Asymmetry and monodynamic

[SamBridge]

Who said that it does - the higgs field fills a gap in the standard model in which we know that the force carrying bosons of the weak and many of the fermions should be massless - yet we know they have mass. If you understand enough of the dirac lagrangian to see why the higgs is necessary then you should be explaining this to me ...

What that's what I'm saying, I don't see how higgs fit on and how they are necessary to explain all of the phenomena.

 

T

I am not sure about your use of the term relative mass. Energy is a component of the tensor calculations that allow us to find the local curvature that gr shows us is equivalent to gravity. you need to differentiate between the strong interaction and the nuclear force - the strong interaction is the basic interaction mediates by gluons between quarks within the nucleon, the nuclear force is the residuum of that interaction which acts between nucleons within the nucleus

Well you know that matter has a certain amount of energy it can indirectly be converted to right? The equivalence is probably not as direct as I made it out be, but energy itself can distort the fabric of space to a degree, a mass with a greater amount of energy will distort space more than the same mass without that energy.

I did get mixed up with the nucleons though, gluons do hold a lot of energy to bind quarks together which is why it takes massive amounts of energy to break that binding, the energy that holds various nucleons together, the residual energy from fusion comprises the binding energy to hold the nucleons, but even if the nuclear fore s the residual strong force, the strong force itself as well as the nuclear force is still thought to be mediated by gluons or hold nucleons together, at least based on what I know, and gluons would still be localized to the nucleus. In general particles with higher almost "base" mass/energy are still more localized, if you look at photons, higher the energy of a photon is, the greater its localization, which I think would make sense as relative mass. I don't think energy itself causes coupling with Higgs bosons, but how exactly does the increase in energy distort the fabric of space more then? Especially in photons? Photons are mass-less but they can still distort space, but coupling with higgs bosons are suppose to be what causes mass which light does not have, so what exactly is the point of mass, or what exactly is it if it is not something to do with distorting space? It obviously isn't just "how much" of something there is as there are mass-less particles, what exactly causes distortion? And what is mass on it's own?

Edited February 7, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

 

What that's what I'm saying, I don't see how higgs fit on and how they are necessary to explain all of the phenomena.

 

... what exactly causes distortion? And what is mass on it's own?

 

The energy causes distortion. The mass is the string.

 

The "maximum tense string" is the line of "gravity zero" and the "perfect planeity". The string distortion create gravity (law of attraction and repulsion).

[SamBridge]

The energy causes distortion. The mass is the string.

 

The "maximum tense string" is the line of "gravity zero" and the "perfect planeity". The string distortion create gravity (law of attraction and repulsion).

Quantum physics and relativity did not originally have string theory, but they had working models of math, I want to know the explanations that are based off of experiments utilization those. String theory itself has little evidence, not only that but oscillation is not a change in energy, a constant state of energy has a single oscillation mode which has variation in maximum and minimum depth over time, I would not expect the interaction of coupling to take place in terms of physical oscillation.

Edited February 7, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Quantum physics and relativity did not originally have string theory, but they had working models of math, I want to know the explanations that are based off of experiments utilization those. String theory itself has little evidence, not only that but oscillation is not a change in energy, a constant state of energy has a single oscillation mode which has variation in maximum and minimum depth over time, I would not expect the interaction of coupling to take place in terms of physical oscillation.

 

SamBridge, by example M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimension ... --> wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

and the Bosonic string theory is developed in the late 1960s ... --> wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory

 

From wiki : Fields with imaginary mass (tachyonic particle)

 

"Tachyonic fields play an important role in modern physics. Perhaps the most famous is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, which in its uncondensed phase—has an imaginary mass. In general, the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is closely related to tachyon condensation, plays a very important role in many aspects of theoretical physics, including the Ginzburg–Landau and BCS theories of superconductivity. Another example of a tachyonic field is the tachyon of bosonic string theory."

