see the evidence of
this type of charlatan math treason used to support theories.

1-100 = -99

1-1 = 0

I'm not a mathematician, nor am I Orac, but I have a small problem with the logic here.

It goes something like this:

Using Paul's maths:

8/0 = 8 but

8/1 = 8 therefore

1 = 0

Anyone see my problem?

Open up the same calculator and enter 8/0 smart boy and tell me what it says.

8/0 is not 8 in any maths on the planet it is underfined or infinity take your pick.

But you know that because you are doing nothing but trolling.

So Rose here is your chance to show everyone that you can moderate

This is a deliberate troll deal with it or shall I take up my onslaught on the trolls god. If we have to wade thru this sort of junk of the forum I fail to see how bashing the odd god or two can get us a warning and threat from you.

Yes Bill S the problem is obvious from the religious nutter troll ... so lets see if Rose has a backbone.

If you can't moderate even this stupidity Rose it's time to step down as moderator because thre is no way to have a proper discussion through this rubbish.

Do you apply the same rule to multiplication?

Is there a distinction between x multiplied by nothing, and x not multiplied by anything?

Paul is not the first to see it his way:

"In 830, Mahavira tried unsuccessfully to correct Brahmagupta's mistake in his book in Ganita Sara Samgraha: "A number remains unchanged when divided by zero." Wikipedia

Also borrowed from wiki...

With the following assumptions:

0 x 1 = 0
0 x 2 = 0

The following must be true:

0 x 1 = 0 x 2

Dividing by zero gives:

(0/0) x 1 = (0/0) x 2

Simplified, yields:

1 = 2

The fallacy is the implicit assumption that dividing by 0 is a legitimate operation

exactly , that is why I pointed that out!



back to the formula.



if the mass is 2kg
the velocity of the mass is 2mps
and the velocity of c is 2 mps

E = 2*4/sqrt(1 - 4/4)
E = 8/0

then E can not be zero !
unless the magic of R SR GR QM designates it.

either E = 8
or
E = 0 which says that an object traveling at the speed of light has zero energy...

and we all know that a mass of 2 kg with a velocity of 2 mps
has energy !!! believe it or not.


which is it?

heres is a very familiar formula.
F = ma
m = F/a

if a = zero in the above , then the mass remains the same right?

it is a formula used to properly predict the mass of a object.

if all you know is the force applied and the amount of acceleration caused by the force , the result of the formula is the mass of the accelerated object.

if m = 1 kg
a = zero
F = 1 kg-m/s^2

then
m = F/a
1 = 1/0

if a force of 1 kg-m/s^2 is being applied to an object
that is not accelerating then using the above formula
tells you that the resistance to movement of the object
using that amount of force means that the object's mass is more than 1 kg or its mass and its resistance to movement requires more than 1 kg-m/s^2 of force to accelerate the object.

in classical physics you don't need to use magic formulas
to find results needed.

it's all pretty simple straight forward stuff , that's always correct as it is not in place to support theories , it is used to validate theories.

You do dribble crap Paul or should I say troll crap.

8 PEOPLE / 0 GODS still equals 8 PEOPLE AND A NONE EXISTANT GOD.

Thus we have proved Pauls GOD does not exist.

Same crap different context I do believe.

Orac, you are making a big mistake. Starting a flame war is not the way to handle a persistently erroneous poster. It is better to just gently point out the errors in his/her posts and then let the intelligent reader figure out what is wrong with the posts. Starting a flame war may be just what the poster wants, and responding in flames is not any way to make head way. Any way Paul isn't going to change his ways. He has been making preposterous statements on the forum for many years and I expect he will keep on doing it for many more.

For example Paul said:


Well, since we are actually talking about the speed of light lets substitute C for his velocity.

E = 2*c^2/sqrt(1- C/C)

That becomes E = 2*c^2/sqrt(1-1)

so it becomes 2*c/0.

Obviously this is impossible, since division by 0 produces results that are meaningless. But then let's try using m = 0.
Then we get

E = 0*C^2/sqrt(1 - C/C)

This evaluates to

E = 0/0

Now that makes sense, since 0 divided by ANY number is 0.

Then lets try v = 0.99C

That gives us

E = 2*C^2/sqrt(1 - .99C/C)

This leads to

E = 2* C^2/sqrt(1-.99)

E = 2 * C^2/sqrt(.01)

E = 1 *C^2/.1
E = 10 * C^2

I'm not going to bother to go into the derivation of the units to translate that into an energy value, but it will work out and it is a lot of energy.

One thing that all this tells me is that nothing can travel at the speed of light. Or at least nothing that has a non-zero rest mass.

And that gentle readers is how Paul tries to mislead people into thinking that he knows something that nobody else in the world has been able to figure out. Because modern science doesn't depend on somebody arbitrarily saying, "This is how it is". When somebody makes a scientific statement a lot of people look at it and try to see if it is right. Then they start using what was said and seeing positive accurate results in the form of new things to astonish the world.

It is hard to astonish the world with ideas that can be shown to just not work.

Bill Gill

Sounds logical, Bill, but it seems that mathematical logic and real-world logic are not necessarily the same thing.

I have a box in which there is nothing = one empty box.

You have two boxes in each of which there is nothing = two empty boxes.

One box does not equal two boxes, only the “nothing” in one box is equal to the nothing in the two boxes. We still have a different number of boxes.

I’ve never been able to get my head round the idea of dividing by nothing, so this could be a learning experience, if we can stay on track.

since your finally exposing your math skills Bill.

how did this happen?



lets consider that an object's velocity is measured
to be 299,792,458 m/s

and we use 299,792,458 m/s as c

and lets say our mass is 1 kg

E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

E = 1*89875517873681764/sqrt(1- 89875517873681764/89875517873681764)

E = 89875517873681764/sqrt(1-1)

E = 89875517873681764/0

E = 0 because (nothing can travel at the speed of light because the math dictates it.)

our math ( R SR GR QM ) proves that even though the velocity of the object was measured at the speed of light , it has no energy.

another magic spell cast by the eienstonnedeons



I agree.

should we use the correct formula in place of what orac used?
for a particle with non zero mass.

E = mc^2/(1 - v^2/c^2)* .5

Perhaps a non-mathematician should avoid joining in mathematical discussions.

On the other hand, just think of the Emperor’s New Clothes!

In the above equations, if a = 0, neither equation tells you anything. The mass is static, so there may be no force being applied to it; or there could be any force, as long as it was too small to move the mass.

You say: “the mass remains the same right?”

The same as what? The formulae have given no information about the mass.

yes , m

we dont know what the mass is , nothing changed.

the emperor thought he had clothes on , but he was naked!

I see your point , those who use math that is designed to
give pre-defined results are seen as being naked even though those who are using the pre-defined math think they are clothed.

their nakedness has been discovered!

I asked Bill in one of the previous post if he thought that
we should use the correct formula in place of what orac used?

for a particle with non zero mass.

E = mc^2/(1 - v^2/c^2)* .5

do you think that the above formula would be better to use?

Wasn't Bill's post, Bill S, but mine. The point being that dividing by 0 is not a legitimate operation.

(box + 0) + (box + 0) = 2 x box + 0. Do you see a real world problem with that Bill?

Some more thoughts from a non-mathematician:

10/2 = 5 therefore
5x2 = 10

8/0 = 0 therefore
0x0 = 0

8/0 = 8 therefore
8x0 = 8.....or not!

Bill, on the net you'll find some excellent answers to the issue of division by zero. Some are too arcane for me, but most are clear enough for us bods to understand.

"8/0 = 0"
"8/0 = 8"

What makes you think those might be true?

Division by zero is simply not legitimate. It's like asking how many items would each of 0 people get if you shared 8 items between them.

here's a real world way to figure this out , Bill

look in your wallet , pull out a bill.

think about it first.

if you tear it in half , you have 2 halves.

if you dont tear it in half you still have a whole bill.

you cannot divide if you dont divide.

and you cannot divide by zero.

because dividing by zero means that you didnt tear it in half
so you still have a whole bill.

anyway , the formula that orac put up was missing a very important element the (*.5)

which he didnt catch , and if you multiply E = 8
times .5 you get the kinetic energy of the mass
and its velocity , which shows up as the Kinetic Energy part
of the mass energy equivalent.

E = 4

Ke = .5*(mv^2)

since this side of the formula results in nothing

/(1 - v^2/c^2)* .5

and this side of the formula resulted in E = 8

E = mc^2

E = 2 * 2^2

E = 2 * 4

E = 8

by re-writing the formula like the below we get a correct
result.

E = (mc^2/(v^2/c^2))* .5

we get 4


using the above formula lets check its validity using the following.

m = 2 kg
v = 2 mps
c = 2 mps

E = (mc^2/(v^2/c^2))* .5

E = (mc^2 / ( 4/4))*.5

E = (mc^2 / 1)*.5

E = (8 / 1 ) *.5

E = 8 *.5

E = 4


ok that panned out

lets try a real world problem.

lets consider that an object's velocity is measured
to be 299,792,458 m/s

and we use 299,792,458 m/s as c (the speed of light)

and lets say our mass is 1 kg

E = (mc^2/(v^2/c^2))* .5

E = (mc^2/(89875517873681764/89875517873681764))*.5

E = (mc^2/ 1)*.5

E = (1*89875517873681764/ 1)*.5

E = (89875517873681764/ 1)*.5

E = (89875517873681764)*.5

E = 44937758936840882

of course that should be the exact same result as the kinetic energy of the mass.

lets check it

Ke = .5 * mv^2

Ke = .5 * (1 * 89875517873681764)

Ke = .5 * 89875517873681764

Ke = 44937758936840882

yep exactly the same.

The problem with your 3rd pair of statements is that 8/0 does not equal 8, it is either undefined (meaningless) or infinity, which is numerically meaningless. That is to say that is if we think of 8/0 as infinity we can't use it in any other mathematical calculation.

Let's look at it this way.
8/4 = 2
8/2 = 4
8/1 = 8
8/.5 = 16
8/.25 = 32
8/.1 = 80
8/.01 = 800
8/.001 = 8000
8/.0001 = 80000
8/.0000000001 = 8000000000 (if I didn't miscount decimal points)
The thing is that as the denominator approaches 0 the result gets larger very fast. So that as the denominator approaches 0 as a limit then the result approaches infinity. But you can't use infinity in any ordinary calculation. It is totally meaningless since there is no way to measure infinity, so division by zero is not allowed.

Bill Gill

you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.
you cannot divide by zero.

isn't it 7 repetitions?

So here we are with many postings discuss 8 divided by 0 on a science forum with a religious nutter troll.

Personally this sums up SAGG which has become STUPIDITY A GO GO.

To any new forum vistors leave now because this forum is not worth your time because it is inhabited by religious nutters who the moderators are too GUTLESS to bring under control.

Moderators you have once again been found to be totally wanting it would take 5 seconds to bring this sort of bullshit under control ... it simply requires you to moderate.

I personally will leave you all to it but moderators when you ponder the lack of discussions on the forum look at yourselves because sane rational people will not wade thru repeated mountains of bullshit to try and have a discussion.

Thus the religious nutter will eventually win and the forums will die which is what he wants because science ate his GOD.

Ummmm if you notice there have been what 20 posts trying to do it your way .... not really working hey and can you get a more stupid argument?

My way starting a "flame war" attacking his pathetic effigy GOD was at least getting a degree of control in the place of the useless moderators. It works because he wants to derail science discussion but having his GOD attacked is not a desirable outcome.

Lets see how many posts it takes to get the most stupid argument silenced doing it your way :-)

Orac, you may not have read or understood my whole comment. I don't expect to stop Paul from posting silly science. What I hope to do is to keep people from thinking that he actually knows something. And a flame war isn't going to do that, it just makes you look kind of stupid too.

Bill Gill

You really mean that anytime the "G" word is used, that the person using it (in your opinion) is a religious nutter and doesn't accept science without it, (like a true scientist would even tho science can't qualify or deny the reality of God).
God forbid should anyone even mention the "G" word to a real scientist.




But could a scientist ever really look stupid...? Say it ain't so..



