Leaderboard

In a sense, getting to massless SM particles could be achieved by increasing the temperature in some region. But it would be more like an activation of the frozen Higgs field than a blocking. It is easier to explain coming from the high-energy side (high temperature), since that is the standard explanation for the Higgs mechanism: The Higgs proto-field (*) can be considered as an additional particle class to a Standard Model in which all of the other Standard Model particles are massless (**). It interacts with most of the other particle fields. But it also has a weird self-interaction which causes the energetically lowest state to not be at "no proto field" but at "some value of the proto-field". At low temperatures, where the Higgs proto-field is just lying around in its minimum, this means that the dynamic interaction terms of the Higgs proto-field with the other particles become some dull interaction of those particles with some sticky stuff that seems to lie around everywhere (***). In the mathematical description of the Standard Model time evolution, the associated terms that originally were terms of a dynamic interaction now become the mass terms for the other particles. If the minimum was at "no field", they would simply drop out (****). This "low-energy" limit actually covers almost all of the temperature ranges we can create on earth, and only recently did we manage to even create and see a few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum in specialized, very expensive experiments (-> confirmation of the Higgs-Boson at the LHC). So technically, I think we are very far away from creating the "massless particles" state in an experiment. But there is no theoretical reason why this would not be possible (*****). But as described, I would understand it to be less of a shielding of the Higgs field and more of an activation. And as a state with such a high amount of interaction between the fields. So I am not even sure if the common view of a few particles flying through mostly empty space and only rarely kicking into other free-flying particles would still make sense. Remarks: (*) I would just call it Higgs-field(s), but since the paper you cited seems to explicitly avoid using the name at this stage I may be wrong about common usage of the terms. Haven't been working in the field for over ten years. So I have invented the term proto-field for the scope of this post - it is also easier to understand than "doublet of complex scalar fields". (**) This is not exactly true because the particles are mixed and get renamed under the Higgs mechanism. But I'll pretend that does not happen for the sake of providing an answer that is easier to understand than reading a textbook. (***) Sidenote: In this state, the few excitations of the Higgs proto-field around its minimum are the infamous Higgs Boson. (****) Which is why you can always invent new fields that just happen to have no effect on anything we can see but magically make your particle cosmology equations work at very, very high energies (****) Except for the fact that some people still expect new physics and associated new particles at such high temperatures, which then again would have mass from another Higgs-like mechanism

My hobby in my retirement is painting big-wave surfing scenes. I haven't made hardly any money from it yet. When I started using an airbrush it gave more realism to my pictures. My avatar photo, by Robert Brown, is famous, a giant 77-foot wave ridden by Mike Parson at Cortes Bank (100 miles off the coast of San Diego, CA) on 1-5-2008. See the actual photo here and read all about it: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/sports/othersports/09surf.html But the problem with that photo is the smaller wave in front of it blocks our view of the trough, so for my painting of that same wave I removed the wave blocking our view of the trough: https://john-kaelin.pixels.com/featured/cortes-bank-xxl-1-5-2008-john-kaelin.html See all my artwork at "biggestwaveseversurfed.com" which takes you to this web site: https://john-kaelin.pixels.com/ Recently a new world record for "biggest wave ever surfed" was established at Nazare, Portugal on 11-08-2017 by Rodrigo Koxa at 80 feet tall. What about Ken Bradshaw's 80 footer at Log Cabins on 1-28-1998? Well, that was not photographed, only some grainy video was shot from a mile away. http://www.swellnet.com/news/rearview-mirror/2018/01/28/condition-black-january-28th-1998 The video of the new world record is not much help because you can hardly see what is happening: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rodrigo+koxa+nazare&view=detail&mid=D41B67AF5A72B9621951D41B67AF5A72B9621951&FORM=VIRE

