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


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

Search Forums
Custom Search
Who's Online
1 registered (samwik), 100 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including,
by Revlgking
Yesterday at 09:35 PM
Cryosphere still warming.
by samwik
Yesterday at 06:37 PM
First Ebola Case in the U.S.
by Bill
Yesterday at 05:50 PM
TWO MASS m and ONE TABLE EXPERIMENT
by newton
09/30/14 06:26 AM
first step to design antygravitation materials
by newton
09/29/14 03:15 AM
Bohr atom model ( Orac even You will understand )
by newton
09/27/14 09:05 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
newton 75
Orac 28
paul 27
Bill 19
Bill S. 11
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#39679 - 08/22/11 09:51 PM Higg's dead .. what now
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Well the conference's and announcements are done

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-hints-elusive-physics-god-particle.html

No Higgs in range 145 to 466 GeV.

A 120-140 GeV light Higgs would require 10Fb of data so the coffin won't be nailed on that until next year.

So looks like we might be heading to higgless physics which will be interesting because thats sort of what QM has been suggesting.

Wikipedia list of higgless models is probably incomplete but worth looking at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgsless_model)

As Doug Sweetser would say we ain't got not stinking Higgs :-) (http://www.science20.com/standup_physicist/blog/higgs_we_aint_got_no_higgs-78245)





Edited by Orac (08/22/11 09:56 PM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
Of Interest?
#39690 - 08/23/11 09:27 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Orac]
Bill Offline
Megastar

Registered: 12/30/10
Posts: 1391
Loc: Oklahoma, USA
Of course so far the possibility of the Higgs hasn't been completely excluded. So there could be a turn around in the next year. We will have to wait and see what comes up.

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

Top
#39693 - 08/23/11 09:50 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Bill]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
1.2 deviations on 1FB of data to get to 5 on 10FB I will take bets :-)

Either that or we have been hell unlucky so far which while possible I am in a betting mood
(Odds are out to 12 to 1 on the bookies for it to be seen by 2012 end).

Was just checking and they have removed it ... sad panda (http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-bets/hadron-collider-specials?ev_oc_grp_ids=488848)

mind you 9/4 on Pippa Middleton looks like good odds to me
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-bets/fhms-sexiest-woman


Edited by Orac (08/23/11 10:03 AM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39695 - 08/23/11 10:33 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Orac]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2931
Loc: Essex, UK
I'm not betting on Higgs or Pippa Middleton, but I would bet that the Universe will survive without either.

I'm not even going to try to understand those equations, Orac.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39720 - 08/24/11 06:31 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Orac
Well the conference's and announcements are done

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-hints-elusive-physics-god-particle.html

No Higgs in range 145 to 466 GeV.

A 120-140 GeV light Higgs would require 10Fb of data so the coffin won't be nailed on that until next year.

So looks like we might be heading to higgless physics which will be interesting because thats sort of what QM has been suggesting.

So far it is good news. The concept of virtual particles, mass-less particles, one dimensional strings, etc belongs to science-fantasy, not real science (just my opinion)

Top
#39730 - 08/25/11 01:24 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: finiter]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
But see you have a problem ...

http://www.physorg.com/news3516.html
http://www.physorg.com/news11557.html
http://www.physorg.com/news143738245.html
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-german-physicists-super-photon.html
http://www.physorg.com/news81692711.html


Your science fiction quasi particles keep turning up in our experiments.

What do you want us to do beat them into normal particles so you can sleep better.

As Frank Drebin would say "Move along people nothing to see here"


I should say we still find it funny at school we were all taught about the 3 states of matter as that is how we see the world of coarse we now know there are many more states than that something like 20 odd as existing or proposed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter). This is an example of how we try to wrongly humanize physics.


Edited by Orac (08/25/11 01:46 AM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39735 - 08/25/11 05:23 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
After all, quasi-particles are not virtual particles. Let them turn up. Suppose matter has a fundamental particle (which can be very much lighter than any quasi-particle observed), then, any number of quasi-particles can be formed from them. But, the natural choice for integration (for some hitherto unexplained reasons) are electrons, protons and neutrons. 'Better humanize than demonize', I would say. If the evolution of physics goes in the direction of QM, it will create incomprehensible monsters. Perhaps that will the end of the Jurassic period in physics. The monsters will all of a sudden disappear - an evolutionary disaster.

Top
#39736 - 08/25/11 07:40 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: finiter]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
100 years have been spent trying to tame QM and failing badly.
In the last 10 years QM has torn most of classic physics apart not out want but because it is the easiest way to prove QM.

There is almost no way physics will not go the way of QM there is far far to much to learn and classic physics has very little to teach us. The next 25 years will all be about QM and nanotechnology.

QM is only really scary to people who don't understand or wrongly think it profoundly alters there world. In many ways QM liberates humans it removes much of the collission between religions and science as it does put things outside of time and space. It restores sanity to the concept of free will and offers options to things we currently think impossible.

There are gaps in our classic physics world which need to filled but QM opens up new possibilities.

