Jump to content
Conjurer

Higgs (split from unification?)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Unification may have to deal with finding hidden variables or things that have not been mathematically described in physics.  That is something that hasn't been mathematically described in physics.  Therefore, that could be a source of finding hidden variables.

I do not yet possess the knowledge to provide a comment on hidden variables and current physics theories in comparison to 60's radar technology.

27 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It was in the technical manual of a radar developed in the 60's or earlier for the US Navy, which was out of commission.

And since there is no source to be studied then I guess we're done. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It seems you are looking for someone with a developed long term trauma from talking with you.

I am "looking for" someone who cares whether what they say is correct. You apparently don't. 

21 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You have to break their confidence first, before you can trust what they say.

I don't simply trust what people say, especially when I specifically know better.

21 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I am forced to always have to change topic, because you and others always start discussing every thing else I mention as being wrong, when using it as a source for the main topic.

When we say you are wrong, consider the possibility that it is because you are wrong.

To put it quickly: We are saying you are wrong because you are wrong. We are not correcting you because you seem to not be looking for nor appreciating correction

Edited by uncool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, uncool said:

I am "looking for" someone who cares whether what they say is correct. You apparently don't. 

I use to go over and over everything I ever learned in theoretical physics all the time to try to make sure that my point of view on it was always correct, so you telling me that I give you this impression all the time just makes your accusations seem completely absurd to me.

22 minutes ago, uncool said:

I don't simply trust what people say, especially when I specifically know better.

I had a lot of trouble accepting a lot of things from people that write about theoretical physics that are not completely mainstream, but I had to learn to accept them even though they were unbelievable at times.  I figured out that they had to be correct, because there are so many sources that all say the same thing about it.  

25 minutes ago, uncool said:

When we say you are wrong, consider the possibility that it is because you are wrong.

To put it quickly: We are saying you are wrong because you are wrong. We are not correcting you because you seem to not be looking for nor appreciating correction

That is difficult when you say I am wrong about things I didn't even say.  I think that is how this band wagon got started, so I have so many down votes.  Most of the time, it seems like people just had trouble understanding what I had to say.  

I actually thought that standing my ground and proving my point would change this type of behavior, but I guess I was wrong.  I have been purposefully making light of it to change this, but apparently it just feeds people to promote this type of behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

That is difficult when you say I am wrong about things I didn't even say.  I think that is how this band wagon got started, so I have so many down votes.  Most of the time, it seems like people just had trouble understanding what I had to say. 

The problem is not understanding what you say. You have been given lots of very specific examples of things you say which are just not correct.

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I actually thought that standing my ground and proving my point would change this type of behavior, but I guess I was wrong. 

Of course that won't help. When someone points out that you are mistaken, the correct response is not to double down and insist that you are correct. A more sensible approach is to take it as an opportunity to learn.

I often say things that are incorrect - I hope to get corrected so I can learn from my mistakes. I try to always thank people who correct my errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, uncool said:

That's not even close to what I said. I don't even know how you read that from what I said. 

It’s just a lazy version of trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fundamental mistake your making is assuming fundamental particles are made up of other particles.

 It's a common mistake and error, a large part of that error is thinking particles are corpuscular solids. The SM particles are field excitations.

Lets take an example to prove the error on thinking.

Take two protons and accelerate them to near c, then have a scattering collision.

Now ask yourself the following question, if the rest mass of both protons is 938 MeV, how did this collision form a Higgs boson or in other reactions a top quark ?

The Higgs boson isn't part of the proton as it is comprised of quarks and gluons,

Secondly the mass of the Higgs boson far exceeds the rest mass of the two protons. Thinking that your colliding solid balls of matter particles and ending up with pieces of different types of matter particles is incorrect. 

 What you really need is their wavefunctions and how those wavefunctions interfere either in constructive or destructive interference for both elastic and inelastic collisions of the particles wavefunctions. 

While your at it consider how it's possible for one type of particle and not others are capable of passing through solid matter while other particles do not.

This can also occur with particles that would either get absorbed or reflected by that barrier of the same type. Ie quantum tunnelling. 

 A little side note. The only way I have found to understand thermal equilibrium of particle states is by throwing away any matter like view point. Toss any corpuscular visualizations away and deal strictly through the QFT wavefunctions. (Also done in String theory)

In thermal equilibrium different particle species cannot be distinguished from one another their Compton or DeBroglie wavelength becomes identical etc. (Ie they are symmetric to each other in any measurable quantity.

(Hint symmetry breaking occurs as the particle species drop out of equilibrium)

Bose Einstein or Fermi condensate is the same process. In this state all particles lose their identity from another.

 Hard to explain those with a little billiard ball point of view.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Mordred, I've said something like this to you before (about other people than Conjurer), but I think you are trying to tell Conjurer things at much too high a level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mordred said:

Now ask yourself the following question, if the rest mass of both protons is 938 MeV, how did this collision form a Higgs boson or in other reactions a top quark ?