I recall stating that your pictures are too difficult to make our ob legibility. So no I can't make heads or tails of those images. For that matter most of what you've written has been poorly describes at best. If I recall I was constantly pointing out using proper physics terminology on this thread. Particularly since the mathematical details are still lacking However wavefunctions are not spherical at some point. They have no internal structure how can they ? Your claims always seem to have numerous misconceptions based largely on a rather poor understanding of the physics you believe to understand. That last post is a perfect example a wavefunction is in essence a mathematical descriptive of a waveform.... get your terminology straight and please don't try to claim a waveform has iman internal structure either. That would simply prove you have no understanding of what waveforms represent ie variations of a measurement. example voltage in 120 ac power... The QM and QFT view of particles are field excitations. Excitations are in essence waveforms. In the two slit experiment for example the constructive and destructive interference patterns caused by the slits gives rise to the pointlike scatterings and wavelike characteristics. The pointlike characteristics is defined by the compton wavelength for photons for matter waves it is determined by the De-Broglie wavelength. You have yet to post anything conclusive in your conjectures to state anything otherwise. You are working on a model but do not have one as of yet and have zero supportive tests of your conjectures. When I answer questions I ALWAYS answer in accordance to mainstream physics and never in suppport of unproven hypothesis as per forum rules and regulations.

No, you did not... HCl is stronger acid than acetic acid. You can make weaker acid from salt of weaker acid and stronger acid, but not reverse. e.g. C2H5COONa + HCl -> C2H5COOH + NaCl

In short: that "nothing" can cause attraction. That a black hole is an actual hole in space, with negative attraction to particles (and we call this attraction "mass").

If it's not covered by the Standard Model, it's not a particle. 1st of all, what do any of us know confidently about anything outside the standard model? 2nd of all, what are you trying to say with this?

The evidence is pretty strongly in favour of dark matter being some form of matter. Whether it is a particle yet to be detected or something else is unknown. But, certainly, there are non-matter particles with mass; W, Z and Higgs bosons. Well, unless there is some alternative theory that says they can't have charge... But I can't see how that would mean they would have to be made of known type of matter. The same is true of Schwarzschild black holes. No. These are completely different things. Hawking radiation is created at the event horizon. It exists even in the absence of matter around the black hole; it is purely a function of the existence of the event horizon. In fact, our only chance of detecting it would be if there was a small and almost completely isolated black hole close enough to make detailed measurements of. Polar jets on the other hand come from the accretion disk outside (quite a long way outside) the black hole. Well, dark matter obviously isn't. As to what happens inside a black hole; we don't know. You might be interested in this, though, as an alternative: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-fuzzballs-solve-the-black-hole-firewall-paradox-20150623/

Look at the mass difference between the target and the result, e.g. O-16 and O-15 + neutron. E = mc^2 That will tell you the minimum energy you must add. But anything involving an accelerator is ultimately going to be very inefficient and probably not produce net energy. You have to be able to collect the material on the cheap, as we do for fossil fuels, wind and solar (which are all, ultimately, solar), fission, or get fusion technology working.

For every isotope, it's different amount of energy.. In the case of Oxygen-16: O-16 + 15.6635 MeV -> O-15 + n0 (alpha decay will happen at much lower energy) In the case of Nitrogen-14 N-14 + 10.553 MeV -> N-13 + n0 (proton emission will happen at much lower energy) Check my signature link how to calculate it..

We're very well aware of many of the limitations of QM. And we're really racking our brains about them. Also, not a scientific argument. We're not 99%. I don't mean to be arrogant, but I expect most people here, especially professional physicists, to be among the 1% of the smartest people in the world, some maybe even in the .1%, which would mean they have an IQ around 140-150. So, if you want to use real physics arguments, I'm sure we'll understand you. But you also have to recognize that if they say there's a serious problem, or an array of serious problems, with your theory, that pouting and whining won't promote your theory. What dogma? Regarding your finger and its light-bending abilities, check out this mind-bending video on youtube. You may be talking about it in the way you describe. I am certainly not. Since Photons don't carry a charge, their movement doesn't create a magnetic field, either, and the only way they could interact with other photons in a classical mechanical manner would be collision, and thereby impulse transfer. I haven't ever heard (or read, for that matter) of any such observation of this manner of photon-photon interaction. Photon-electron and photon-nucleotide, yes, but not photon-photon. If photons could exchange momentum with eachother as described by newtonian mechanics, even if the probability were ever so slight, by the abundance of photons bathing our reality we would have noticed. And for reasons already explaned, a Photon is NOT A ROTATING DIPOLE