When people were told the world wasn't flat and carried by a turtle but round it didn't destroy peoples physical world. When Einstein told people space and time were joined at the hip to create a space fabric it did not destroy peoples physical world. Nor will QM it simply redefines the world in a new way and only if you do special things will it change your physical world.

I don't know why you think it is so terrible.

QM information a few years ago we thought of as like information you write in book. We now understand it is much more than that now. Quantum information we now know is as basic as energy and it is integral to all matter.

There are dangers with QM it can be weaponized and can create challenges that we have not faced before but that is the nature of progress.

PS: You really are not going to like yesterdays announcement (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-entanglement-macroscopic-dissipation.html). That is something like 1 trillion atoms entagled for 1 hour 0.5 meters apart :-)


Edited by Orac (08/25/11 08:18 AM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39737 - 08/25/11 08:06 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Orac]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
While we are talking about standard physical model I saw a graph put up by Tommaso Dorigo which sort of sums up a side story to classical particle physics at the moment. Something is wrong with theory somewhere :-)




Edited by Orac (08/25/11 08:07 AM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39753 - 08/26/11 05:42 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
I think you are a QM fan. Maybe the next many years are QM years. If QM is the right way, then there is no option, we have to follow. But until then, one can remain scary of it.
I agree that QM bridges the gap between religion and science. The search for the truth of this physical world has been an integral part of human behavior from the very beginning. The knowledge they acquired created the religions; originally religion was a sort of science. But later, the philosophical part remained with religions and the science part with the scientists. Now the QM brings physicists closer to religion. The reason, it appears to me, is that we are going the wrong way; somewhere en-route we lost the direction. So we have to start it again from Newton.

Top
#39757 - 08/26/11 09:37 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: finiter]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2931
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: finiter
Now the QM brings physicists closer to religion.


I assume you are not saying that QM is taking us back to any pre-conceived religeous beliefs, but rather that it is leading us towards some sort of unity between physical and metaphysical. Surely this is not necessarily "going the wrong way".

I am anticipating a post from "Rev" pointing out (probably correctly) that we need both for a full understanding of our Universe.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39764 - 08/27/11 08:32 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Bill S.]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I assume you are not saying that QM is taking us back to any pre-conceived religeous beliefs, but rather that it is leading us towards some sort of unity between physical and metaphysical. Surely this is not necessarily "going the wrong way".

I am anticipating a post from "Rev" pointing out (probably correctly) that we need both for a full understanding of our Universe.

I meant what you have said 'some sort of unity between physical and metaphysical'. This is exactly what I consider going back.
'For what purpose are we here? How should we live in this physical world?'. These questions belong to the philosophy domain. 'What this physical world is' is a question in physics.
In the former there can be only opinions. For any straight forward question that has to be answered in 'yes' or 'no', one may say 'yes' and the other may say 'no', and there will not be any logical or rational method to prove that either of the two is correct. Both the answers are their beliefs.
But in science, there is no opinion or belief; there is only one answer. While searching for the answer, you will have many probable answers; even if you select one as the most probable answer, it is provisional till the end of the search.
So there cannot be any mixing of physics with metaphysics. So, QM approaching metaphysics can be an indication that they are in the wrong direction.
No unity is required between physics and metaphysics. There is no enmity or friendship between the two. Any person has to accept the 'only one' answer in physics, and at the same time select either of the 'two answers' in philosophy.

Top
#39771 - 08/27/11 03:43 PM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: finiter]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2931
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Finiter
But in science, there is no opinion or belief; there is only one answer. While searching for the answer, you will have many probable answers; even if you select one as the most probable answer, it is provisional till the end of the search.


The history of science is a history of opinions and beliefs, some of which have been found to be wrong, others are still thought to be right. To reverse James Hutton's insight: The past is the key to the present. Why would you think that science today is basically different from science in the past? Surely it is just a more sophisticated version of the same thing.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39790 - 08/28/11 07:21 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Bill S.]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Physicists can have opinions and beliefs about the theories. But physics as a subject cannot accommodate opinions. So the history of science, as you have said, may appear to be a history of opinions and beliefs of the scientists.

The basic difference in the field of physics is the entry of QM. Before that, a question 'What is an electron?' will give you a single answer: it is a particle, which may show some wave nature (the answer is provisional in the sense that it cannot explain why it shows the wave nature). But Heisenberg, Schrodinger and the rest suggested that an electron has dual existence: it exists as a wave and particle at the same time, like the Schrodinger's cat, it is alive and dead at the same time. Thus there are two answers: it is a particle and it is wave. Thus, they gave a metaphysical explanation to a physical problem.

So to answer the question 'In this particular situation, will it be a particle or a wave?' you have to depend on probability, and this gave rise to QM.

Top
#39796 - 08/28/11 08:09 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: finiter]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 2931
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
Thus there are two answers: it is a particle and it is wave. Thus, they gave a metaphysical explanation to a physical problem.


