Measuring the curvature of spacetime

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Dec 28, 2015.

  1. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    No. I, like all the respondents on the page you cited, am merely taking the one principle of equivalence and applying it to Higgs field interaction in the same manner that I would to the interactions of any other field.

    It is you who is claiming that the Higgs field creates all mass as if it were some special field interacting with all energy.
     
    BdS and danshawen like this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    I'm not claiming knowledge of what it is that CREATES. either mass nor energy, neither of which can be either created nor destroyed, but only change its form. Stop making straw men out of what I have written. I never even implied that.

    I'm claiming, energy that becomes bound has been given inertia. Einstein's original E=mc^2 thought experiment with a photon emitted and absorbed in a long spacecraft demonstrated this and convinced an audience of Newtonian physicists, relativity had merit. Do you disagree with this? See? I can make straw men too.

    I'm also claiming, if Higgs gives sufficient inertia to atomic structure, it is ALL BOUND, not just the GD fermions. I'm claiming, any particle physics person who thinks that most of the energy is in gluons, quarks, and color charge exchanges has missed something important. 125 GeV is as much energy as in whole atoms. There is more to the story. Everyone else in science has already caved to this, and you blokes are the last holdouts, but this is a fallacious reason to change your minds, so do us all a favor and just forget I ever mentioned it, OKAY?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2016
    BdS likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    You equated the action of GR to Higgs. You said that all the work that Einstein did was really about the Higgs. If that was not what you meant, then you really should make that clearer and repudiate some of your earlier statements were you equate GR to Higgs.

    Now you are claiming this. After your wild claims are shown to have no foundation.

    No, I do not agree with this particular characterization of history.

    And now we're back to the fantasy that you just said you didn't have.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Yes. That is EXACTLY what I mean. NOT creating energy. NOT creating mass, although the two are equivalent, just different respective forms.

    Without Higgs, the STANDARD MODEL ITSELF has no "foundation". What exactly do you mean by "foundation?" What exactly are the "wild" claims?

    Fine. You are entitled to your own facts and your own version of history, of course. What in particular is wrong with it? I only read the same account in about 20 or so places, over a period of about 40 years. And this account is about the easiest thing to find on the history of relativity on the internet or anywhere else. What is it you dispute? That he gave the presentation before an audience of Newtonian physicists? That he proved that E=mc^2? What? Just google "Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2."

    Tellurium ATOMS have a mass of about 127 GeV. That "fantasy?" That Higgs imparts inertial mass to electrons, W and Z gauge bosons, quarks, and their antiparticles? That matter is a contained form of energy? What part of this does not fit into your head? I told you dozens of posts back, you wouldn't understand. It's OK, really. It's nothing to get upset about. About 98% of the human race don't "understand" this, and they don't care, so why do you? I don't care if you don't.
     
    BdS likes this.
  8. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    OK, so you are full of crazy talk that has nothing to do with your citation.

    Good to know.

    Thank you for just sticking with the crazy instead of trying to weasel your way out of it like you did in the previous post.
    I mean that, despite the fact that you say a whole page of people agree with you, those people do not agree with you. So far, you have provided no evidence for your position nor evidence that anyone agrees with your position.
    See the first paragraph of your post.
    No. I'm not entitled to the facts.
    OK, let's google that....

    I found nothing that says that presenting this derivation was the convincing factor for physicists that relativity had merit.
    Your fantasy is that the nuclear forces do not provide mass to the atoms and that it is all the Higgs field.
     
    BdS and danshawen like this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    No. Inertia is for things traveling slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. That's the flip side of inertia everyone conveniently forgets.

    Higgs' cousins are even heavier. This is the equivalent of a 200 lb gorilla in the room, an nobody sees it or pays any attention. You think it can't curve space? Fine.
     
    BdS likes this.
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I fear you may be psychologically incapable of understanding this issue.

    Nobody, anywhere, is saying that a Higgs particle does not contribute to spacetime curvature. Nobody, anywhere, is saying that an interaction with the Higgs field does not contribute to spacetime curvature.

    What only you are saying is that all contributions to spacetime curvature is an interaction with the Higgs field.

    What the standard science and the people working on the Higgs are saying is that much of the mass of a nucleus, and hence its inflence on spacetime, is due to something other than its interaction with the Higgs field.
     
    BdS and danshawen like this.
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Sure. Gravitons. But what if… I'm not saying it is, but what IF it turns out that the graviton, a spin 1 particle that interacts with all matter, should by some freak of nature, do something that Higgs is thought to do, and somehow gravitational mass turns out to be DIFFERENT FROM inertial mass? More than one particle cannot give inertial mass to the same particle, can it? You don't see the flaw in that logic? Because the principle of equivalence is the FOUNDATION of General Relativity, isn't it? Is it not also experimentally verified to within 1 part per an awful lot of other parts?

    You have a math degree. Don't you ever have to go back and double check your calculations? Something is inconsistent here.
     
    BdS likes this.
  12. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Yes, yes it can. That's the way forces seem to work.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Okay.