 

The Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (Mexican hat potential)

 

[SamBridge]

SamBridge, by example M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimension ... --> wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

and the Bosonic string theory is developed in the late 1960s ... --> wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory

 

From wiki : Fields with imaginary mass (tachyonic particle)

 

"Tachyonic fields play an important role in modern physics. Perhaps the most famous is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics, which in its uncondensed phase—has an imaginary mass. In general, the phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is closely related to tachyon condensation, plays a very important role in many aspects of theoretical physics, including the Ginzburg–Landau and BCS theories of superconductivity. Another example of a tachyonic field is the tachyon of bosonic string theory."

 

The Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (Mexican hat potential)

 

Imaginary numbers can easily arise from trigonometric functions such as the similar ones used in particle physics or just finding roots, what's your point? If a string's mass was increasing and it increased its energy state it wouldn't have the same oscillation mode which would make your diagram inaccurate. It does seem like it would help explaine the imaginary mass, but I don't see an apparent reason why it explains that the W and Z bosons can have mass independent from that, the coupling only applies to fermions.

Edited February 7, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Imaginary numbers can easily arise from trigonometric functions such as the similar ones used in particle physics or just finding roots, what's your point? If a string's mass was increasing and it increased its energy state it wouldn't have the same oscillation mode which would make your diagram inaccurate. It does seem like it would help explaine the imaginary mass, but I don't see an apparent reason why it explains that the W and Z bosons can have mass independent from that, the coupling only applies to fermions.

 

.. as a kind of "Bohr model" and with the Energy Levels in atom

 

Edited February 8, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[SamBridge]

Oscillation modes on their own aren't responsible for coupling with higg's bosons which you can see if you look at massless particles, you should explain what your intent is with the diagrams. You are trying to use vectors of the string in a higg's field to represent the direction of oscillation to explain the critical potential necessary for coupling? Or...what...

Edited February 8, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Oscillation modes on their own aren't responsible for coupling with higg's bosons which you can see if you look at massless particles, you should explain what your intent is with the diagrams. You are trying to use vectors of the string in a higg's field to represent the direction of oscillation to explain the critical potential necessary for coupling? Or...what...

 

No. I see it as a proton or a neutron. You know ?

Something about Quark

 

 

Otherwise, I do not know much the Higgs mechanism. Sorry

[SamBridge]

 

No. I see it as a proton or a neutron. You know ?

Something about Quark

 

 

Otherwise, I do not know much the Higgs mechanism. Sorry

So how do you account for the mass of W and Z bosons then?

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

My topic to talk about the "supersymmetry". Not mass.

 

Edited February 9, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[SamBridge]

My topic to talk about the "supersymmetry". Not mass.

 

But part of the reason why super-symmetry has faults is because of the details its missing as well as a lack of evidence, so how does super-symmetry and string theory account for the mass of W and Z bosons? W and Z bosons should have a counterpart according to supersymmetry.

Edited February 9, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

But part of the reason why super-symmetry has faults is because of the details its missing as well as a lack of evidence, so how does super-symmetry and string theory account for the mass of W and Z bosons? W and Z bosons should have a counterpart according to supersymmetry.

 

Do you know something about the Quark confinement and the Bosonic string ?

 

I just want to prove how non-symmetry is

[SamBridge]

Do you know something about the Quark confinement and the Bosonic string ?

 

I just want to prove how non-symmetry is

So you mentioned the original string theory and said the topic was super-symmetry and now you want to talk about non-symmetry? Every boson should have a corresponding fermion, so what transformation and oscillation accounts for mass in W and Z bosons?

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

So you mentioned the original string theory and said the topic was super-symmetry and now you want to talk about non-symmetry? Every boson should have a corresponding fermion, so what transformation and oscillation accounts for mass in W and Z bosons?