Ah sooo.. The manipulation of the forum moderators is the plan. Similar to the way you did when you threatened to leave the forum and got them (and a few others that felt sorry for you and begged your forgiveness) to delete the entire thread to get to the individual you had the gripe with.... Tricksy this Orac is.. yes?

careful there bill , you might just be have to show people
some type of intelligence in order to accomplish anything
close to your goal.

that kind of throws the off switch on your hope , because
so far you haven't displayed any intelligence.

unless you have something you have been saving up for
your grand finale.

orca , if I were you , thankfully Im not.

I would never present any type of evidence in a discussion
forum , I would only rant and rave about religion.

especially when the person has presented evidence that
proves that you are a complete idiot.

as I have done time and time again.

TT

I think that orat and bill gill are only trying to get us
banned from this forum , so we should really let these
anti religion fanatics have the dammed forum.

there's really no way to have a discussion about science
with them here anyway , if they run into a stumbling block
in any discussion their only outlet is to criticise religion.

more and more I find that with oren and his ranting and raving like the mad man that he probably really is there is no point in
wasting time and effort on such crap.

so we should just let these blind lead themselves and
the remainder of the forum readers to blindness.

lets start our own science forum and have some fun
with these brainless types!

http://www.ubbcentral.com/

It is a price I was willing to play to be actually able to discuss topics, sorry I suffer trolling badly and I am not familiar with sites that don't control them.

I have no real issue with anyones views and I am definitely not seeking to have anyone banned. All I am asking is the normal political norms to be moderated.

It would take 5 seconds of moderation to get the forums working properly whether Paul stays or goes is not the point of it.

The problem is Paul is trolling and even constructing ridiculous arguments like 8/0=8 above, he has done this repeatedly. Everyone does their best to ignore him but he just gets more and more stupid in his answers until he gets a bite.

When he starts his own threads like his "call for division" thread he can't get anyone to join in so what he is doing is interrupting into active threads to deliberately try and derail them.

TT, for someone who is supposedly the Spiritual good bloke you like to paint me into some villian with a wicked and devious plan. Can I say bluntly and precisely that I have no plan or agenda on anything other than to attempt to get the forum working like a normal forum and that requires normal moderation levels and standards. If you try to infer anything beyond that you are lying and misrepresenting me. I objected to a thread on the holocaust because it was extremely offensive as well as illegal in many countries we draw similar lines on pornography, drug use and many other such issues. You have presented your view on what you think I did and I have no problem if that is what you want to believe, so be it.

Paul, you lost this argument along time ago when you let out the background of your trolling was about fundementalist religion you believe in. You can choose to stop trolling and join in normal civilised discussion or continue trolling with rather predictable results. I do not hate you or your GOD and I have no wish to have you banned, all I ask is ceasing of the continual ridiculous troll arguments in threads not of your making. If you want to make your own troll thread I have no real issue, you have done so in the last 2 weeks and I and most others have ignored them.

you say that you want to have a discussion about things , you
then post things , and when someone tries to discuss those things
with you you start flaming religion.

I have shown that the above formula is designed to support
a theory , can you comment on that , or show how its not designed
to support a theory.

I am willing to put your claims that you want to be able to have
a discussion to the test , are you?

lets see if you are capable of a discussion that is free and clear
of things that are off topic.

Gentle readers, again we have Paul denying that things that have been tested and proven to be real are real. His inability to follow a logical argument is once more shown to triumph over reality. In this case it can easily be shown that the above equation can be mathematically reduced to the classic E=mC^2. For the SR case it gives exactly the same value.

In one way Paul is correct, the formula is designed to support a theory. The fact that the theory has been shown to be absolutely correct doesn't seem to interfere with Paul's assumption that he is always right, even when he's wrong. So take Paul's ranting in your stride and ignore him.

Bill Gill

Rede, sorry I wrongly assigned your quote. I blame this, and the fact that I was obviously not clear in my posts about 8/0, on posting while doing a couple of other things at the same time.

It was my intention to explain what I really meant, but, on second thoughts, I believe it's time to get out of this thread.

thank you.



I thought it was a theory?
so now its a law vs a theory then , correct?



E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

perhaps you should work a problem out using the above formula
to check that.

in the above formula this part (1 - v^2/c^2) will result
in a negative number , or using the speed of light as the velocity causes the formula to fail.

because 1-1 = 0

and you cannot divide by zero.

Well, gentle readers, there goes Paul again. He refuses to notice the fact that I pointed out that division by zero gives an unusable answer, and therefore nothing that has a non-zero rest mass can travel at the speed of light. This is one of the things that has been a major point of Special Relativity every since it was introduced by Einstein. Therefore he has set up an impossible situation and tries to claim that it invalidates SR. Of course since the scientific theory of Special Relativity has been validated numerous times by careful scientific experiments and observations his complaints are totally off base. But that is his way, he just refuses to admit that he doesn't know everything and won't make an effort to learn what actual science teaches.

Bill Gill

Impossible !!

Gentile and Not so Gentile Readers , again Bill is claiming that the theory is now a law!!

He claims that I have set up a impossible situation !

I did not write the formula !

have you ever seen a formula that you had to be cautious
of the numbers you plugged into it?

as far as any proof goes , I seriously doubt that any is
valid , I base that on the formula and its design and its designers.



I really do wish they would release the amount of energy they detected , as they didn't measure the time.

anyway , that is the latest and greatest from the cern - gran sasso experiment !


loads of proof there in "seemed to" that certainly etches it in stone.

it also prove's that nothing can travel faster than light !

because they measured the energy , not the speed.

however , I would like to calculate it myself.

but I dont have the energy in / energy out data.

also:

And all what you have written above is perfectly acceptable to science which is a first for you.

I have on occassions stretched peoples thinking on here asking them to show evidence that Energy is real.

What science doesn't allow is the next step you sometimes take which is to create some physics which clearly doesn't hold in another easily identifiable situation or by extended your claim out logically step by step and you hit a snag.

I did that with you on laser cooling where step by step I walked you out thru your claim and you end up at a wall in your case you were making the atoms gained mass but you ended up against the wall that is atomic weight.

Science requires a theory to be consistant with ALL KNOWN EXPERIMENTS and this is the step your physics failed.

So I congratulate you for constructing a logical argument you are a long way short of proving anything but you have made a start in the same way as my challenge to prove to me energy is real challenge is open to all.

I encourage all my students to do this challenge everything and look closely at what the claims are based on and convince yourself there are no other possibilities.

Welcome to science Paul.

No I never said the plan was wicked or devious... I might say obvious tho.

Hitler had standards, so did Ghandi. However there seemed to be a different foundation of beliefs governing those standards.
Somebody call the whaaaaambulance... I think there seems to be an outbreak of misrepresentation, based on some rather broad strokes of the interpretive paintbrush here. I'm sure you're innocent on all accounts and are the one true voice of authoritative reasoning when determining character and worth from the content within this forum.

Then I don't see any reason to change your mind about what I think now. Just do away with the problem you have with my comments, and we can both have our free will to experience life as it unfolds.
No problem.

I wouldn't say that , oric

that would be just a little egotistical on your part.
you seem to be gloating , as if you had won a prize.

I don't know where you have walked me through anything until I
ran into a wall , as I recall it was you who left the discussion after I began to question you.

but its late , so I will try and freshen up on the
laser discussion tomorrow.

I am amazed that you didnt flame religion , that is a start
and one of your frequent mistakes in a discussion.

Bill is right , it only makes you look bad when you resort to
ranting and raving about an off topic subject right out of the blue , as if it will sway opinion in your favor.

so keep up the good work , you have a long way to go now
before the gentile readers will be able to re-establish
any amount of faith in what you say , because of the flaming tactics , but time will tell if you are serious about having
any serious discussions about science topics or if you are more interested in flaming off topic subjects.

Why do you make it all about me Paul it's all about science?

I am a very bad person according to TT's standards which I freely admit.

I personally don't want to connect with anyone on here I am interested in sensible and sane discussions on science preferably without insulting each other but thats optional.

I am pretty sure I would disagree with almost everyone on the forum, let me draw up a table of how I see it.

Bill S. ... I disagree with his infinity view of universe
Bill Gill ... I would disagree with his solid universe
TT ... He just is a contrarian who writes walls of text to me
Rev K ... World is all about GOD but I want to know how it works
Paul ... Needs science to make sense to his GOD view of the world.


What I will say bluntly is if you engage in trolling just to mess up discsusions I will engage you in a flame war over your religion and if that means looking silly and like a nutter so be it, I never claim to be a sane and reasonable person.

I am not sure why you think I care what others think of me, I assure you more that a few students would have various descriptions for me and probably not many flattering.

My passions are science and human rights and a very distant down that list would be worrying about my appearance to others which you should have worked out by now.

It is fascinating the West's preoccupation with self image, I was bought up under a communist system where there is only the collective, self worth and self image is a bad thing so it is sort of hillarious trying to watch you use self image against me. I am sorry but that really is a disease of the Western world it won't work on communist background people, which is why I think I cause you so many issues :-)

Now we are done with all this bullshit can we get on with science.

you mention science in the last word in your first sentence.
then its all about you , until the last word of your last sentence.



I agree that everything between your first and last sentence was bullshit , but I suppose you felt a need to explain your "self".

what I do find troubling is that you left a communist nation
and are now living in a free society , yet you seem to be
clinging to the communist mind set.

you need to release the collective as you are no longer a part of it.

in a free society the things that you could associate with collective tendencies would be things like religion , belief systems , a collective pride in country , however you have a
right to choose , you are not forced nor should you be punished
for believing in any thing.


having a right to choose is the foundation of a free society.

you want to deny people the right to this foundation.

you say that human rights is one of your major interest
but you have a plan to intentionally attack their right to
have a belief in a belief system.

science is not a belief system although it is becoming one.
before long one will have a right to not choose science in
school , simply because science has become a belief system.

if you don't like someone's opinion on a science topic then
you seriously need to refrain from attacking their belief system
and attack them with science ( facts ), not with flaming their belief system.

if there are no fact's to back up your opinion then you have no ground to stand on , and that's that

at that point you should honorably admit that you were wrong.
or at least that you cannot be proven right.

Maybe that is something we could discuss. I'm not sure just what you mean by my solid universe. I realize that we don't necessarily agree on everything, particularly whether General Relativity is a part of Quantum Mechanics. But I'm not sure how that equates to a solid universe.

Bill Gill

Does it have something to do with believing that what we perceive as reality is actually real?

Points to Bill S :-)

Bill Gill still believes in a local reality.

You can define this belief as Body A affects body B locally when it either touches B or touches something else that touches B. Einstein called it cause and effect physics. This is often called solid world physics and scientists who follow it like Einstein accept QM experiments as they must but argue there is something we don't understand at work or Einsteins famous hidden variables.

You can define non local reality where Body A affects Body B even though it is not touching body B or anything that is touching B. Einstein called it spooky action at a distance when he saw it with entanglement.

Bell’s theorem proves the existence of an invisible non-local reality it is simple concise mathematics with simple clarity and it is not a conjecture it is a PROOF which is rare in science.

This means parts of the universe that aren't physically connected are instantaneously communicating with each other.

Wheelers delayed choice experiment shows even worse the fact you can change the past by what you decide in the future. In a solid local reality world this is completely ridiculous and even eliminates the idea of superluminal communication via hidden variables because events are being transposed backwards in time.

The only rational conclusion as much as we hate it and it irks us is that reality is a non local reality illusion ... there really is no other choice.

Anyone who has played good 3D computer games knows how easy it is to fool the human brain into seeing 3D where there is none.

No one is saying things aren't real just that world we learn as a baby is based upon experience of how we see and interpret the world and that is actually not how the actual reality works.

Everytime I see a rainbow my immediate thought is I wonder how long it took human civilisation to work out it is a illusion a fact we now take for granted and are taught. I often wonder if there are still native tribes that think a rainbow is real.

Lets put it in context I am not blindly attacking a belief system I am doing it intentionally when you start trolling and seeking to interrupt others discussion.

As I pointed out and you will note I am not attacking threads you start or where you are actually discussing logical points.

When you start with garbage like 8/0=8 expect to get flamed because you even stated yourself above division by zero is not possible yet you continued with that rubbish. THAT BY DEFINITION IS TROLLING TO SEEK TO INTERFERE WITH OTHERS DISCUSSION.




I don't dislike anyones opinion but TROLL and your beliefs will get flamed because our moderation is next to nil on this forum and it is rude to deliberately try and obstruct other peoples discussions .. call it me being rude back.

