JohnLesser
-
Posts
296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JohnLesser
-
-
Good luck you define real.
Physically observed.
0 -
!
Moderator Note
JohnLesser
If you continue to post trollish and irrationally anti-science rubbish we will lock this thread. if you do not understand something ask a question - but subsequently dismissing the answers given because you are ignorant of the fundamentals of empirical science (upon which all possible answers must be based) will not be tolerated.
Comments along the lines of show me a picture of a Higg's Boson seem to be deliberately provacative.
Edit - Do not respond to this moderation within the thread
I have asked for an easy explanation, they are not giving an easy explanation or providing any basic easy to understand evidence. How do you expect anyone to accept something to be true if the replies keep talking to people as if everyone is a qualified scientist?
To me a particle has physicality, things with physicality reflect light and can be seen no matter how small. So please define particle to me because obviously if they are not providing observation they do not mean a real particle, their definition is of something else.
P.s I am not trolling, they are failing to learn me correctly. They are not teachers although some members may be.
-1 -
Do you understand the difference? I did provide the answer to what distinquishes a VP from a real particle.
The Higgs boson is a real particle not virtual
Ok, so if it is a real particle, you should have a picture of it?
Define real?
-1 -
Spoken by someone with no concept of what science states about a given subject.
Sorry but your opinion means little compared to the available body of evidence
I have asked you several times now for evidence, I fyou can not convince an average person like myself with easy explanation, then surely there is something amiss?
-1 -
As you clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, it might be a good idea to learn something before making inane comments like that.
We can observe the effects of the Higgs field, in just the same way as we can observe the effects of gravity (photons are massless, W and Z bosons have mass, etc.). And we can directly detect the existence of the associated boson.
But feel free to keep putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "LA LA LA".
Provide this observation of affects?
0 -
There is literally hundreds of papers on the Higgs boson and Higgs field. Two locations are able to readily and repeatably produce them. The LHC and CERN.
They were predicted long before they were detected.
Thats because your still thinking particles are little billiard balls. Its easy to divide a field excitation. Particles can decay into other particles this occurs all the time
Yes I am not considering virtual particles, I consider genuine particles.
0 -
Data? That means very little. I will look at the data later and no doubt like most do in science, they don't even understand the reality of their own findings.
0 -
Can you send me a picture of gravity?
No, but I can observe gravity and there is plenty of proof of the existence of gravity. However I already know you can not offer no concrete proof of the Higgs Boson, to split a Proton into fragments and try to call each fragment a Boson, is going beyond 0 dimensions into a realm of fantasy theory instead of factual theory, at the very best Higgs is supposition unless you can offer the observation of the existence .
-1 -
They didn't just find "something" and decide to name it the Higgs Boson.
The Higgs Boson was predicted to exist as part of the theory outlining the Higgs mechanism. It was predicted to have a set of properties and behaviors associated with it. Then they discovered a particle that had the same properties and behaviors as those predicted for the Higgs Boson.
Can you show me a picture of what the Boson looks like?
0 -
What did they detect then? Who do you think is most qualified to trawl through the complex data they recovered to ascertain if it was boson or not?
You miss the point, I discover America , I have not discovered America, I have discovered a land mass and named it America.
I discover an Unknown particle, I call it a Boson, I could of called it Africa and then there would be no boson. It would still be an Unknown particle,
0 -
So the fact that the standard model works is evidence for all components of the model, including the Higgs mechanism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
And the detection of the associated boson, confirms it.
I still observe no evidence, let me tell you why, suppose I had discovered a ''Photon'' but called it a boson, how do you know the Boson is not a ''Photon''?
Giving something a particular name does not necessarily mean you have discovered the thing you were aiming to discover.
( I am not saying the Photon is a boson).
0 -
Firstly, nothing is proved in science.
However, the existence of the Higgs field is not subjective imagination. It is an essential part of the standard model. This was recently confirmed by the discovery of the Higgs boson.
If this had not happened, the standard model would have needed to be completely rethought (which would have been pretty exciting, so a lot of people were a bit disappointed that it was confirmed).
I do not feel that you have just offered any sort of evidence, can you please provide evidence of an Higgs field or likewise?
Words alone do not mean evidence.
0 -
Now here is where we kill your illusion of matter. All particles are field excitations.
A good eite
https://profmattstrassler.com/about/about-this-site-and-how-to-use-it/
"There are no particles, there are only fields".
A real particle requires a quanta of energy this is also the minimal value for effective action.
However a proton is a tightly packed bundle of fluctuations (virtual gluons etc) the 2 up and 1 down quark being just the excess color charge.
The Prof Strass site has a good article covering this.