YaDinghus, welcome, I think you will be an asset to the forum. +1

Through Apotheosis - making yourself a god. It's really easy. Do a lot of things people couldn't imagine a human doing, and your legend will spread. Depending on what you pulled off, you will be handled as a protector (e.g Thor), punisher (e.g. Anansi) or trickster (e.g. Sheogorath). There are more god roles than those three, but I would consider those three the main templates. According to my argument above, it's a person blown out of proportion by their legend that is propagated by society. Legends that have been displaced by more prominent legends become fairy tales. They still hold this educational value. This is not an evidence-based issue. The Legend is 'proof' that someone did something unbelievably awesome in times untold. Everyone please get a salt shaker, a grain may not be enough here

Faith imho is pretty much the same as hope. It's not a matter of because, but of in spite. To try in spite of the odds, to carry on in spite of the hardship. This can be inspired in the best cases, and deluded in the worst. To the oppressed, it's the source of their defiance, to the oppressors, the source of their authority (here hope not so much)

oh great just great is that where QM got the term " state " lol particle/system state/property based on economics lol works for me

Ok I'm trying to look at this from a non-moral point of view here. Physically, there are only benefits from mixing genes from beings of the same species with different heritage. The offspring are typically more robust as genetic defects that prevail in either group are usually suppressed up to the point of not beig expressed at all. On the other hand, immunological data is combined and the offspring are therefore resistant to more diseases and therefore have a higher quality of life. Culturally, mixed unions are advantageous to the offspring as they are raised with more diverse ideas and more options to choose from later in life. They are more open (conjecture based on personal life experience) and more intelligent (also conjecture based on personal life experience). Of course, they are often targets for hate speech from bigots and haters, and sometimes even more likely to be victims of violence from these people. That I also know from personal experience. Now to the moral point of view: just, don't. The Third Reich ended over 70 years ago, and I'll be damned if there's a Fourth Reich in my lifetime. Not on my watch!

Money is useful to regulate the dispensation of scarce resources. Basically, it's a rationing system. What we call economy is an emergent system from this rationing function and human psychology, and in this system, money is a basic resource, and value an essential property. I guess you could compare it to a Field in QM, where Money is the exchange boson for the force (value) exchange

What's that smell?

Since I'm in charge of music today at work, I put on the AC/DC collection

On further note you seem to be defining spin of a particle as a little ball. So ask yourself this question why does it take a 720 degree rotation for an electron to return to its original state ? While under a 360 degree rotation you get a change in phase sign ? ie a circle or ball only has 360 degrees... Explain that please...(according to your model, I already know how to do so under QM)

Good point- at physiological pH it might also be bicarbonate/ carbonate rather than a "free" proton.

A decrease in pH within a cell may manifest itself as an increase in the relative amount of H2PO41- to HPO42-. As a proton is actively transported across a membrane, there are side-chains that can bind and release protons. These include glutamate, histidine, and lysine residues.

Not a bad summary +1 though I would probably describe unsmoothness as anistropic.

The one that all men’s fate hangs in the balance of - Does this make my butt look big?

You might want to actually read Penrose instead of relying on misquotes. This topic is discussed in "Road to reality" Chapter 27. (Which I am currently reading after advice from members on this forum.) It is not the most accessible book, but this Chapter is quite readable. His conclusion is that any theory about an origin of the universe should be able to explain why the initial entropy is so low, not the opt-out "A wizard did it". He even explicitly says so.

Indeed. His explanation is that the universe is cyclic and so there is no start or creation of the universe to worry about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology Do you realise how stupid this logic is? It is like saying: "I saw something that I couldn't identify. Therefore it was an alien spaceship."

Increases the value of other cash in the process.

Are you going to get upset when someone points out that any religious belief that stems from reason isn't religious (I'm a staunch atheist, but I will believe the same thing if you show me that it's based in rational thought) so the only things that are based on religious faith are not rational?