Far from hating it, or being irked by it, I welcome the idea of non-locality; it fits perfectly with my thoughts on another of your points of disagreement - infinity.

For a long time I had problems with the idea of past-directed actions in time, but I can square that with the same set of ideas, as long as the "time travel" is restricted to QM activity.

as I said earlier , in fact in the same post that you are
complaining about --- YOUR FORMULA IS INCORRECT ---

you used the total energy formula.




http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html

assuming that a massless particle has no mass the result of
either of the above formulas will be 0

mc^2 = 0 (0 if the mass is massless)!

0 x c^2 = 0

1 - v^2/c^2 = is irrelevant because 0 x any number = 0

you end up with a formula that always gives a result of zero when used with a massless particle.

I agree with this totally. Does seem somewhat hypocritical coming from you though.

As far as the whole 8/0=0... Well, if you make the mass travel at 100% C, then, yeah, you will get a "blank"/0 equation.

For a mass to travel at C, it would need infinite energy, correct? Isn't something divided by 0 infinity?

So changing the speed of light to 2mps, then giving the mass a velocity of 2mps... The formula still holds true. You would get infinity. That's why the formula works, and why the theory holds merit.

You can be ignorant to laws, and commit a crime, but ignorance to the wrong doing will not necessarily hold up in court. It is usually implied that one should have an understanding of the laws that govern your particular society. Same seems to hold true for physics.


And as a slightly unrelated side note: If you 'lose' something, that's fine. But saying you 'loose' something, only works when you are releasing, or projecting something. Just a helpful hint.

Don't 'lose' it, and don't 'loose' your anger on me, just trying to help.

I believe that you cant divide by zero.
also dividing by zero isn't infinity its illegal.
you cant divide by zero.


you can infinitely divide a number by another number
but you cannot divide a number by zero.

that is the way I have always known it to be in reality.



only if you use math that is designed to cause a need for infinite energy.

I personally don't have faith in that type of math.

why do you think there would be a need for infinite energy?

is there some resistance that is occurring in the path of the
mass?

I can't figure what would cause a need for infinite energy
and the math I have seen certainly does not include any elements of resistance.

I can understand that in an accelerator there is resistance
in the path of a particle because of the contaminant
particles in the almost zero vacuum ,but when we consider
a vacuum in math there is nothing in the path of the particle.

Well, I would think it needs infinite energy based on the formula. Once velocity matches the speed of light, you get a number that needs to be divided by zero. So, whether you 'believe' in the math or not, the proof is in the pudding. You cannot divide by zero, because it would equal infinite.

Using your dollar bill example: If you divide the one bill by two, you get two halves of a bill. 1/2=0.5
So now, you take the original dollar bill, and divide it by zero (nothing, or nothing tangible anyways), it's still a dollar bill, whole and unscathed. Reason to believe, you can divide that bill by zero an infinite number of times, and still have a whole bill.

In that specific formula, if velocity equals C, it tells us it would be infinite.

Numbers and theories can be tricky though. I mean, for example:
1/3=0.333333333333333333333 etc...
2/3=0.666666666666666666666 etc...
3/3=0.999999999999999999999 etc... Wait a minute....

Notice my use of 'believe'. I don't think religion and science are so different. Faith, and theory seem interchangeable. Faith with proof to back it up, is the same as theory with proof to back it up. They both work, at least for now. Time, and knowledge, or enlightenment, can and will change all. (The pope even condones evolutionary study, as it is the "ongoing creation of gods master works", both man and universe).

My bic lighter is sorcery to people from 2000 years ago I'm sure. Of course, nowadays, we know that's not the case. But until you can prove without a shadow of a doubt what is going on, all you can do is conjure theories, or have faith, and try to back it up.

Regardless, the formula used, seems to work, but is still a theory, and may well be for many more centuries, until we learn something more. You CAN divide by zero, but only in theory (see: faith).

Plus, Futurama says scientists will increase the speed of light, in order to build faster ships. So what's the worry?

As slightly edited quote of your post.


A sub quote from your post.

That is my argument. I don't understand how this can be. The fact that it happens doesn't mean we understand it. The fact that it falls out of QM doesn't really give us an understanding of it. I am ready to accept it, it has been well demonstrated, so I can't argue with it. But I can say that there must be more to it than "see, there it is".

I have been watching the discussions of the Higgs particle. For a long time people didn't understand how massive particles got that way. Then the Higgs particle was postulated. Now it seems that we have found it. So we have something to point to as to how it works. We still don't have anything to point to for how non-local interactions work. I am still waiting for that before I start jumping up and down and crying "Eureka".

Bill Gill

Gentle readers, you see Paul refuses to accept the fact that the math not only supports the need for infinite energy, but that experiments also support the math. He doesn't need any proof to support his beliefs, but expects us to accept them in the face of proof that all of science is wrong.

Bill Gill

I have asked this on several occasions here on sagg , not
once has it been answered.

Please point to an experiment that supports the math.

but there's no pudding.



its impossible to divide by zero , thats why you cannot divide by zero.

you must divide something by something or you never do make the first division.

if you cannot make even 1 division then infinite division
is also not possible.



I agree.

so , this says that the theory can be proven using
theoretical math , but not actual math.

all we have to do next is to scientifically define zero as
an infinite number that only has a value in theoretical math.

Agreed.



Sounds reasonable in the circumstances.

You need to be consistent, though.



Only in theoretical maths. I challenge anyone to produce an actual example.

I just used my calculator and began dividing 1 by 2

after several minutes this is the result

1.7859177988785546597121617942271e-102

at some point in time the number will
look something like this
1.7859177988785546597121617942271e-17859177988785546597121617942271

if the calculator can do that.

if it cant then the problem is that it cant do it.

theres still something left that can be divided in half.

and its not theoretical , the time that you would have to
do the division would be the kicker , you couldn't live long enough to make all the division's.

but someone else could take over and continue dividing for his entire life , and then leave it to his heirs.

etc...etc...etc...

I don't have a theoretical calculator either it's the standard windows calculator in scientific mode that is.

And so it would go on, one generation after another.

Do you really think one of your descendants would reach a point where he/she would be able to say "I have now divided this an infinite number of times?

In theory? Perhaps.

In practice? Absolutely not.

The challenge is still on.

And thats the point the formula MATCHES classic physics which says a particle without mass has no energy.

QM knows why massless particles have energy but that is not possible under classic physics.

Personally I don't care what you make of it, it is what I said a conversion that will hold to match classic physics and if you followed your own link down to the bit about photons (http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.html) it will tell you the same thing



So the formula correctly works as required to MATCH old theories.

There is no error in what I have said or the formula you are not reading what I said.

What is catching your out is there are two sorts of mass getting interchanged in this discussion rest mass and relativistic mass perhaps we need to change the symbol m to be m_rel or m_rest so people don't get confused.

In all the above and in your link we are talking about a REST MASS of zero and it does indeed have zero energy even when travelling at the speed of light.

No , I dont.

that's why it's infinite!

it would never end , which equates to infinite.



then you will have to redefine the word "infinite".

that satisfies my opposition.

zero energy = zero kinetic energy.

zero kinetic energy @ c = zero mass

there must be something else , perhaps something similar to a
shockwave that travels in front of a massless particle.

Thats not true QM is quite loud and clear on how it works the mechanism is embedded in the theory and why we knew to do things like wheelers delayed choice experiment.

The problem QM faces is the same as Higgs mechanism we need to get QM to a point where there literally no other choices and scientists are deligently working towards that.

So now I will challenge you to the problem that QM solves in this situation.

So a zero mass particle has zero energy so light must have zero energy by that defininition?????

Yet we know from standing in the sun and seeing things get hot that light must have energy.

See the problem here we have a contradiction ... so lets see how your physics solves it.

Explain the contradiction.

BTW your link does the usual explaination we give to students it LIES to them to avoid talking about QM I love the line

"Light is in fact composed of “photons”—particles having zero “rest mass”, as we shall discuss later. The “rest mass” of a photon is meaningless, since they’re never at rest—the energy of a photon"

I particually like the we shall discuss it later, somehow travelling at the speed of light is special, I had a few teachers like that :-)

Sorry Bill I am with Paul on this one this is where us QM nutters leave the GR/SR party so let me reverse the problem for you.

Question: Why doesn't a photon have infinite energy or zero energy it has a defined energy ????

You said you accept the Higgs exists and it gives mass so now you need to resolve the problem you can't use the old teaching lie that moving at the speed of light is special. Acceptance of the Higgs mechanism is profound and I am trying to show you how profound not being argumentative for the sake of arguing.

Orac; "...change the symbol m to be m_rel or m_rest so people don't get confused."

I thought I had read that "m" was used for rest mass and "M" was for relativistic mass?"

Orac: "... you can't use the old teaching lie that moving at the speed of light is special."

It's really difficult for us "old timers" to get around what was said to be correct for decades. I am trying though.

I am not impressed that scientists would "lie" as you said just for convenience. I really hope they have ceased to do that.

M to me means invariant mass what you have written may be standard in some areas of science but not all.

SI does not define a difference
http://physics-help.info/physicsguide/appendices/si_units.shtml

Mass symbols= m, M name kilogram unit=kg


The problem is there are historic papers such as Newton's which won't adhere to those standards and in new fields such as QM many different forms of mass such as invariant mass, transverse mass are added.

Even in discussion above we had gravitational mass and a few other terms so I think it best we get some definitions.

It was a simplification to not have to explain or deal with QM and they used it to constrain what they had to teach. I am not sure why teachers feel that constructing a soft lie was better than telling the truth that light had inconsistances I mean they were already teaching light was sometimes a wave and sometimes a particle and expecting children to get there heads around that.

I never lie to students I always explain up to the inconsistancies and leave them as open questions. Sometimes I get approached after class to explain further which I am always happy to do or make a time to do it if I have something I have to get to.

It's not my physics , it's just what I use to solve thing's.

or try to solve thing's.

I'm probably going to be something similar to being wrong on this
so , I will just say that this is just a thought.

we get a sunburn because of the sun's heat energy that
our skin is exposed to.

if you touch a black car in the summer time you can really
feel this heat energy.

but , if light has no mass or energy then what could possibly
be heating up the car or giving us a sunburn.

my thought is , waves , like shock waves , it could be a energy field , that is created by the light as it forces it's way through the medium that it is traveling through.

if the car is white most of the light reflects off of the car
and the waves also bounce off.

it may work because of a vibration that causes the heat.

it's just a thought , I will have to look into this QM because if what you say is true then its not based on fantasy if it
also thinks that light has no mass and no energy.

it could be an effect of it's surroundings or its environment
that causes the heat.

It is really good to see you actually thinking and openly discussing things sensibly.

I would have graded you a B+ for thinking in puting a shockwave infront of the photon you are actually getting on the right wavelength as a pun.

The problem with that explaination and you have already realised it in the discussion above is you need a medium for a shockwave.

So now I want you to think about that and lets consider a solar panel powering a satelitte in space and we need to solve this issue.

We can have an unseen medium in the vacuum of space, energy might not be real or perhaps you have a different solution.

It is important what you think not what I think so feel free to answer openly I assure you evenything you have said so far makes perfect sense to me so continue on.

Once again, my problem is not that I don't believe it, I just don't understand it. You say QM is loud and clear on how it works. But I don't understand the math that QM uses to explain how it works. So you are going to have to interpret it for me. How does it work? What is the mechanism that connects them? Just saying "trust me" doesn't help me understand it.

Bill Gill

I enjoy a good challenge.

my first thought is other light sources being the medium.

light travels in waves , supposedly , which to me says or means that a light particle occupies a distinct volume of space as it travels
from point to point.

a cross section of that volume is much larger than the light particle itself.

so light shares its path through space with other light particles.

I'm going to propose that the path's of these other light particle's would be like a barrier of sorts , I see it but I
can't put it in words other than it's like tunnels or like drinking straws except the straws have no mass , here's an if , if light travel's in waves then as it changes it's position there must be some energy coming from some where in order for that change to occur.

we know that we can use a magnifying glass to concentrate the
suns radiant heat on an object here on earth.

the magnifying glass bends these straws so that they all
meet or focus on a small area.

so we know that heat is a result of these straws intertwining
with each other.

we know that sun light can also be concentrated onto a solar
panel and this causes more output from the solar panel.

and we know that a solar panel converts the light waves into energy.