 

? you wrong for that see my first or 2nd post here --> http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72124-asymmetry-and-monodynamic/?p=715803

 

[SamBridge]

The definition of supersyemmetry is that all bosons have a corresponding fermions, which is used in string theory to describe particles as oscillation modes of dimensional strings which in some manners you attempted to describe by stating that a critical energy is needed for coupling with higgs particles every though you did not give a clear reason why those oscillation modes would cause coupling at the critical point. So if there is not a corresponding boson for every fermion it stands that super-symmetry has some faults or lacks a enough evidence.

Edited February 9, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Quark confinement and quantum vortex strings in Nambu-Heisenberg model

Do you know something about the Quark confinement and the Bosonic string ?

Edited February 9, 2013 by Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU

[SamBridge]

Quark confinement and quantum vortex strings in Nambu-Heisenberg model

 

Ok? Gluons have a small range even though they are mass-less, while W and Z bosons have a smaller range but do have mass which gives them drastically different properties. If you are trying to argue that either W or Z bosons are interchangeable with gluons you should provide evidence and then there's another gap with what the other boson corresponds to.

Saying "its possible for a string to have a transformation to have a solution that corresponds to some boson" is hardly much. As the other hypothesis shows as well as you did there is predicted to be some kind of minimum energy or oscillation mode to cause coupling with higg's bosons upon the transformation. That's about it.

Edited February 9, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Ok? Gluons have a small range even though they are mass-less, while W and Z bosons have a smaller range but do have mass which gives them drastically different properties. If you are trying to argue that either W or Z bosons are interchangeable with gluons you should provide evidence and then there's another gap with what the other boson corresponds to.

Saying "its possible for a string to have a transformation to have a solution that corresponds to some boson" is hardly much. As the other hypothesis shows as well as you did there is predicted to be some kind of minimum energy or oscillation mode to cause coupling with higg's bosons upon the transformation. That's about it.

 

I'll make a drawing

[SamBridge]

 

I'll make a drawing

try and make a more "quantitative" drawing.

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

by by

[SamBridge]

by by

Bye, good luck trying to come up with measurable evidence for string theory. Hopefully such an elegant solution is actually true.

Edited February 9, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

Bye, good luck trying to come up with measurable evidence for string theory. Hopefully such an elegant solution is actually true.

 

Which String theory do you prefer ?

Superstring theory

 

Bosonic string theory

 

M-theory (simplified)

 

Type I string

 

Type II string

 

F-theory

 

Heterotic string

 

String field theory

[SamBridge]

 

Which String theory do you prefer ?

Superstring theory

 

Bosonic string theory

 

M-theory (simplified)

 

Type I string

 

Type II string

 

F-theory

 

Heterotic string

 

String field theory

I'd prefer evidence for ANY of them, there's no direct observable evidence for strings and it appears there is little to no direct evidence for super-symmetry.

Edited February 10, 2013 by SamBridge

[Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU]

I'd prefer evidence for ANY of them, there's no direct observable evidence for strings and it appears there is little to no direct evidence for super-symmetry.

 

Ok. In my theory there's only one particle to explain one proton or neutron. I mean one particle per proton to explaine the severval quark(s). When we see it (inside the proton) we can in fact to see these three quarks. But it's not. The gluon(s) are only the journey of this quark that we can see to move.

The gluon is the quark. Of course all of that use one principe of energy intensity (the maximum density is created by the off of string). The symmetry is so impossible.

[SamBridge]

Ok. In my theory there's only one particle to explain one proton or neutron. I mean one particle per proton to explaine the severval quark(s). When we see it (inside the proton) we can in fact to see these three quarks. But it's not. The gluon(s) are only the journey of this quark that we can see to move.

The gluon is the quark. Of course all of that use one principe of energy intensity (the maximum density is created by the off of string). Ok so first The symmetry is so impossible.

Ok so first gluons aren't quarks, gluons are the medium for the strong force between force and nuclear force between nucleons, and second what are you trying to argue then if the symmetry is impossible? If your "theory" only uses one particle they should be interchangeable.