I think you have jumped to a conclusion that might not be warranted. One could also argue that the electron is both a particle and a wave, but our understanding of the physical world is not yet sufficiently sophisticated for us to be able to comprehend that fully.

Quote:
So to answer the question 'In this particular situation, will it be a particle or a wave?' you have to depend on probability, and this gave rise to QM.


You could equally well say that the answer depends on the nature of the question you ask.
If you ask question "A", the answer will always be that it is a particle.
If you ask question "B", the answer will always be that is is a wave.
Probability doesn't enter the scenario.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#39797 - 08/28/11 08:19 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Bill S.]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Ahh you have got modern interpretation correct Bill S you have been reading.

Yes finiter I doubt you will get too many accept the above anymore that's an old interpretation where we sort to put QM neatly alongside GR.

We are firmly in the realm of needing new interpretations.
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39823 - 08/29/11 08:34 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Bill S.]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

One could also argue that the electron is both a particle and a wave...
Probability doesn't enter the scenario.

Of course, one can argue. But, here it is not an argument; present day physics has accepted it as a fact (though provisionally)that 'the electron is both a particle and a wave at the same time'. That acceptance is more of a metaphysical nature.

Probability comes not in the opinion. It comes when you try to locate an electron inside an atom. If it can exist as a wave and a particle, you cannot locate its position; so you have to depend on probability equations to know where it will be. The quantum mechanics (QM)depends mainly on probability equations.

Top
#39824 - 08/29/11 09:59 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: finiter]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
The real question you need to ask these days is was the electron every really there at all.

See here we even took a movie of it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23336318/

Looks like a real particle doesn't it :-)

The more QM view is thus:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle)
Quote:

A virtual particle is one that does not precisely obey the m2c4 = E2 - p2c2 relationship for a short time. In other words, its kinetic energy may not have the usual relationship to velocity–indeed, it can be negative. The probability amplitude for it to exist tends to be canceled out by destructive interference over longer distances and times. A virtual particle can be considered a manifestation of quantum tunnelling. The range of forces carried by virtual particles is limited by the uncertainty principle, which regards energy and time as conjugate variables; thus virtual particles of larger mass have more limited range.


In other words an electron is a thing that you see because of quantum tunneling into your physical world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling)
The illustration shows the idea of how it works.

Your very physical world is built of very weird bricks that sort of appear not to be there but are nothing more than an illussion.


Edited by Orac (08/29/11 10:03 AM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
#39831 - 08/30/11 10:24 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: Orac]
finiter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/15/11
Posts: 211
The mathematical part of quantum mechanics is a tool to analyze the physical world. Statistical probability works in ordinary situations as well. But explaining it as the physical nature of things is what I object to. I think the electron is indeed a particle, and not a wave. The term tunneling is used to show that the electron crosses a barrier, and the probability for it can be mathematically calculated. They say that they have photographed an electron. Though it is done indirectly, I think it may go against uncertainty principle (I am not sure).

Top
#39832 - 08/30/11 11:32 AM Re: Higg's dead .. what now [Re: finiter]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2108
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: finiter
The mathematical part of quantum mechanics is a tool to analyze the physical world. Statistical probability works in ordinary situations as well.
But explaining it as the physical nature of things is what I object to.


Thats a very old view QM is simply mathematics tool as I said look at a bosenova explosion those mathematical waveforms are ripping matter apart how does something that is only mathematical tool tear matter apart.

So now you have to explain a bosenova explosion under classic physics ... you have a big problem for a start which is the existance of a BEC get beyond that and you have to explain the bosenova explosion.

This is an example of us showing you, your physical world is very different to your perception you can't just brush it away.

Originally Posted By: finiter

I think the electron is indeed a particle, and not a wave. The term tunneling is used to show that the electron crosses a barrier, and the probability for it can be mathematically calculated.


How does something that is a particle pass through a solid physical barrier????


Originally Posted By: finiter

They say that they have photographed an electron. Though it is done indirectly, I think it may go against uncertainty principle (I am not sure).


You are correct uncertainty principle should prevent it but because of new understanding in QM they have done a bit of trickery. What they have done is guided an electron using a laser beam system next to an atom. The atom is very special it is held in QM ground state so it doesn't vibrate any vibration in the atom is recorded by an ultrafast attosecond flash.

So what you are seeing is the vibration of the electron on the atom slowed down massively. And what the image shows you is the electron is a little point that is appearing to be within the area we called the electron particle space but at differrent densities. Thus it confirms that an electron is first of all a wave density and that wave density gives it particle like properties, that is occupying a discrete space.

So it's your classic nightmare something that isnt real or solid appearing to be real and solid.


Edited by Orac (08/30/11 11:36 AM)
_________________________
QM crazy, always wrong, never believe me, sad and broken and now lost credibility and I cry wolf.

Top
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >



Moderator:  Amaranth Rose II, Kate, Mike Kremer 
Newest Members
mallihamalliha, Gareth, hussen, charliechucks7, tom
701 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

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

Copyright © 1998 - 2013 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.