I'm going to guess that the shock wave is the result of light waves interacting with less intense light waves from other
sources of light in the universe.

the medium is light.

just a thought though.

I would not presume to redefine "infinite", but I think it's important to be aware of the way in which words are used, and how they may change.

Even in my own notes, I like to establish a degree of clarity; especially as I tend to write my notes as though I were talking to someone.

The following is a snippet from notes I wrote a few years ago:

Is there a difference between “infinite” and “limitless? Etymologically, infinite is simply endless. It has been argued that something can, therefore, be said to be infinite if it has a beginning, as long as it has no end. However, this line of reasoning is spurious, as the concepts of beginning and end are dependent on the orientation of the observer. For example, if you are journeying across the Atlantic from Europe to America, the Atlantic Ocean begins at the coast of Europe and ends at the American coast. When you turn round to come back, though, the situation is reversed. Similarly, in the case of time, the concepts of beginning and end depend on the perceived direction of that elusive entity, the “arrow of time”. There is another difficulty which, in a way, is an even greater problem; that is the difficulty of terminology. We tend to talk of infinity and eternity as though they were measurable in terms of time and space. They are not. Eternity and infinity are not measurable, so time and space, which are essentially finite measures, have no relevance with reference to the “infinite”, but, because of our finite state of being, it is very difficult for us to take time and space out of our thought processes.

“Limitless” can be quite different from “infinite”, because, although infinity can rightly be said to be limitless, all that is limitless is not necessarily infinite. For example, in an infinity of nothingness there could, in theory, exist a universe. The surrounding nothingness would place no limit on the amount of matter or energy that could be added to that universe, nor would there be any limit to the extent to which the universe could expand. Nevertheless, however much was added to the universe, or however great was its expansion, it would always be finite. Its potential might be said to be infinite, as it has an infinity of nothingness into which it can expand, but even this is not strictly correct. It can never reach infinity; therefore it does not have the potential to become infinite. As we have seen, there is no limit to its possible growth or expansion, so it can correctly be referred to as limitless, but never infinite. Perhaps “limitless” would be a more accurate word to use in the case of the so called “infinite series”. There is a difference! “Infinite” has no beginning and no end and cannot be measured. “Limitless”, on the other hand, can go on increasing indefinitely, but it will always be measurable and will never become infinite, however long it continues to increase. Even if we argue that it can continue growing infinitely, all we are saying is that it will never stop growing. Certainly, it would never become infinite. I have used the word “limitless”. I should add that "unbounded" can be considered as synonymous with "limitless" in most cases, but it can become bemired in semantic difficulties.

I like that, Paul, its the sort of "thinking on your feet" reasoning I tend to use, usually when dog walking.

If this were my line of thought I would hit my first obstacle at:



The mental image this produces is of a particle moving through space along an undulating path, but is that an accurate image?

Light (according to QM) is either a particle or a wave, it seems we cannot observe both at the same time (yet?), so if we want to think of light as a wave, should we temporarily dispense with the particle?

I'm going to say I believe it is both a particle and a wave.

the particle travels along a wavy path.

you could see the particle if you slow it down.

if you then watched the particle you would see the wave that the
particle follows or is forced to follow because of other waves caused by other particles.

this could be important , or may be trash , the whatever
that causes the particle's to follow a wavy path could be
the result of the straws compacted together , compressing
each straw inwards which builds and maintains gravity at the center of
the straws.

the further away from the light source the weaker the gravity becomes as light travels in a straight wavy path.

so the increasing distance from the light source increases the circumference of the straws lessening the gravity at the center of the straws because less pressure is focused inwards.

causing the light particles to follow a wave that is further
from the center of the straw.

which lessens the light intensity.


the above of course , says that gravity does not require mass.

it says that gravity only requires pressure.

which I have a problem with unless it can be shown
to be true.

Okay lets start with the simplest Higgs mechanism we can setup the reality could be more complex but lets start simple. The link to universe wide connection will become obvious.

Okay so lets say the world can not be resolved infinitely small eventually you reach a distance the planck distance at which our world becomes granular I am sure you know this concept.

At these scales if we could get down there world begins to look like fly screen. The Higgs tends to live between the gaps in our fly wire mesh because it is repelled by its spin much like magnets or like charges repel each other or if you prefer reverse it our world is floating a Higgs ocean whichever way you want to think of it matters not.

When you attempt to move an object if it has spin and interacts with the Higgs you get a sort of drag you see this in electric fields and magnetic fields where movement is resisted. Even in a more simple sense if you made a cube out of flymesh and tried to drag it thru water you would see considerable drag because of the flow being forced thru multiple small holes.

Lets leave it that simple for the moment and discuss the ramifications.

First it should be obvious that after all those years of removing mediums in space it is back in a sort modified fashion. We don't like to call it a medium because it really isn't "in our world" like a traditional sense and some all those years ago tried to make a case. It does however have some similarities that it permiates everywhere.

Secondly the whole mechanism does not work without accepting QM spin. You can't half believe in the Higgs mechanism for it to work it requires that QM spin and interactions are correct and more importantly it is a fundemental interaction.

This above statement is profound and we once discussed this. The implication is Special Relativity is a macroscopic description of a fundemental QM interaction. This means you can't just tack QM in as some weird thing that happens in the universe it is providing the entire basis for what Special Relativity is defining in relativistic mass increase. In other words QM is more fundemental than SR.

In the scenario we have created above there is nothing stopping a particle in one part of the universe communicating to a particle in another part of the universe via the higgs ocean. If that speed was incredibly fast it would appear to us that remote parts of the universe were simultaneously communicating ... does that sound familar?

What we have done above is created a model scenario that is easy to visualize for a layman, unfortunately the mathematics of QM does not necessarily answer structure issues we need real world experiments to fill in that detail.

I think that enough for one post lets see what you make of that before we discuss reality and energy.

I like the idea .. I have a conference to attend and prep for and need some time to think and ask some questions.

The obvious quick one that comes to mind is why is space dark if it is built of light or are there limits to how dull it is?

my first choice of a response would the capability of our eyes
to see the straws made of waves.

Good explanation, Orac, thanks. Even I could follow that!

I particularly liked the bit about "simultaneously communicating". No prizes for guessing why.

Paul, I assume from your response that you are thinking of all the other waves in the EM spectrum as potentially interfering with the light waves in the visible part of the spectrum. Right?

In most of the matter we see around us, particles are bound together by forces. Presumably, the energy involved in these forces creates mass. What role, if any, does the Higgs have in the creation of this mass?

I think I kind of see what you are saying, but I still have some questions.

Most experiments in quantum entanglement have been performed with photons, because in many ways they are the easiest to work with. As I understand it photons do not interact with the Higgs field. That is why they travel at the speed of light. So how do they communicate through the Higgs field?

What is there about the Higgs field that allows "instantaneous" communications?

It seems to me that there was a recent discussion here about an experiment that showed that for at least some reactions you could detect the arrow of time. That is you could make a movie of the reaction and then when it was played back you could tell if it was being shown backwards. How does this work with the Higgs field presumably being able to communicate backwards in time?

Bill Gill

you had me for awhile , I was trying to figure out
what you were replying to.

but I clicked my name and it took me to the post in question.

there isn't much in space for light to reflect off of , this
is why space looks dark , except for the stars and the moon and whatever we can see.

we only see a tiny part of the spectrum so this greatly reduces the amount of what we do see.

if we could see gamma light then we would see things like the
below.

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 :-)

Another good article from Stassler. It goes some way towards answering my earlier question: "In most of the matter we see around us, particles are bound together by forces. Presumably, the energy involved in these forces creates mass. What role, if any, does the Higgs have in the creation of this mass?"



Can you explain the implications of that, please.

This is going to be to complicated so I will do this by links otherwise I will need to write a wall of text

Matt takes you to the Hierarchy problem

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/



He however avoids the discussion so lets look at the wiki link and go down to the conformal solution

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

That will lead you into Coleman–Weinberg potential

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman%E2%80%93Weinberg_potential

And the bottom line for that mechanism is

=> vortex fluctuations becomes important which drive the transition to second order.

So field movement can drive a mechanic that resolves the problem.


Now I am not saying the idea is proved or even likely but it is inaccurate to say that the Higgs and Gravity must be different effect ... remember I never lie :-)


I should complete the story



So is the idea dead we found the Higgs ... Right?

Well not quite I have discussed this a number of times since the announcement of the Higgs there is something not quite right with the Higgs observation.

http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/twin-peaks-in-atlas.html

They have checked for errors and I liked Jesters answer

=> The likely cause being an ECAL calibration error, an unlucky background fluctuation, or alcohol abuse.


The tricky problem is strictly you can't eliminated there being two particles with close masses and thus a valid mechanism for conformal theory.

So I would say the odds against the Higgs being the cause of gravity is extremely high you can not rule it out at this stage with any certainty.

That ends the memo on this story.

If your happy with all that shall we discuss Energy post Higgs now?

Edit: I should add Matt's response in full to the complaint since he has gone on the front foot and given a full explaination of his stance.

Thanks, Orac. It's going to take me a while to wade through that lot, but expect more questions.

OK, questions start here:

The Open University Science Foundation Course introduced me (in 1983) to the invariance of the speed of light. It took me some time to feel comfortable with that idea.

Now MS says: “No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field…….and it is possible for there to be fields that are at rest with respect to all observers!”

Is there some form of time dilation at work here?

Does this mean that it is not a particle’s motion through the Higgs field that gives it mass; because it is always stationary relative to the Higgs field?

Ok lets see how I go putting this into simple English and here we have to go from the simplification of higgs particles dragging on matter to a proper higgs field be warned.

In the standard model, spacetime points are allowed to move between planck time ticks. From one time tick to the next, the average position of a point (neglecting random quantum fluctuations) can either remain stationary (velocity = 0) or move one space increment (velocity = c, speed of light).

The Higgs field is the velocity field of this movement. It has a value equal to the Planck energy for a stationary point and a value of zero for a moving point. The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, 246 GeV, is a measure of the average ratio of moving points to stationary points, which is about 10E17.

If all points were stationary the electron would have the Planck mass, and nothing could move. If all points moved at the velocity of light, the only possible particles would be massless neutrinos and nothing could stand still.

So in other words the Higgs field is a name we give to the field caused by the expansion or movement of spacetime itself and within spacetime. Since you are in spacetime you can't be moving relative to it.

Again it's one of those case that if you accept they have found a Higgs boson you must also accept that spacetime is expanding.

Let’s see if I have grasped any of that.

Any point in spacetime, whether it is occupied by anything, or not, may, at any point, change its location in relation to any/every other point in spacetime by one unit of Plank time.

At any time, a given point in spacetime may either move by that amount at v = c; in which case it is moving; or it may not make that move, in which case it is stationary.

This movement of spacetime points is linked to the Higgs field in that the energy value of the Higgs field is a measure of the ratio of moving to stationary points. I.e. vastly more spacetime points are able to move than remain stationary at any given juncture, and this is because of the presence/value of the Higgs field.

The Higgs field exists, and is necessary, because of the way in which spacetime expands. The influence of the Higgs field makes it possible for stationary matter particles and moving massless particles to co-exist.

I'm confused here, I thought everything was moving through spacetime.

LOL yes much confusion sorry it will be my translation by look lets try this again a different way.

Perhaps start with reading background to space inflation and I will isolate the important bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Read the section on space expands



In the above discussion it uses the phrase "The physical conditions from one moment to the next are stable" which you should recognize as a planck unit of time we use in QM.

So everything inside spacetime is indeed moving but we are talking about the mechanism of how space expands so we are talking about how we add in plank distance units of space in to expand space without the whole system collapsing.

Remember you aren't adding new bits of space in at the edge like say when you do paving each and every point in space is expanding.

This is why have the CMBR because the section of space you are standing in right now was also there at the start of the Big Bang and I know you know all this.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Radiation)

So there are two types of movements in spacetime we talk about depending on the reference frame. The reference frame for the higgs is the same as the reference frame for CMBR from Matt's point of view static in relation to the universe.

Does that clarify it?

