Jump to content

How does space get inside of an inflating balloon?

Recommended Posts

It does not bother me in the slightest that you can not punch space

Straw man. That wasn't what I said. Did you not read what I wrote, or did you just ignore it?

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

The Planck length is not some limit of smallest size. And (1.6 x 10^-35 m)^3 ≠ 1.6 x 10^-35 m^3

• Replies 160
• Created
• Last Reply

Popular Posts

Ah but there is always other readers involved 😉  edit: besides I'm keeping it as simple and rudimentary as possible. Its far more complex than I've described thus far

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

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

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".

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616&ved=0ahUKEwiA5YS11NbTAhUY4mMKHZ7CC3AQFggcMAA&usg=AFQjCNEqAKaDGcbyMG2ax22sA9BakBSaTQ&sig2=YJHyjM8bb7Mbm-l7RHNlEg

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.

$\stackrel{Action}{\overbrace{\mathcal{L}}} \sim \stackrel{relativity}{\overbrace{\mathbb{R}}}- \stackrel{Maxwell}{\overbrace{1/4F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}}+\stackrel{Dirac}{\overbrace{i \overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\psi}}+\stackrel{Higg's}{\overbrace{\mid D_\mu h\mid-V\mid h\mid}} +\stackrel{Yugawa-coupling}{\overbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}}$

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.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html&ved=0ahUKEwjwoq7Z3NbTAhUHx2MKHa9aB4sQFgg3MAQ&usg=AFQjCNHMXx3zfd6VtHs2XB9Tq1zL91gsXQ&sig2=QqaMDZ_iSafyK-KpFFWUNg

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?

Edited by JohnLesser
Share on other sites

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?

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).

Share on other sites

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.

Share on other sites

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.

https://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson

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).

Share on other sites

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?

Share on other sites

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).

Photons are bosons. They have particular properties (mass, spin, charge, etc) which can be predicted by the standard model. The same is true for the Higgs boson. So detecting a particle with the predicted properties but then claiming it is something else, an unknown thing with exactly the same properties, seems perverse.

As they say, if it walks like a duck ...

Share on other sites

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,

Share on other sites

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.

Share on other sites

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?

Share on other sites

Can you show me a picture of what the Boson looks like?

Can you send me a picture of gravity?

Share on other sites

Can you show me a picture of what the Boson looks like?

Of course not. Don't be silly. But you can look at the data.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235

Share on other sites

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 .

Edited by JohnLesser
Share on other sites

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.

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 .

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 Edited by Mordred
Share on other sites

Of course not. Don't be silly. But you can look at the data.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7214

https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.7235

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.

Share on other sites

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

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".

Share on other sites

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.

Share on other sites

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

Share on other sites

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?

Share on other sites

Data? That means very little.

In science it means everything. (But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, as you think your fevered imaginings have equal weight to actual science.)

Share on other sites

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?

Share on other sites

Yes I am not considering virtual particles, I consider genuine particles.

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

Share on other sites

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?

Not really. Why would someone who is woefully (and deliberately) ignorant be expected to understand the models and data supporting particle physics?

You reject the "easy explanation" as not containing any evidence.

You reject the evidence as being too complex.

So, once again, you have put yourself in a position where nothing can change your mind. You are an arrogant troll.

Yes I am not considering virtual particles, I consider genuine particles.

No one mentioned virtual particles.

Share on other sites

!

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

Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
• Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.