Higgs Boson News to be announced Dec 13th

Precisely. You don't go down in history for just putting the numbers into someone else's formulae. You get it by breaking new ground and nothing makes new ground like bulldozing your predecessors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I hope CERN don't find it, because it would be a false hope. I mean they may find a result from another particle, but it would be a mistake. Mass is Gravity, and it shouldn't show up in a test apart from as maybe a rotational vector force. They may mistake the force for a particle, but the particle changes scale. I'm 100% sure that if they find a result it isn't what they think it is. Most likely they will find the average middle scale of Gravity. The grey in the Black, and White. Mind you, thinking about it, that's quite good, because the exact middle, can be used to work out the positive, and negative.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moderator action : Removed 16 posts pertaining to Mister's issues with Higgs potentials to another thread. Discussion of the Higgs potential is fine in this thread provided people don't misrepresent their level of understanding or commit plagiarism.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pncho, since by your own statement you've NEVER studied any science at any level, your statments should simply be dismissed as the out-of-your-ass garbage they are.

 

The Higgs field gives mass to particles, including itself if it has any mass, by slowing them down from the speed of light.

Does that mean that all particles which have mass travel slower than the speed of light?

Also, isn't the speed of particles also related to Temperature, or is that just atoms?
As you get closer to zero Kelvin, does mass increase?
Does the same amount of frozen Hydrogen weigh more than Hydrogen at room temperature?

 

I know, because you don't want science to justify science. That's a closed, no productive loop. Ever since Newton science has been in a loop because of maths. Gravity was in the wrong direction, and it meant that somebody had to start from a complete blank page. Your post is what I call a religions stagnation post. You are anti-science but you don't know it. I watched Brian Cox last night on TV. The only two comments in the whole program that were true were by the audience members. One with a GCE grade C noticed that the electrons are supposed to look like a liquid, and was confused why Brian Cox was saying that they shouldn't. She was right, he was wrong, but he ridiculed her, and smiled like a Christian. He kept saying "This is not woo woo." But all of it was. Then the second person to get something right was Jonathan Ross. Who said.. "I could have told you that the diamond wouldn't jump out of the box before the show." Which was correct.

 

The Higgs gives mass to the W and Z bosons and the matter particles, but not to itself. The Higgs mass is one of the few parameters that one must measure in experiment and is not predicted by the theory.

Correct. Massless particles travel at the speed of light, and massive particles travel less than the speed of light.

Correct. The average speed of the particles is how temperature is defined (not heat, which is what I said the other day when I had a brain fart).

Mass does not depend on temperature, because mass does not depend on velocity. The internal energy of a substance may change but that is covered by the first law of thermodynamics.

Modulo what I said above there is a slight issue here - solid hydrogen is more tightly bound that gaseous hydrogen and there is energy ties up in the bonds. It is correct to say that the same number of molecules of gaseous hydrogen at two different temperatures has the same mass.

 

I was discussing this with someone recently, perhaps it was Arfa Brane. Take a volume of gas with a given temperature and expand it. The average speed of the particles does not actually decrease, but the particle collision rate does. It makes me think that "average speed of the particles" is a poor definition of temperature because it doesn't have any heat flux parameters. Or perhaps it's only a valid definition at constant volume?

 

So the fact that they are slowed down from the speed of light gives them mass, but any further decrease in speed does not increase that mass.

Why's that then?

 

There are a number of thermodynamic properties like temperature, volume, pressure, entropy etc, that are generally defined (1) at equilibrium and (2) when all the other ones are constant. There's quite a lot of mathematical machinery for dealing with thermodynamic systems at equilibrium, and I can't remember it sufficiently to be sure of getting it all right so I'll defer to wikipedia.

Also, I had another (minor) brain fart - temperature is related to the average kinetic energy of the particles, not the speed.

It's the other way around - If a particle has mass then it may travel at any speed (depending on it's kinetic energy) less than the speed of light. More speed = more kinetic energy, not more or less mass.

 

That would explain things.

As brought to light in another recent conversation, it's technically the average kinetic energy as measured from the rest frame of the center of mass of the particles. I'm not saying this to be pedantic as much as I find it to be interesting trivia, because otherwise accelerating relative to an ice cube could melt said cube.

 

Temperature depends on kinetic energy, but it also depends on vibrational, rotational, electromagnetic and other forms of energy as well. In the case of an ideal gas it's ok to say that temperature is proportional to the average molecular kinetic energy, but it gets a lot more complicated than that for most other physical systems.

 

. . . total KINETIC energy includes all of those forms you mention . . . does not include gravity though. . . .

 

If something has a temperature then it is emitting a spectrum I am going to assume is blackbody. All relative motion does for you is to red or blue shift that spectrum, so if you are moving with respect to a blackbody you will measure it to have a different temperature to an observer on the blackbody.

Normally in relativity the story is that any inertial observers perception is of equal value, but here as you say, relative motion could make water appear to be colder than 0 Celsius or similar. Of course, this is not necessarily a philosophical problem - the phase diagram allows for liquid water to exist at pretty much any temperature.

 

While it is possible to think of energy in those terms, I don't believe that is entirely accurate within the context of current theory.

If your statement were taken to be literally true it would essentially reduce All forms of energy to a kinetic explanation. I don't believe that is an entirely consistent definition. While all energy forms mentioned can have or produce results that are defined kinetically, that in and of itself does not reduce all forms of energy to a fundamental kinetic explanation.

And yes there are many attempts in scientific literature and even relatively recent papers, that do attempt explanations along these lines. As yet I am unsure most of these have been proven rigorously consistent with, experience, experiment and existing theory, or to have gained sufficient consensus within physics, to be considered even confirmed, let alone proven.

That said I find the approach interesting and worth further exploration.

 

Agreed, then I guess we need to begin qualifying all temperature readings and phase diagrams of bodies with a measuring frame relative to the measured body.

 

Of course, the most sensible convention is to take the substance to be at rest relative to the measurer.

 

Thermodynamics in its traditional sense only applies to systems in equilibrium, so there really is no option other than picking a suitable rest frame. A flying box isn't an equilibrium system because it's not staying in a single place. For example in particle accelerators they talk about "beam cooling"; the goal there isn't to take away the beam's energy, but rather the small inhomogeneities in the energy-momenta distributions which would register as temperature in the beam's centre-of-mass rest frame.

 

So is the beam staying in a single place, or are the little lab techs running REALLY fast when trying to determine how much beam cooling must be necessary?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'd say neither description comes close, but the actual technologies employed perform the equivalent of the latter.