Yep thats the process of inflation and the average rate of expansion will be the average between those bits moving or not moving per second.



Ok this is the bit Matt and his detractors are arguing about lets go to wiki inflation link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)






That bit is true relative to particles but as Matt explains you can't expand the theory out to encompass Gravity as per above when we tried the theory failed.

So Matt is saying the Higgs field is created or linked to inflation others are trying to set the higgs up to drive inflation and he is objecting.

Either way the Higgs field still requires there to be inflation so in the same was A CMBR it locks in another proof of some sort of big bang.

Thanks. Still a little refining needed, though.

If individual points move by a unit of Plank time, how does this bring about movement through space?

If the Higgs field is not the inflaton, does it act as a sort of governor that prevents run-away inflation?

The Higgs field requires inflation, but does inflation necessarily require the Higgs field?

Some more Higgs thoughts.

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.

Now Bill S I can truely say you have understood the implications and I am sorry to say you like me will need to wait for confirmation and further testing.

What hawking had derived mathematically that you can't kill QM information in a black hole is now confirmed by the Higgs. QM was there at the birth of universe and it will be there at the end whatever that fate is.

What the Higgs role is in inflation well the jury is out all your suggestions are valid and in the mix.

The importance of the Higgs is it is the first scalar field to be proven and a scalar field can only exist in the world of QM because everything is working on quantum spin and the standard model is now the gold standard for understanding the universe.



I will need some time to simply and update my expansion of space mechanisms for you. Prob drop a new update up between christmas and new years depending how I go.

Best of the season to you if I don't speak to you in meantime.

Edit: Reading this again I should add a small correction to the CERN quote technically the Higgs is not signed off as a spin-0 boson, spin-2 is still valid as of right now it is being disfavored at 90% confidence level. All odd parity and higher even spins have exceeded exclusion levels.

I’m beginning to think I don’t truly understand very much.

I’ve been trying to get a grip on the concept of a scalar, and how that might be equated with a spin-0 boson, or any other particle.
Probably it is my lack of maths that causes a blockage.

Another thing I don’t see is how the Higgs confirms that “you can't kill QM information in a black hole”.

This may be just an interesting aside, or it could have its uses for those of us who struggle with maths.

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/26/special-relativity-mass-calculator

I'm OK with the idea that the mass of a very small object can be expressed in eV, but what is meant by describing the size of a field in eV?

Is this size in the usual sense of the word, ie dimensions, or is it strength?

Isn't the Higgs field something that permeates the Universe?

In which case, how could either its size or strength be described as 250 GeV?

A field is something we can measure as a quantity at any point in spacetime. No field is really in the universe they permeate the universe if you want to look at it like in your words.

Magnetism for example we measure in Tesla, Electricity in Volts we could make a unit up for the Higgs and perhaps as they start exploring and understanding the relaytionships better it will be given a unit.

Until that point it's strength is given in the detection units of the device that detects it in this case by balancing energy in those units.

When Watts first discovered the concept of power and work he invented the horsepower unit. It had no relationship to anything other than something he had at hand to compare power with which was a draft horse.

With understanding we know what he described as a horsepower is equal to 746 watts in SI units.

We also have atmospheric pressure in inches of mercury long before we have had lbs per suare inch or the pascal.

Science is littered with these sorts of measurements and with understanding of how to quantify the Higgs it will probably be given it's own unit and definition.

In layman terms the Higgs interacts via quantum spin and is NOT IN SPACETIME how can a blackhole which is simply a spacetime singularity at planck distance grids destroy something that exists between the grid.

In layman terms it would be like you telling me you were going to contain and capture water with a tenis racket. You know it's not possible simply based on the grid construction of the racket and relative size of the water molecules.

Now you’ve lost me. If a field is not in the Universe, where is it?

I think the next bit makes sense. A field is of indeterminate extent, its energy value can vary from one place to another but will have an average value for the field generally. The average for the Higgs field is 248 GeV. Am I on the right track?

The same question comes up again here: If it is not in spacetime, where is it?

Beyond that; if you are saying that a black hole exists on a (spacetime?) grid, and information exists “between the grid”, I can see that the black hole might not be able to destroy the information. I’m not clear as to where the Higgs fits into this, though.

In the space between the planck distances if you want to take a "flywire mesh" like view of space.

I used the word universe in the context of meaning spacetime that which you and I see the universe.

Perhaps if I adhere to the the standard I will use spacetime to mean the planck distance grid structure and the universe to mean everything.

If that is the case then I need to modify the above

=> No field is really in SPACETIME
=> Fields are measured in SPACETIME but exist in that part of the universe that isn't SPACETIME.



Correct the field is assumed to permeate all space thats what our theory says, which is how we found it. We always intially make the assumption our patch of space is not special it is like any other piece of space. We could be wrong and we are well aware that may be the case but since we cant easily transport the LHC to another piece of space it's the logical start point.


The measurement can be in whatever you like really Bill S units, Orac units, the number science is using at the moment is the energy units of a collider or a moving charged particle because thats how we measure it. Right here right now we can't give you an exact realtionship to other forces because we are still trying to understand the realtionships ... if you like we are like James Watt with power and work.

That is exactly what science is saying.

Remember we don't actually "see" or "measure" the Higgs particle in the LHC we measure energy which disappears out of our SPACETIME grid and suddenly reappears in a decay chain that we can see in our SPACETIME grid.

So at no stage have we ever really seen a Higgs boson in our SPACETIME we can see an interaction which is typical of how particles react and matches all the rules of particle behaviour but we never actually see it in our spacetime.

So we have either an unseen partilce in the Higgs Boson or we are breaking the rules of conservation of energy twice in that we have energy disappearing out of space and sometime later energy reappearing which just happens to balance.

I should also add that us QM nuts doubt there really is SPACETIME grid or even particles we believe this is just an illussion of wave behaviour of QM energy so the simplification is difficult even for us.

Thanks. This gets better all the time!

The question still remains, though, if something is not in spacetime and not in the Universe; where is it?

As we have defined above there is nothing not in the universe there is only things not in spacetime.

Define something we have discussed that isn't in the universe .. infact I have firmly placed QM in the universe which under the old GR/SR universe it wasn't and caused people issues with things popping in and out of existance? Now QM objects simply pop in and out of spacetime but definitely within the universe.

There is a neat article picture where scientists have started to try and use phasespace representations to connect the hidden world to our physical world we see ... http://phys.org/news/2012-12-revealing-quantum.html

Higgs field is in the universe but not in spacetime it is that simple and easily identifieable by the very way we detect the higgs.

Your only other viable explaination is there is the possibilities of double conservation of energy violations of spacetime that have the same tragectory as what a hidden particle would have and ........ (insert your own explaination)

If the higgs and standard model have done nothing else they have clarified to a large extent that SPACETIME is not the entire universe, there is a whole side of it we can't see except by field and energy interactions. If you accept we have found a Higgs you have to accept the new definition of the universe, as a scientist I have no option but to accept it because I can't come up with another explaination outside the standard model.

I guess that is what perplexes me with your reponse things are more clear about the universe not less clear.

I don't think I could. The question arose from your saying: " No field is really in the universe..." which made me think: "OK, where are they, then?"

......In the same way that energy can be borrowed from the vacuum, then immediately repaid; the vacuum can borrow energy from a system as long as it repays it straight away. Thus the amount that seems to vanish must be identical to that which is returned.

Just a thought, and you did ask!

This highlights a common problem with popular science books. What is clear to an expert may be much less obvious to an amateur.

I found this a good read, though I might find it a better read next time around:

The Higgs Boson vs the Spacetime Metric
http://www.johnagowan.org/higgsx.html

Interesting, certainly, but it's going to take a while and probably several reads to digest.

I was not entirely serious when I wrote this, but the more I think about it.....Someone, shoot it down before I start getting more crackpot ideas.

It's not such a stupid idea except the having to pay back the energy instantly why can't you borrow it for much longer :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

=> The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero





Not saying it's right but it is a valid thought :-)

While the energy is borrowed by the vacuum there is an observable imbalance in the energy of the original system, which would violate the law of conservation of energy.

Laws can only be violated if no one sees you doing it.
(that was the single malt talking)

The following is a mix of questions and statements. The statements are really questions as well, as I would appreciate comments on their correctness, or otherwise.

I apologise if some of it is repetitive, but, as usual, time is short, and I'm trying to pull together questions and answers so as to make sense of them.

1. The Higgs field permeates everything, but can it be said to be in spacetime?

2. If the Higgs field is not in spacetime; where is it?

3. Does the same apply to all/any other fields?

4. The Higgs particle should not be thought of as a solid object, rather it is a disturbance in the Higgs field, similar to a ripple on the surface of water.

5. The Higgs particle cannot be detected directly, it is so short-lived it can be detected only as a result of its decay into other particles.

6. If Higgs particles are a constant characteristic of the Higgs field, but decay in a small fraction of a second, they must also be constantly "created". Does this mean they are virtual particles, constantly coming into being and decaying?

7. If Higgs particles are virtual particles, would their energy not be borrowed from the vacuum; in which case would there be any violation of the law of conservation of energy?

8. The vacuum is part of the Universe, but is it in spacetime?

A Higgs field exists anywhere a charged field has a vacuum expectation value. So at a layman level anywhere you have the vacuum of space we would expect to see the higgs field. I put in the word "expect" because the LHC exists in one spot in spacetime and we have an underlying qualification that we assume there is nothing special about our area of spacetime.

Is it in spacetime is a tricky question lets talk about a field you would know well being the magnetic field. We can explain to a layman that quantum spin of the atoms creates the magnetic field but to explain how that creates a field with some relationship to spacetime at a layman level is well near on impossible.

Read the magnetic field wikipedia entry and tell me if that says a magnetic field is in spacetime or not

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

This is why I think we are going to have create a simplified version of QM to be taught at school.

I can walk you through a simplified QM if you really want but probably if you just read up on a QM photon you will probably get the basic QM idea

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




In QM yes as per above there is nothing special about the higgs field.




There is a division on this even within QM scientists. I do not personally believe it or any elementary particle is solid and real but that is my personal view not an agreed science.

Sascha's article on nutty nuts versus real realists is one of the best for layman to understand the issue.

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/are_you_real_quantum_mechanics-90221




Correct



Correct as there are for any fields you are more familar with.

In the Standard Model photons are a consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime.

What you are calling popping into and out of existance is a simple quantum oscillation.




In quantum field theory everything is virtual particles which then becomes fields.

The question then becomes is Energy real or is it a consequence of the above?

QM demands conservation of quantum spin and therefore is energy actually an illussion of that fact, just another rainbow. There is no science agreed answer on that right now but we will probably have the answer within a reasonable timeframe with the discovery of a spin-0 boson in the higgs.

You might for example want to look at this.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23042-cloud-of-atoms-goes-beyond-absolute-zero.html
http://www.livescience.com/25959-atoms-colder-than-absolute-zero.html

Be prepared to see the weird and whacky come out about energy in the next few years. It will be one of the first big pushes now we have the higgs understanding.



As we have defined spacetime above no it is the other way around spacetime is in the universe if we define the universe as being the QM definition.

This is one of the most fundemental shifts with the discovery of the higgs that QM universe becomes more fundemental than GR/SR spacetime.

Topical to this shift in science thinking

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-einstein-emc2-outer-space.html

Ok, this is an almost completely uninformed question about the subject of your link. I think that what Dr. Lebed is saying is that there would be no radiation from cold hydrogen (my extrapolation) in flat space. But isn't space pretty much filled with the 21 cm hydrogen radiation? I would think that most of that would come from cold hydrogen in flat space.

Possibly Dr. Lebed is looking at something different from what I am thinking of. And of course I suspect that Dr. Lebed know one heck of a lot more about the subject than I do.

Bill Gill

Bill correct but it is kicked out from a place with very high gravity called a sun thus you need to control the experiment and have a large change in gravity. Remember it's the spontaneous excitation rate thats of interest not the radiation.

Here is the test:

1.) Build a sealed canister put in a detector and hydrogen
2.) You are on earth at current get a stable reading of excite events per unit time
3.) Send the canister out into space far enough for gravity to be alot less.
4.) Get reading of of excite per unit time.


Do readings in 2 and 4 differ by a scientifically significant margin.