My guess would be that symmetry breaking is just a fancy word for hitting a physical spacetime paradox.  The Higgs mechanism combines all of quantum theory.  It is like everything in the theory is all connected together.  If you were to try to break the symmetry of this, you would end up hitting a physical paradox.  The particles are also related to each other through time.  They would be linked together through time.  Then it isn't enough to just think about them as waves, but as a particle wave duality interacting through time.

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

While your at it consider how it's possible for one type of particle and not others are capable of passing through solid matter while other particles do not.

This can also occur with particles that would either get absorbed or reflected by that barrier of the same type. Ie quantum tunnelling. 

I think quantum tunneling could work in the same fashion as quantum jumping.  If their waves cancel out in a phase space, then they lose their mass.  Their energy would also be undetectable for a brief instance.  Then I believe that the wave portion gets rid of the particle in particle wave duality.  It is though it no longer exist for a brief instance, until the wave cancellation ends and the particle reemerges.  It could mostly be due to the reflection of their waves in phase space that causes them to tunnel.  

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

A little side note. The only way I have found to understand thermal equilibrium of particle states is by throwing away any matter like view point. Toss any corpuscular visualizations away and deal strictly through the QFT wavefunctions. (Also done in String theory)

That is the point of view of most of the people I have read on that work in the field in the past.  I have read some really convincing arguments that they should be considered as both a particle and a wave, and I think it is nice to be able to fully realize how one of these aspects plays a role on the other.  

One could say, if you only considered it as being a wave, then your considerations would only be true if they were never observed.  The act of observation or experimentation itself forces particles to act more like particles and less like waves.  You would only be giving it half justice.   

Edited by Conjurer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go Mordred.
You just gave him a whole bunch of 'fancy' words, whose meaning Conjurer has no clue of.
He will no doubt use them as word salad in his next crap post.

The rest of us thank you for your always informative posts :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

My guess would be that symmetry breaking is just a fancy word for hitting a physical spacetime paradox.  The Higgs mechanism combines all of quantum theory.  It is like everything in the theory is all connected together.  

No symmetry breaking isn't a fancy word for a paradox. In actuality symmetry is a fundamental aspect in particle physics. Bosons are symmetric while fermions  aren't for one example. The Higgs field doesn't combine all of quantum theory in point of detail it's only 2 of the 18 coupling constants. There is far more involved in QFT that has nothing to do with the Higgs field.

 If you understood anything about symmetry in physics you would never think of it a some form of paradox (spacetime or not) Let's start with am easy example.

The inner product of two vectors used in the Minkowskii (spacetime metric) are symmetric and orthogonal 

[math]\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu [/math]

Now where is the spacetime paradox in that statement which is fundamental to the SR (Minkowskii metric) ?

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

  The particles are also related to each other through time.  They would be linked together through time.  Then it isn't enough to just think about them as waves, but as a particle wave duality interacting through time.

I think quantum tunneling could work in the same fashion as quantum jumping.  If their waves cancel out in a phase space, then they lose their mass.  Their energy would also be undetectable for a brief instance.  Then I believe that the wave portion gets rid of the particle in particle wave duality.  It is though it no longer exist for a brief instance, until the wave cancellation ends and the particle reemerges.  It could mostly be due to the reflection of their waves in phase space that causes them to tunnel.  

 

Very little in this makes sense however the one detail that is correct is that wave particle duality always exists and must be considered. However I will note that the pointlike property that we associate as the localized particle is defined by the particles Compton or DeBroglie wavelength. 

Where do you think the meaning of " a particle is a field excitation" comes about ?

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Conjurer said:

My guess would be that symmetry breaking is just a fancy word for hitting a physical spacetime paradox. 

Why guess? Why not find out what it means? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Conjurer said:

My guess would be that symmetry breaking is just a fancy word for hitting a physical spacetime paradox.  The Higgs mechanism combines all of quantum theory.  It is like everything in the theory is all connected together.  If you were to try to break the symmetry of this, you would end up hitting a physical paradox.  The particles are also related to each other through time.  They would be linked together through time.  Then it isn't enough to just think about them as waves, but as a particle wave duality interacting through time.

I think quantum tunneling could work in the same fashion as quantum jumping.  If their waves cancel out in a phase space, then they lose their mass.  Their energy would also be undetectable for a brief instance.  Then I believe that the wave portion gets rid of the particle in particle wave duality.  It is though it no longer exist for a brief instance, until the wave cancellation ends and the particle reemerges.  It could mostly be due to the reflection of their waves in phase space that causes them to tunnel.  

That is the point of view of most of the people I have read on that work in the field in the past.  I have read some really convincing arguments that they should be considered as both a particle and a wave, and I think it is nice to be able to fully realize how one of these aspects plays a role on the other.  

One could say, if you only considered it as being a wave, then your considerations would only be true if they were never observed.  The act of observation or experimentation itself forces particles to act more like particles and less like waves.  You would only be giving it half justice.   

!

Moderator Note

(emphasis added)

This isn't the WAG forum. Your refusal to engage in discussion based on established physics is inconsistent with posting in a science forum. Your refusal to provide a mathematical model and/or evidence is inconsistent with the rules of our speculations section.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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.