Well, you are right about "it doesn't matter". You may find this shocking, but before they make bombs out of it they have to remove practically all of those impurities and they only return on a timescale comparable with the decay rate of uranium- billions of years to get back to equilibrium, so... As long as the terrorists are not using enriched uranium produced- say during the last ice age- the fact that uranium is, itself, a very effective screen would solve most of their problem on the alpha , beta and gamma score. It's the neutrons that are a bit of a giveaway. And it still doesn't matter. Nobody is going to point a detector at the container until it is unloaded. If it's "booked" for through travel to, say, Canada, but goes off in the US nobody will ever know what ship it was on, never mind what container. This is why it's really important to keep weapons grade uranium and plutonium well guarded. Fortunately, for the most part, the people responsible for making the decisions do understand that weapons grade uranium is a pretty near pure alpha emitter and you can't rely on Geiger counters at the port.

Evil son of King Arthur... chose it over 15 years ago bern using it since.

I'm not a believer as the OP describes, but to me faith is the strongest of beliefs based on the weakest of reasons. Faith demands total conviction because there's nothing to trust. It's strong conviction about something either wishful or frightening.

Everything Nature has to offer Now has connection to the first moment of existence on the level of information (at least through spacetime.) Whatever is there at the first moment, call it singularity, God, basic information, whatever, it will be part of nature if it is present at T0. 0*1(something)=

It is known that chlorine is produced when electrolysis of seawater or sodium chloride solution.My question, what is first produced, or in which form chlorine will be the first evolved; 1- as chlorine gas form that starts to dissolve in the salt solution? or; 2- as an aqueous form which will start to escape the solution after reaching saturation limit?all answers are very much appreciated. Thanks, Shadi

The only supernatural I can perceive is the state of the physical zero. Everything else can be part of the system and choose your god or don't if you do not feel like. Aliens are God like Natural components (for me)

Frames of reference are an invented concept.

Spook-action memristers... In my theory, if you predict astronomical events from the ground up, you're simulating apart of the universe. You'd have simulated human beings in there. You start with a few atoms at a time, and using a causal observer and the effected TSVF observer, you find where the real particles actually were, you can then send signals from that distance. This process is how you make femto-integrated circuit designs for building quantum computers.

Despite claims, that's not evidence. That's some words you can write on a piece of paper -- meanwhile, the Higg's Boson wasn't proven until someone found it. Or, you don't understand the physics you're trying to describe. Some pathetic attempt at trying to poke holes in Penrose & Lennox and my responses. To all of you on here, it isn't a failure to understand basic probability. You're all failing to understand the gravity of the probability. Ironically, it is you that exhibits ignorance by criticizing the argument as being ignorant when you don't fully understand it. Perhaps you should do some research surrounding it so you can have a more informed conclusion about it. And no, the argument isn't refuted by the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle is a philisophical consideration and nothing more, and it requires numerous prerequisites to use. If you're going to cite principals, at least know what they are. *** * Our chances of existing are, essentially, impossible without a creator. * And you can't equate unlikely things happening every day in our universe to an unlikely event that, technically, occurred outside of our universe. * And I'm quite aware of the probability of our chances of being born. But that is a flawed comparison. While our chances of us, as individual persons, being born are slim, the chances of a human being born in general aren't so slim because of those millions of sperm racing to meet the egg. * And mathematics is evidence. It is called circumstantial evidence. It is the same type of evidence the Big Bang relies on. There is no empirical evidence of the Big Bang. And I very much understand the physics. **You just refuse to be receptive to the logic because it contradicts your subjective reality.** *** And of course the initial conditions used for the calculation represent our current understanding of the universe. Take for example the ratio between the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. If such a ratio was changed by the tinest of the tinest of a fraction, we would cease to exist. This condition had to be met in order for us to exist. But the probability of that specific condition alone is staggering. * Finally, what makes you think mathematicians and physicists aren't religious or don't believe in a higher power? * Have you asked every single one on the planet whether or not they believe in creationism? You're trying to infer their beliefs on the basis of their profession, which is ignorant. Quite frankly, there have been many that have come forward and said they do believe in some form of a higher power. Many identify themselves as Deists. If you don't know what that is, a 5-second Google query will tell you what you need to know. *** Conclusion: Anyway, there is no sense in debating this. You won't be receptive or open to the possibility of a higher power because it contradicts your inner-model of reality. And quite frankly, I work and have other obligations that call my attention to the real world. I'll be stopping notifications for this thread. Have a nice day. That someone is John Lennox. Citing from wikipedia means nothing. Even if he is an atheist the argument is still sound.