If you wanted a reliablity test I guess you could add in

5.) Bring spacecraft back and splash down in ocean
6.) Check excite events per unit time is again that of step 2.


This is QM asking questions and probing GR now it thinks it understands it better.

Did you understand the temperature below absolute zero reference above they actually explain it badly I think I can do better if you need?

Ok, it took me a minute to find what you were talking about in regard to negative temperature. That is a different article on phys.org. Anyway I'm not sure I understood it. If I think about it for a while I might be able to figure out what they are talking about, but I'm not sure. The same old problem, That's not what I was taught, so it must be wrong. The problem with that attitude is that it may not be wrong, I just may have been taught only a part of what is happening, or maybe the teachers hadn't found out about the new stuff yet. Keeping up with advanced physics is sometimes a bit of a job.

Bill Gill

The Wiki article doesn't specifically say if electric/magnetic fields are in spacetime, but they were apparently important in the development of S R from which spacetime emerged, so a layperson might be forgiven for assuming that fields exist in spacetime.

I read the photon article, I think I have a general grasp of that, but I still have trouble creating a "visual" image of somewhere that is outside spacetime.

I liked Vongehr's article, but as far as the division is concerned I shall stay comfortably on the fence, with at least one foot in the "nutty nuts' camp".



Eureka! At last I think I have grasped why you have been asking whether or not energy is real. I think I shall go and make a round of tea, think about this a bit and, hopefully, come back later.

Pulling bits of threads together for you

Read Ethan's article

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/02/what-we-learn-just-by-being-here/

Hopefully you will get the key point relative to this theme



This includes zero or infinity just for you Bill S.

Ethan has done a wonderful job at simplifying what requires a huge amount of mathematics to show under QFT.

So lets bring in another piece of the puzzle in our discussion which is Quantum Spin.

So we have these virtual particles and we have the concept of spin but the virtual particles actually spinning in the classic ball or earth rotation sense. The unequivocal answer is yes and there are a number of lines of proof. This can catch even physicists out in that they may not imagine that something that is not quite classical can behave in a classic way you may want to look at the exchange between Lubos Motl and Aidan Randle-Conde it is worth a read (http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/the-electron-is-spinning-after-all.html)

Lubos correctly identifies the facts about electron and proton spin first define what classic spin is defined as



Now identify a way to test it classically



There are more technical physical tests but the above should easily convince anyone that the spin is real and classical.
So can something that is not quite classical spin classically. Well actually we have a number of common things you will be familar with that will help.

First lets consider a tornado or water eddy they spin and they are not solid and real but are spins of the medium they are in. Now they require a medium or ether and we have concluded that spacetime has none so they are interesting but not useful.

Next lets consider the swirling magnetic field in an induction motor



So now we have a spinning field across an area of spacetime and spacetime itself isn't spinning so we are getting closer. If you place something magnetic inside the swirling magnetic field in an induction motor it will follow it around so our thing that isn't at all solid or real called a field can be measured and has effects in our classic world even though what exactly the swirling field is remains a bit puzzling.

Bill S the above may help you with your thinking about whether a field is inside or outside spacetime but I am going to leave that up to you to work through

Hopefully by now we have got you to realise that non classical things can indeed give rise to classical measurements and that is where confusion starts.

If you try and make the electron solid and real and spin it around like a solid earth model your calculations go crazy because the elctron is not classical in it's nature at all but it's spin is measurable in a classic way.

Now lets bring in our negative temperature below absolute zero and tie it all together.

The problem with temperature is it a classical measurement and that measurement started off historically by a column of liquid expanded inside a glass tube, I am sure we all know what a thermometer is.

The problem is it is not a singular measurement of a singular property although classic physics assigned it to the concept of the vibration momentum of matter it is a simplification that is not actually real. Under quantum mechanics temperature is simply a statistic made up of mathematics of momentum and a number of quantum spins.

Conceptually it easy to show what happens and why classic physics gets it so wrong, I will introduce couples world.

Imagine you live in couples world where you may only enter where you are a male and female couple and in general male and female couples always move around together lovingly holding hands.

If you were an observer measuring in couples world you would make an interesting observation that no matter where you measure in couples world one always finds on average one testicle and one developed breast per person in couples world.
As our couples move around that statistic would be born out to be true and you may even conceed it is a classic measurement in couples world.

There is however a problem even in couples world when our couple go to the toilet they seperate and our scientists happens to take up camp outside the male toilet. What he notices is a violation of couple land law there are almost no developed breasts entering the male toilet so he would call it negative breast. Similarly he goes over to the female toilet and he notices he has negative testicles.

What they are doing in the negative temperature work is playing with quantum mechanics to do something weird in a classical sense. The actual physical real spacetime can not have a negative temperature it is forbidden because it is a bound state construct we know that because thats how we derived the concept of temperature and discovered it in the first place. It is vitual you realize that spacetime itself COULD NEVER have a negative temperature it is truely a couples world.

What they are really showing off is that fact and they created the cubicles for the toilets via QM to seperate our couples in couples world and measure negative temperature. The negative temperature can only exist in there QM toilet cubicles they created and can never exist in couples world

So it's a cool experiment in the sense that it yet again underlines QM is correctly predicting weird things that classic physics would never realise and it may be experimentally useful to probe quantum effects but it has no real relevance to our real world and our real world can never go below absolute zero.

That will do for now lets see how you go.

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

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.

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?

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.



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.

Asking serious question is never a pest to me



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.




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



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.

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.

Thanks again, Orac. Quite a lot to wade through; but "I'll be back." to quote a famous American politician.

What about the possibility that it could have been the thing that put the brake on inflation?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)"

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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????



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




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



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




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.

how does the magnet know?

you science cult religion tells the magnet exactly
when to start moving , the reason your fundamentalist cult religion members cant figure these simple things are because
your diverse religions conflict with each other.

your so pitiful orac that your religious cult fundamentalist
nature is showing through the seams of your skirt.
you wacko , if you would just take a little time and examine
your fake science cults you would find that what I say is true.

how was that?
pretty good troll ay?

you hoser

My line of thought was that moving A would cause a ripple in the field which would move from A to B at "c".



Ripples, particles, virtual particles - they have a tendency to run together

Presumably, because science differs from dogma, different scientists can hold different views. No doubt that's good for science, but it can be a bit confusing for us non-scientists.

I think I'm going to have to come back to the particle/virtual particle distinction later.

This is what is so confusing to people who haven't had the chance to make an in depth study of QM. There are a lot of ways to express it, and if you start out studying one way you can get confused when somebody says it in a different way. The results that you get if you follow one method of expression are pretty much the same as the other, but it can kind of blow your mind. It does take a lot of study to really follow something when it is being discussed from the different view points. And if you don't understand the math that leads to the view points it really gets complicated.

Bill Gill

I suppose the only positive thing that can be said about confusion is that as long as you patiently pick away at it, it can result is some reasonably satisfying conclusions.

One of the most understandable (brief) accounts of the difference between a particle and a virtual particle that I have found is from Matt Stassler:

"The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields."

I suspect that Orac will argue with that, but that's where the interest comes in. Given enough time and patience, even I may eventually have some idea what it's all about.

Bill.S before we even bother discussing particles there is a problem you must decide what a field is?

Much of what goes wrong and confusing with physics is in the teaching and Matt is confusing you because he is taking you into the problem the wrong way in my view.

Go back to what Matt Strassler said



That is a classic physics avoid the question it's an answer Tutor Turtle would have been proud of because first it tells you nothing and the only things it does say are wild assumptions

Lets break it down claim by claim

1.) A field is something that is present everywhere in space and time .... Proof?

There are obvious problems with this statement a farady cage was invented in 1836

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage => Such an enclosure blocks external static and non-static electric fields.

Things can block fields but isn't it in all space and time ???????

Quantum mechanics causes this statement even more issues

http://www.popsci.com.au/science/researc...-the-first-time

That macroscopic teleportation included the fields because thats how they monitored they were successful.



2.) A field is something that zero or not zero, and can have waves in it.

This statement is weird especially for a physicist. I mean we have electromagnetic waves already which involves the fields



From what he is saying now the fields have waves in them?????


3.) A field is something that if it is a quantum field, its waves are made from particles.

What so a quantum field is different from other fields???????


To me all Matt has done is confused everything into a right royal mess.


Then your second post he is starting to get warmer to how to go into the problem



I agree I would like to get rid of the word particle.

Problems left:

1.) What is a field still no clue????
2.) How can you have a ripple in a field because we havent defined a field.

The rest will then work.

Faraday cages cannot block static and slowly varying magnetic fields, such as the Earth's magnetic field
(a compass will still work inside).

you may be able to shield the insides of a box to a degree
but as long as there are particles inside the box there will
always be a field inside the box.

does that sound right?

how does light travel at the speed of light?

So can I attempt a different way into the problem for you, so lets start with question 1.

1.) What is a field.

At it's most basic a field is the amount of energy per unit volume across an area of spacetime.

All fields we thus define

Field = Energy/Volume

Hence a field can only go to zero and be non existant in the absence of energy

This can be shown to be true by all the known fields

Electric and Magnetic
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/engfie.html

Gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field

Lets use the GR form as science believes it is more accurate



Here T is the stress–energy tensor, G is the Einstein tensor, and c is the speed of light.

The Einstein tensor and the speed of light are constants so you can only have zero gravity by taking the energy-stress tensor value T to zero. That is there is no energy in the unit area of space to create tension.


So while we havent yet described the structure of a field we have got one important fact and understanding of a field and that is whenever you see a field you are seeing energy in a given volume of spacetime.

It is one of the most important understanding of fields and one of the very basic facts on fields that can not be disputed.
Yet it is all too often left out from teaching as Matt Strassler did and it is vitally important.

Good to see a sensible question Paul.

Yep spot on.

Now do you want me to give you a logical problem that follows from this keep reducing the size of the box down to like microscopic.

Do you see what is going to happen?

At some point you will reach a size where you have one particle trapped in the box touching the walls.

Where does the field go now?

These are the problems of classic physics

gravity , that particle will have gravity.

then if you divide that particle a million times each of the million pieces will have gravity.

there will always be a field of some kind.

I'm thinking that even though they say its a classic physics problem the answers to
all of it can be found using classic physics , they're just not thinking the right way.

I'm also thinking that you guy's are getting trumped by your math.

I'm not trying to start an argument , just telling my opinion.

Lets see if I can stretch you .. this one usually catches the students out.

Whats the gravity at the centre of the earth?

Now what if I take your box to that centre of earth position?

since the rest of the earth's gravity ( due to mass ) would be pulling on the center of the earth , I'm going to say apx zero.

depending on where you measure within that particle.
of course I'm considering that the earth here is just
an example and we're not thinking of the actual earth.

because we really don't know what's there.



there may not be much gravity , but there's plenty of heat.
because there's plenty of pressure.

and loads of electric currents.
and electric currents produce magnetic fields !

to get pickey about it the rest of the universe is also
applying gravity to that particle.

Very good most get that wrong.

So lets keep the extension going the earths gravitaional field ends where?

And since you already introduced the earths magnetic field and it's source above lets extend that.

If we looked at the longest possible magnetic field line of the earth where does it start and end?

it never ends , it just get's weaker.



I'm going to say at the center of the earth.





don't get angry at this , this could be important stuff here.

if your math say's thing's are different than reality then could it be that the math need's fine tuning not reality?

I never get angry unless you are trolling .. I am also making no implicit claim I know the answer here because there are some big problems we are about to encounter and this excercise was about getting people to think.

Again you are absolutely correct science says the fields extend from the centre of earth to the very edge of the universe they just get weaker.

There is a huge problem in the above if we agree that fields are energy we have energy arising from a singularity at the centre of the earth and travelling off to an almost infinite edge of the universe .... houston we have a problem.

Classically and even in the explaination Matt Strassler gave we try to sweep this under the carpet. We try and make claims like the centre is only a notional idea its the point that the larger number of interactions centre on.

Sounds good until you drill down to the microscopic level where like in your earths magnetic field there is some charged particle moving that will emit a magnetic wave that will travel all the way to edge of the universe and at that level the energy arises at a singularity and ends in infinity.

We as smart humans struggle to get off the planet and yet some pathetic particle can send something to the edge of the universe ... about now I think it's probably time we discuss this energy stuff don't you?

yes

a gravity field is not energy.

a magnetic field is produced by energy and can produce energy but is not energy.

light is always energy.

that sound about right?

what do you think about a light field?