However under confined regions these fluctuation waveforms will cause constructive or destructive interferance patterns. When you constructively interfere the wavelength and amplitude can combine to greater than a quanta of energy becoming a real particle whose identity will depend on other quantum number waveforms. These different waveforms overlap in the same finite region.
So with constructive and destructive interferences having a wavefunction for uncertainty principle is only natural.
A quantum fluctuation is "off shell" it has insufficient energy to have all the quantum number wavefunctions of the real particle. So it can exhibit some but not all the characteristics.
The pointlike characteristics apply when you measure a quanta in a pointlike volume. Its fuzzy for this boundary on part due to the Heisenburg uncertainty.
Other boundary confinement rules are under S Matrix in QFT there are numerous boundary confinement rules.
Your balloon skin is nothing more than a tightly packed region of overlappping fields. Held together by primarily the electromagnetic force field. The individual particles are tightly packed excitations. (in essence field spikes in excess a quanta).
Now just like the electromagnetic field you can have charge, a charged field is a vector field. An uncharged field a scalar field is typically used.
Mass under these conditions has similarities to electromagnetic propogation delay. Indeed we are delaying all information exchange by the field charge interaction (attractive field force). The binding energy of all overlapping fields form your spacetime dynamics of kinematic action.
[latex]\stackrel{Action}{\overbrace{\mathcal{L}}} \sim \stackrel{relativity}{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}}}- \stackrel{Maxwell}{\overbrace{1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}}+\stackrel{Dirac}{\overbrace{i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi}}+\stackrel{Higg's}{\overbrace{\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid}} +\stackrel{Yugawa-coupling}{\overbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}}[/latex]
For further details on action
Particularly under GR where I have relativity apply the Poisson/Lorentz symmetry groups using Principle of least action.
Here is the Feyman lecture on it.
Mass is literally "resistance to inertia change" This resistance is due to the binding energies mentioned above.
Remember fields can and do overlap just like electromagnetic signals can ride other wavefunctions. Quite frankly under the actions formula above we have covered all sources of mass. via their respective field interactions or rather though you can readily expand the above to include any fields missing.
THe Dirac section covers particle/antiparticle pairs, the Yukawa couplings is your respective field coupling constants. The Higgs field and electromagnetic are self explanatory.
The strong force is involved but as its so short range you only need to model it in tight regions ie inside the infividual atoms.
Photons for example has no binding field interactions. Hence it has no rest mass. It still has the ability to perform work a quanta of energy can cause action..
So it has inertial mass due to its energy momentum. It isn't being restricted in its movements so travels at c.
Thank you for your thoughts and insight, However the student wants to know if you have any proof of Quantum fields such as the Higgs field, the student feels you are offering subjective thinking with no actual evident proof?
0 -
The planck length is around where quantum effects and gravity must be both taken into account simultaneously - we cannot do that yet
Thank you for the insight,
What do you mean exactly by they both must be taken in to account simultaneously?
0 -
Yes, but the size that determines whether or not it can pass through things is... wavelength.
That can't be correct, the wavelength is created by the ''obstruction'' and the result of obstruction , the ''pressure'' of resistance. A ''grouping'' of photons.
Not really in my opinion. The permitivity and permeability stop the photons passing through .
0 -
I don't see why.
The only parameter that you could interpret as being the "size" of a photon is the wavelength. This is much, much, much bigger than the Planck length.
The wave length describes the ''flow'' not an individual Photon particle, a Photon unlike space has difficulty passing through the balloons surface if the balloon is opaque, so the photon is more than space it is something of physicality so although really really small, must have a size?
0 -
As far as I know, there is no way of defining the size of a photon. It isn't localised, until it is detected (at which point it no longer exists).
Detecting something that are ghostly like is not an easy challenge I must admit. However they must have a size and bodily presence or they would not exert a force or pressure.
Could we assume a Photon is fractionally 0 small and the smallest thing that exists?
A 0 point energy ghostly particle?
0*0*0=0³?
or could we do
>0*>0*>0=>0³?
0 -
That is a common misconception. It is not.
Also, attempting to define the smallest possible measurable distance/volume is literally the definition of trying to quantize space.
Not really, 0 point space is without dimension . but lots and lots of 0 point spaces adjoined make up a volume, however there is probably noway any of you will understand 0²=1.
Better leave that one alone though, the conversation will get cut short by the mods.
I am trying to equate the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, planck length cubed must be more understandable than 0³.?
"There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
There is no connection between these concepts.
What is the size of a Photon? Just because you can not relate this it does not mean I can't relate it.
0 -
Then why talk about energy?
And there is no evidence that there is a smallest possible measurement. All attempts to test if space is quantised have failed.