As per the discussion above I defined field as energy per volume it's my definition.

As per the standard science definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

=> A field is a physical quantity that has a value for each point in space and time

I have chosen to make the standard physical quantity energy I chose that because as per the logic given above it makes all field definitions uniform I am assuming there are no special fields.

So I am giving a series of assumptions and logic and see where it takes us, I am not claiming it to be true.

This was sort of my complaint with Matt Strasslers answers Bill.S posted because his answer on fields was sort of pathetic



So for me no a gravity field is energy.

I have reasonable grounds for the assumption pick up a bowling ball and drop it on your toe. Where did the energy come from it has something to do with gravity fields because take your toe and bowling ball into space and it doesn't happen.

However as science doesn't have a precise origin of gravity there is nothing wrong with your view and I am not claiming I am implicitly right but then you need to go back a step and tell me how you define a field because it's different to mine.



Again no a magnet and electric fields I am going to define as energy again I can see magnets and electric fields move things and do work so I think it's a resonable assumption but certainly not conclusive proof.



Yes I will agree on that one light being an EM field by my definition must be energy.


However from the above you can see our first big issue for science we must decide on a relationship between energy and fields and your answers illustrate that fact dramatically.

That still leads us inevitably to the next problem we need to define energy .. care to try one yourself?



Do you mean of the faraday type or something else this is a somewhat problematic term?

For the more advanced of you who wish to skip ahead and do some thinking

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

I see were going to need to define energy before we can define
what a field is.

to me gravity is a force not energy.
it can produce energy but only through interaction with other objects.

and

an magnetic field like gravity is not energy , it can produce energy
but only through interaction with other objects.

we need to define energy before we can continue.


I haven't had but 1 cup of coffee , so I'll be back.
my brain hasn't fully kicked in yet and it hurts to think right now.

lets hold off on that for now until we can agree on what energy
is.

Energy exists in many forms:

from wiki

Heat, a form of energy, is partly potential energy and partly kinetic energy.
In the context of physical sciences, several forms of energy have been defined. These include:

Thermal energy
x Chemical energy
x Electric energy
Radiant energy
x Nuclear energy
x Magnetic energy
x Elastic energy
x Sound energy
x Mechanical energy
x Mass (E=mc²)
Luminous energy


I have placed an x beside the types of energy that
should not be considered in space and underlined the type's
of energy that we should use in my opinion.

maybe we should just use an E and then label the type of energy

ie... E(radiant) or E(luminous) etc...

and if we decide to use another form we can.

I'm going to guess that radiant energy is the only one we
will need because luminous and thermal are both radiant energy.

what do you think?

I don't think you are getting picky there Paul. In fact, I think you have made an important point.

What we are looking at here is the gravitational field.

Is that field everywhere in space and time?

Is the average energy of that field zero or non-zero?

Can we identify waves in that field?

lets leave time out of this , OK.

I'm going to guess that everywhere inside the universe there is
a gravity field.

unless the field has been blocked through some device.



there is no energy in a gravity field in my opinion.



we can identify the magnatude of a gravity field.

I don't think there are waves in a gravity field
gravity permeates all that is.

it's there everywhere.

I think I see where your going with this and that is that
we call it a field ( thus it must have waves )
like a magnetic field.

I only call it a gravity "field" for lack of better terminology.

I was moving more towards the question as to whether, if you measure a field as zero at any point in space, how could you say that there was a field there.

maybe its like light , it radiates from its source.

why does gravity bend light?

Okay Paul I need you to define a field, a force and energy in whatever description you can.

There is no right and wrong here I just need to see you definitions so I can work from there.

All logical definitions should be workable to the same conclusions a fact born out by QM. A little secret of QM is that it doesn't have a thing called velocity this is because of the uncertainty principle but you can construct a statistic equivalent to what classic physics calls velocity.

So long as definitions are consistant science and logic should get us to the same place.

Finally we need to clarify the term spacetime which seems to be causing some confusion. I am using spacetime to mean any random section of of the world around us. I am using it to distinguish it from space as in not on earth etc and I notice in your energy type post you sort of wanted to discard some types of energy from discussion by looks based on space?

So to be clear our random section of spacetime can be anywhere and may include matter or not specific types of energy may require matter but we know fields or force or whatever you want to call them transit thru matter like earths magnetic and gravity.

I use the time part because its important and you probably havent thought about this but here goes. Science makes a massive assumption and because you wanted to exclude time so do you. The assumption goes like this any experiment you do today is reproducable tomorrow and the day after that is you are both make a massive assumption that space itself is not changing or changing so slowly that it won't change results.

Under big bang and quite a few cosmic theories space changes over time so the time bit becomes important I think you are having a static consistant universe so the time bit doesn't matter to you but if we stick with spacetime we can even cover stuff that allows the universe to change.

Anyhow long discussion but I need definitions of field, force and energy.

Myself I am going to go the full QM version which initially will look weird, I am not even going to use the classic definition because I think it has issues

Energy = Any quantity (position, velocity, electric field at a given point, volume of a gas, the percentage of an isotope or carbon dioxide in it, and so on) that is evolving in time is evolving because it doesn't commute with spacetime is thus a Hamiltonian – with the operator of energy. So the energy has to depend on a related "complementary" quantity describing very similar things.

Really everything that may change and that may be measured in the world is energy and I shall define as quantum information and for practical purposes quantum information = energy.

A field is created across an area of spacetime when energies between two points in spacetime differ on some quantity.

A force is a generic energy change being exerted onto an object or point in space. Forces can be positive or negative and thus have directionality. Fields are hence always a force.

Those are my definitions.


An interesting aside some of the more astute may have notice I have settled if energy real or not under my definition. Under classic physics none could give me a conclusive argument if energy was real or not. Under the definition of energy I have given above it is impossible for energy to not be real it may have an arbritrary value but it is most definitely real in the same way the US dollar has an arbitrary value but is most definitely real by definition.

However there was penalty for getting energy to be real and that was conservation it cost no energy to stay the same it costs energy to change. Intrinsically this is the same as money if I have 1 dollar it remains 1 dollar until I spend it ... that is a dollars value is conserved. Now the real astute will realise that is not neccessarily true of money if I am trading across currancy and I will leave it to discuss later if such mechanisms are possible with energy since it looks something like currancy under my definition.

Orac

I'll think about all that tomorrow.

I'm watching a movie right now , but I'll get back
to it soon.

meanwhile , would you mind giving a brief definition
of what you think a field is and what you think energy is?



I don't think were going to get anywhere if everything
is
energy.



if everything is energy , then the above say's that everything will cause a field between everything else , because if everything is energy and everything is moving ( and everything is moving ) then everything would have a constantly changing magnitude of energy.

can I ask if any of your definition's are influenced by
any math or theory?

I'm just curious.

I noticed you used "in the world" but we are still talking about space right?

read again what I have written ANYTHING that changes with respect to time is a change in energy.


In your classic world it is an extension of Newtons first law in a different way



So the extension is not just movement it is anything that changes with respect to time.

So for example radioactive decay involves a change of a measurable quantity in time as such it is energy.

So we clear energy isn't everything it's involved in anything that changes a measurable quantity in time.

If you can measure it and it changes from one time to the next time then energy was exchanged.




Not quite because of your problem above anything that exchanges energy will have a field.




This is Quantum Mechanics explained in a really very simply way that you have probably never seen before it is a push to demystify QM and it involves no mathematics or complications.

It sort of a generic education push that is being discussed and sort of as a prelude to where you end up I will proved a link to a movie NASA has done called visual magnetic fields.

http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/magnetic-fields-made-visible-nasas-magnetic-movie




We are talking about any piece of space you randomly pick it could be here on earth or out in space as in between earth and the sun. From a QM perspective there is nothing different between any piece of space just some may have matter and fields in them some may not ... QM care not it will work the same in any situation.

It is unimportant to QM because if you look at the definitions above QM positions itself as the master of the laws it can not hence have laws imposed on it. You should be familar with this problem in your religious context if you have a GOD then he can not be made to obey anyone else. It is important to also point out that QM does not seek to be a GOD in that at it's heart QM is a set of rules but no intelligence behind why those rules exist. We have no idea why such rules would come about and hence it is entirely consistant that perhaps there is a GOD and he made the rules or equally such rules came about by pure chance we have no way to test this.

In the above statement it becomes obvious why QM can violate so many normal classical laws and it also tells you that even inside a black hole or a biggest sun the laws of QM have to still hold or else the whole theory breaks down it would be the religious equivalent of saying GOD stopped working in a black hole or big sun. There are only very very specific ways that QM can be stopped or have what we call boundary conditions imposed but thats a much later discussion.

I will assume I got you through that because it's not complicated with just a couple of simple definitions we have established some interesting facts of the theory

1.) Energy is by definition real.
2.) Time has to exist otherwise there is no energy because if you can't change a quantity between units of time there is no energy.
3.) Between any two units of time the systems energy has to be conserved.

If you want a challenge try proving those 3 things under classic physics.

I guess what was disappointing for me was when I asked questions about energy and time being real not one person on the forum identified that those facts must be true if QM is true.

The fact is if you see an article which makes energy or time abstract and not real you should be able to construct an experiment under QM to falsify the assumption. Energy or time not being real is a direct violation of QM and that is the memo.

Orac, I'm not questioning your line of reasoning, nor the conclusions you reach. However, there seem to be two definitions missing:

1. How do you define reality?
2. How do you define QM?

You say, for example, that energy is real. Unless you have defined reality, you have said no more than that energy appears to be real in what we perceive as reality.

Pe=mgh

two room's side by side.

one room is in total darkness.
the other room is lit up by a light bulb.

a single particle travels from the dark room into the light room.

the particle gains energy ( E radiant ) as it enters into the light

NO energy was EXCHANGED

the light bulb did not require more energy to illuminate the
particle.

if we measure E of the particle we see it has gained energy.

it has heated up.

I think that energy was exchanged when the particle left the dark room and entered the light room. The total energy in the dark room decreased by the energy of the particle, the total energy in the light room is increased by the energy of the particle. That is one energy exchange. Also if the particle absorbs energy from the radiant energy then it starts moving faster so it has absorbed energy from the radiant energy in the room. That is another energy exchange.

Bill Gill

is that a energy exchange or is that simply moving energy
from one room to another?

when the particle left the dark room , what did the particle give
to the room and what did the room give to the particle in exchange?

when the particle entered the light room , what did the particle give
to the room and what did the room give to the particle in exchange?




is that a energy exchange or is that energy absorption?

when the particle absorbed the radiant energy did it absorbe the
radiant energy from the room or from the light bulb?

when the particle absorbed the radiant energy , we could say that
the light bulb gave the particle something , but what did the
particle give the light bulb in exchange?

now I suppose we need to define what exchange means.


if we look at the overall total energy before and after
we see an increase if we make the walls of the light room
made from mirrors.

this way the light is never absorbed until the particle enters
the light room.

An energy exchange happened to the particle when it was struck by the light. This causes the particle to 'speed up', which would be an energy exchange into the lit room as heat.
The room that lost a particle would have lost energy (potential energy maybe?) from the particle leaving. This is also an exchange.

Energy exchange in it's simplest form seems to be a difference in energy from one point of measure to another. It does not necessarily mean a 'trade' as it were, just a difference.

That's how I figured it anyways. "Energy exchange" seems to be a pretty generic term, so it seems to have pretty generic definitions.

They are correct Paul even in your classic world one photon of light or even a molecule changes energy of your boxes.

Specifically in classic physics with a molecule it is known as maxwells demon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell's_demon

Science even built an optical version which is exactly what you described Paul

http://www.nature.com/nphoton/journal/v2/n8/fig_tab/nphoton.2008.145_F2.html

And to prove it exchanges energy it can be used to cool
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/6/063044/
http://george.ph.utexas.edu/papers/Maxwelldemon.pdf

I could talk about the quantum version but it would freak you out

However I am not even going to bother arguing any of this because under the definitions I gave you it is implicit.


You may hence argue you don't agree with the definitions but the logic per the definitions I gave is explicit and it also equates precisely to the classic result as per maxwell etc.


For you Neo I already defined energy exchange as any quantity that can be measured quantity and changes with time. If you can measure it and it changes then energy was exchanged and that is the standard QM definition. The definition is clear and there are no ambiguities or tricks.

It's one of the interesting things about QM is people have invariably heard about the weird funky mathematics and weird effects but many don't realise how basic it's framework really is.

I am not going to get involved in the classic physics discussion because it is all over the shop with energy and time you will be arguing till the cows come home and its going to get even more weird with Paul because he has his own funky definitions.

The important thing to learn if nothing else is that so long as QM remains a valid science theory any discussion of time or energy being abstract or fuzzy or not real is rubbish because that is an instant falsification of QM. So if such concepts are proven QM falls it is that simple.

according to the definition's listed below you are the one
with funky definition's not me.

I was critical of your usage of the word "exchange" and in
my world the word "exchange" has the following definitions.








Neo pretty much hit the nail on the head , what your trying
to imply is that the difference is an exchange.



but an exchange is extremely different from a difference.





if QM wants to demystify itself it should not use terminology
that conflicts with known definitions.

I have read a little about what QM says about
energy exchange and from what I have read an energy exchange
is nothing more than a difference in polarity.

I think , I just spent a minute on it.

I agree with Paul - it's misleading when a one-way energy transfer is called an energy exchange. No one appears to have conceded that absurdity.

Perhaps Paul call it difference or change at this layman level it hardly matters and feel free to change it. It matters to you I understand but the problem is we are dealing with many levels of science skill here.

Redewenur I am really surprised you of all people didn't figure why it is called exchange. The stuff is vibrating in a QM oscillation how do you think your going to have a clean one way interaction when was the last time you saw two vibrating objects have a clean one way interaction.

Rede I know you know that even a static empty piece of spacetime vacuum is exchanging energy and now you want to insist on directionalty of an exchange I would like to see that????.

I conceed from Pauls layman level it probably is better to put it as change or difference but at your science level redewenur it is an exchange and there are no one way interactions at the QM level ... there can't be because of what is happening.

Even bringing the problem back to a classic problem try viewing what happens when a fast moving by not spinning basketball runs into a stationary but spinning basketball describe what happens? At some macro level the moving ball made the staionary ball move but you are ignoring the staionary ball imparted spin on the moving ball. Ok this is a classic physics spin problem but it shows the issue.

At your science level Rede it is definitely an exchange and it's important not only that you realise it is but why.



Hence this statement is absurd to me coming from someone of your science knowledge.

Perhaps it is his Redewenur's degree of knowledge that the statement comes from.

have you ever considered that some people just have the ability
to reason beyond what is written?

QM is sort of new , and it seem's as if it changes a lot
as it finds new things , but if QM conflicts with definitions
that are mainstream then perhaps it needs to learn to comply.

Rede knows at least enough QM to grasp string theory so I am not saying something out of place to his level of science.

The definition doesn't conflict with mainstream its just in classic physics you oversimplify everything see this basketball example

What happens when a fast moving by not spinning basketball runs into a stationary but spinning basketball?

Classic physics: Well the stationary basketball was imparted energy and the staionary ball started moving. It's true but it misses part of the story and if you were studying the collision linear velocity exchange its not important and the collision is viewed as one way energy exchange.

QM physics: Well the stationary basketball was imparted energy and the stationary started moving however the staionary ball also imparted spin energy back onto the moving ball.


The problem here is classic phsyics actually thinks that you get real world moving ball and a stationary ball collisions in which one or both arent actually spinning wake up people the classic type collissions would be extremely rare in real life.

Physics and science teaching books are full of these static simplified examples and people therefore think that there are such things as real world one way changes in energy.

The reverse is true most collisions and energy exchanges as described in science books is contrived and your want to change the word exchange for difference enforces and strengthens that contrivance and that is the issue for me.

Anyhow enough said if you want to call it difference or change go ahead but it is really an exchange in most real world interactions and QM does not seek to contrive anything.

this happens in real life.

in classic physics you can include the spin of a ball and that
spin will cause a stationary ball to both move and spin and
the impacting ball can also have movement and a spin.

you just haven't seen it yet.
the degree of spin would depend on many factors but it is
calculable.

Just for clarification, I would like to come back to this point.

Are you saying that a faraday cage blocks the electromagnetic field?

If so, how can we be sure that it blocks the field, rather than just blocking disturbances in the field?

That is a good example Paul that shows the sorts of things that happen and so why do you insist on energy being a difference rather than an exchange?

What is really happening is because classic physics usually deals with big macro objects they can ignore certains things and build a broad picture and that broad picture leads to the conclusion of directionality.

What gets forgotten is when you get down really small you can't just ignore or approximate away things.

So QM correctly views all energy exchanges as bi-directional it is the safest and generic assumption and would match any and all real world situations.

To illustrate the point you don't get more one way than radio-active decay yet classic physics and it's one way view would not realise the reverse process call alpha-process exists why would it.

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

The process is incredibly rare and unlikely and yet it has been proven to be calculatable odds and experimentally confirmed.

Even in chemistry I have seen teachers still teach reactions are irreversible which is garbage and been known to be garbage since the 1800's and definitely since QM was founded.

Hopefully all science teachers now days teaching beyond very young children teach all chemical reactions are reversible just the reverse may be incredibly unlikely and in modern chemistry it is called chemical equilibrium

http://www.wavesignal.com/o_chem/Equil.htm



To show absolute proof QM set a specific task perfected and demonstrated in 2006 that you can use a laserbeam with QM properties to change the reversal rate of a chemical reaction

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2006/oct/13/laser-controls-chemical-reaction-rates

It has been done on hundred of reactions and is standard technique now in advanced chemistry and all reactions are reversible is considered absolute.

Last year the process was taken to a whole new level of single atom to single atom chemistry

http://phys.org/news/2012-07-chemical-reactions-individual-atoms.html

So I have no problem if you as a layman wants one direction but for a science level of Rede no one direction is a crass and horrible simplification.

Nope if transfers the field around and area of spacetime the same process is being used to build cloaking devices use QM.

Cloaking devices are using the same trick as a faraday cage just on other QM properties not the EM and the faraday cage was never actually understood in it's day as to why it created and electromagnetic shield.

You can cloak any object based on a QM property by transferring that property out at one boundary and back again at the next effectively cloaking in between the two boundaries.

In short you can cloak any QM property but you can not cloak all simultaneously to make an area of nothing the laws of QM conservation stop that happening

Background:
http://phys.org/news107011336.html

Light cloak:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110727121651.htm

Magnetic cloak:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/magnetic-invisibility-cloak/

Heat Cloak:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326133516.htm

Plasmonic Cloak:
http://www.iopblog.org/scientists-create-freestanding-3d-cloak/

Time cloak:
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/74116.html

In view of the response, I'm not about to let this pass:

Perhaps, Orac, you would care to tell us, in QM terms if necessary, how energy from the sun's nuclear fusion is exchanged* rather that transferred* to, for example, Earth.

* the two terms are not interchangeable, they have clear and specific meanings

Actually even in that case although you probaly dont realise it the energy is exchange because the earth has an albedo that it reflects the suns own energy back to the sun in a delayed fashion.

Earth also emits IR raditaion and has a completely different wavelength to the sun so in the IR wavelength you could view earth as the emitter and the sun as the reciever.

Both of those effects utimately will play some very tiny part in the solar sun cycle along with planet gravity and a pile of other effects are definitely more important but all of those ultimately effect the rate of fussion occuring in the sun.

Is it important probably not and at a classic level you can ignore it and granted the scale of the exchanges are massively different but energy is almost certainly EXCHANGED to deny so is to deny the basic science involved.

So perhaps Rede you should have let it pass and I mean that in a polite kind way, and I repeat it is very difficult to find a one way transfer in science

Thus ends the memo for today.

I thought long and hard whether I want to discuss this because I do not want to antagonise Paul and so Paul if you want to discuss this create a new thread and I am happy to discuss.

Rede to show you how seemingly minor incredibly unlikely reversals of energy can be you only have to look at life in the universe under big bang theory and the triple-alpha process.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process


Ethan Seigel did a really good article on this recently

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/02/what-we-learn-just-by-being-here/


If you believe in the big bang theory as opposed to a god in creating life then your entire belief is hanging on the most unlikely reversal process in nuclear physics.



I should also add in an unsolved mystery in the field of nuclear physics which was initially blamed on experimental error but has been ruled out

http://phys.org/news202456660.html

=> A team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun's core.

There is now a second study showing the exact same thing.

Best guess is this is most likely going to be one of those weird highly unlikely QM reversals we are talking about otherwise it's completely new physics and is every crackpots dream.

Lubos Motl has put a reasonable discussion on it and I agree you can rule out a new particle for his exact same logic

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/sunlight-or-neutrinos-affect-radon.html



It's a big if but if proven redenewur is that link good enough to show you the dangers of assuming one directionality.

that is a reflection orac.

I dont think your going to have a lot of luck here with
that type of reasoning , its as if you have a soft lead hammer
and your trying to forge cold hard steel.

if I shine a flashlight at my mirror.

1) does the mirror exchange energy with the flashlight?

2) if so , can you calculate where all the energy came from?

3) would you find that all the energy came from the flashlight?

4) if any energy came from the mirror , can you describe that please?



I'm not getting upset , I'm only trying to make some sense of
the way QM describes things.

Paul again you are making everything pure and it leads you to the wrong conclusion the example you gave is another text book contrived result which does not respresent the real world example we are talking about.

I am going to contrive an answer to your torch problem by saying the mirror is most likely silver backed and thus has a radioactive decay. The radioactive decay from the mirror is thus providing energy back to the bulb and that decay is possibly affected by light hitting the mirror.

What we are getting here is unnatural or human engineered processes are designed to go one way and they may be very close to perfect but there is usually some concievable way the process can reverse if incredibly unlikely. Your torch and mirror is indeed an example of a very tough one but I have a contrived answer you would need to disprove and thats the thing it is safest to assume everything can be reversed.

The sun reflection one is far easier to show. Any earth reflection will be some weird mix hence its albedo and thus the returning light energy is very different to that which stuck the earth ... its different in colour and composition and you can't talk your way around that >>>> THE REFLECTED LIGHT IS DIFFERENT PERIOD <<<<.

This is what the reflective spectrum of the earth looks like

http://cips.berkeley.edu/events/rocky-planets-class09/Palle_2009_earth_transm.pdf



This means that there is the hugely remote possibility that the tiny tiny returned energy can affect things and you can not exclude it because it takes very little of a catalyst to make things very different in reactions.

No one has ever got a nuclear fussion reactor going here on earth to experiment with so there is no way to know what it is sensitive to.

What I can tell you is that we have done experiments with Muon-catalyzed fusion in the 80's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion



So what I can tell you is injecting small amounts of muons into the sun it may make life very interesting.

So if our reflected light somehow changed muon rate in the sun or the muons arriving into the sun from cosmic rays I am pretty sure you are going to notice a difference.

We know almost nothing about the sun yet I can still easily give you a way a very minor energy change can cause a problem and why you need to consider exchanges as exchanges at science levels.

Time Out!
What I see here is a semantic problem. I assume that Orac is using 'exchange' in the way that he has been hearing/seeing it used in the QM community. Paul and redewenur are trying to use it in a 'pure english' way. One problem with that is that English is not pure.


I suggest that we declare a truce. Possibly we could use some other word which doesn't have as much baggage with it. I expect that 'transfer' would work. Transfer doesn't have any connotations as to just how the transfer is occurring. This would require that everybody automatically accept that if the world transfer is used where they would expect 'exchange' they assume that is what is meant. And when others see 'exchange' they would think transfer. It seems to me to be a reasonable compromise. We could work out just what is involved in the concept in a different thread. After all it seems to me that we are going to lose track of what Bill S. started out looking for by going on with the way this discussion is being diverted into semantics.

Bill Gill

but the problem isn't the words used it is the definition
of the words.

and if we interchange "exchange" with "transfer" then nothing is
really accomplished because QM and orac still would consider
the definition as being the same as their current definition
of "exchange".

lets call it an energy "flip flop" because it more clearly
defines the event , a change in spin direction or sign polarity.

if I'm right about that.

I'm not sure why we cant just use momentum for the spin and
polarity for the sign.