I was talking about 0 point energy, and trying to consider the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, I was not trying to quantify space. There is no evidence? I thought a Planck length was the smallest conceivable linear measurement? fractionally 0.
0 -
Energy is measured in joules, not cubic metres.
We don's measure the volume/size of something in joules.
I am giving the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement?
Planck distance cubed.
If X = 1.6 x 10-35 m THEN
XYZ= 1.6 x 10-35 m³
-2 -
The substrate he is referring to is a low energy density field referred to as zero point energy based off the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. It does not describe space itself "though he may even state such" it takes too long to describe something like zero point energy field in a short time for a video. Zero point energy is in essence your uncertainty principle applied. It is a sea of fluctuations in a specific map of interactions. (depending upon virtual particle make up)
A field is a collection of objects/events/coordinates.
Space itself is still the volume. Virtual particles/fluctuations is your particle soup residing in the volume of space right along with your real particles (greater than a quanta)
Yes I agree space is the empty ''bowl'' for the Quantum soup. I believe we can have 0 point space but not 0 point energy, I believe energy has dimensions and if I had to give E a dimension I would measure it at:
E=1.6 x 10-35 m³
Not exactly 0 dimension, but as close to the smallest 3 dimensional measurement as possible?
To measure how many ''0'' point energies are in a volume I would measure
43πr3divided by1.6 x 10-35 m³
Yes I agree space is the empty ''bowl'' for the Quantum soup. I believe we can have 0 point space but not 0 point energy, I believe energy has dimensions and if I had to give E a dimension I would measure it at:
E=1.6 x 10-35 m³
Not exactly 0 dimension, but as close to the smallest 3 dimensional measurement as possible?
To measure how many ''0'' point energies are in a volume I would measure
43πr3divided by1.6 x 10-35 m³
who's clicked dislike?
Why what is wrong with it?
-2 -
What we perceive as gravity is the curvature of space-time.
Imagine two parallel lines that stretch from the past into the future. Each line represents a different location in space. As you move along your line (as time passes) the two lines will stay the same distance apart and you stay in the same (relative) spatial position.
Now, if there is some mass present on the other line, then this will cause a curvature of space-time and the lines will no long be parallel but will curve towards one another. As you move forward one your line, you will move towards the other line; i.e. towards the mass. You will interpret this as the force of gravity making you fall towards it.
I am sorry strange but there is more logical errors in that post that does not explain it very well.
Error 1 -
''What we perceive as gravity is the curvature of space-time. ''
The curvature of a coordinate system relative to a situate background of space.
Error 2- ''Imagine two parallel lines that stretch from the past into the future.''
Both the lines would exist in the present,
_____________________
_____________________
Both the lines would be a virtual vector relative to situate ''background''.
''As you move along your line (as time passes) the two lines will stay the same distance apart and you stay in the same (relative) spatial position.''
Ok so you saying the lines are time passing an observer at relative rest?
''Now, if there is some mass present on the other line, then this will cause a curvature of space-time and the lines will no long be parallel but will curve towards one another. As you move forward one your line, you will move towards the other line; i.e. towards the mass. You will interpret this as the force of gravity making you fall towards it.''
No, it will cause you imaginary lines to curve, the force of gravity is linear, the object is being attracted by a linear force. The lines do not exist , the space fabric does not exist, there is nothing of space to curve.
0 -
You 'can get to Mars without co-ordinates' ?
Co-ordinates are like a map, or street signs.
You couldn't even get to Pittsburg without such co-ordinates.
If you can see it you don't need coordinates, it is a bit like shooting a gun, aim and shoot, if you could steer the bullet you would never miss.
Defining destination by coordinates is a bit different, this is for when you can't see the destination, other than that point and ''walk''.
A guided missile is different to a bazooka.
0 -
I think you would. Otherwise you wouldn't know where Mars is, you wouldn't know where it is going to be and you wouldn't know what direction your rocket was going.
I can see mars with my eyes like I can see the local shop, have you ever heard of steering ? I do not need coordinates to direct myself to a location I can see.
Use the raisin bread for a better 3d analogy though no analogy is perfect.
Exactly
Yes the raisin bread is not a bad one, but it still puts in solidity where space has none.
0
again confusion.
in The Lounge
Posted
You are not teachers, why do you all presume your explanations are correct?
Thread closed again for no reason but your lack of teaching skills.
Nowhere else on the internet do I observe such arrogance as this forum....You get my worse forum vote , so you might as well ban me again for about the 30 time. You all think you know it because you explain wiki , in reality can not think for yourselves or even understand your own science.
In short not many of you know what you are actually talking about.
Bye cya next time around when I might be a teenager or a single mum or some other type sock. Ban my IP so I can just float it and return with my multiplex persona.