    I love the way your mind works, and we have already covered this. FORCES are neither ENERGY nor MASS, and by means of extension, it isn't INERTIA either, whether it is gravitational or inertial. You seem to be saying, Higgs doesn't' impart ENOUGH inertia, to be the same as gravitational inertia, to which my simple response is: how much is really needed?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2016
  14. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Since the Higgs has a mass of 125 GeV, which is the same as the combined nucleons in tellurium, we can be absolutely certain that the Higgs IS NOT A PERMANENT PART of ANY atomic structure, because if it were, well, for one thing, it would have totally mucked up our estimation of atomic masses in the periodic table. Since it didn't, we can be certain that the Higgs, an excitation of the Higgs field, originated from somewhere outside of atomic structure (in other words, the quantum foam energy of the vacuum). Like the force paired bosons of the Standard Model, nothing that imparts inertia can do so without an exchange of inertia back, which gives Higgs (and the vacuum of space) its own inertial mass. You may view this as curvature if you wish.

    Higgs is the only spin ZERO particle. The only way a boson can be a real particle and have a quantum spin of identically zero is for it to be the bound rotational energy counterpart of the state of rest for bound energy at rest. In both cases, spins of ±1 combine at ±c in equal and opposite quantum rotation magnitudes within a single boson to produce a particle with a spin of zero, and for matter in ANY inertial reference frame, the vector summation of ±c in opposite directions determines what "at rest" means in any inertial reference frame. I don't have all the answers here. The Higgs couplings to individual particles will be stronger or weaker depending on how much it interacts with with atomic structure and with which particles. The quantum spin interactions are all quantum processes, and it is not expected that anyone will yet have any data on the details of this kind of interaction. I'm likewise pretty certain that a graviton with a spin of +1 is the wrong particle for the job of gravity. Gravity is always attractive, not repulsive, but on opposite sides of planets (or anything, for that matter), the attraction is in diametrically opposed directions. It won't bend light the way you would expect.

    So in any volume of light travel time in which the Higgs mechanism interacts with matter, Higgs bosons derive rotational inertia which by virtue of coincidence JUST HAPPENS TO BE ORIENTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTIONS TO INDUCE CURVATURE OF THE TRAJECTORIES OF PHOTONS SKIRTING THE EDGES OF GRAVITATING MASSES.

    The Standard Model seems to have an issue with the inertia imparted by its FOUNDATIONAL PARTICLE Higgs being the same as gravitational mass, and General Relativity's FOUNDATIONAL ASSUMPTION of the Principle of Equivalence seems to be given no attention at all by particle physicists working with the Standard Model.

    Dozens of papers have recently been published acknowledging the idea that there is a problem. Here's a pretty good treatment dated 1/12/16 I have not referenced here before, and I doubt anyone here has read:

    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S0218271815440095

    And for the record, I still don't care a whit about the Higgs role in inflation, or cosmology in general. Go crazy with it. I could care less. I'm interested in how the dynamics of the universe work TODAY.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2016
    BdS likes this.
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I do not like how your mind works. You actually got a basic physic education, yet like many engineers you have abandoned it in favor of the crazy way you would like physics to work. It is a shame that you bring such disrespect to engineers everywhere.

    I believe that paddoboy posted a video in this very thread that explains the relationship of forces to energy very nicely. It is only through the action of forces that a physical system can be said to have energy and that energy creates inertia. The Higgs field provides some of the constraints on nuclear material, just like the nuclear forces do, and thus it and the nuclear forces together create the inertial mass of the nuclear material.

    This has been pointed out to you dozens of times. This is all stuff freely available for you to peruse in the literature about the Higgs.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    when he first brought these claims to this forum he claimed that he was one of three colleagues working on this. Typical crank effort to add credibility to an argument he can't make. Maybe he imagined the comments he linked in support of his idea were from his colleagues.
    Awhile back he claimed Professor Matt Strassler was coming around to this nonsense. I'm pretty sure he doesn't understand why Proffessor Higgs mechanism is part of the standard model. Why it was predicted to be found in the domain where the LHC discovered it. If he did he wouldn't be bothering with the crank bullshit he's touting.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2016
  17. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    You're claims are nonsense. Word salad bullshit. If you had a clue [my term for a modicum of competancy] you would've been able to realize this before you publicly made a fool of yourself. You should realize you have no right to bastardize a component of the standard model to use for something entirely different. Something that is illiterate as you are.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2016
    danshawen likes this.
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Someof us here are very, very consistent, if nothing else.
     
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942
    Was on the OPERA project which ended as the superluminal neutrino fiasco, and cost Europe the follow-on neutrino propagation project currently operating in the United States.
     
  20. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,942

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You know what? I don't give two fuzzy rat's behinds what paddoboy posted here, or anywhere else.
     
  21. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I'm sure you don't. And I'm sure that you will use that as an excuse to avoid looking at the relevant science or rethinking your own approach.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  22. sweetpea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    770
    The following is probably an example of what Dan means when he says “working with his colleagues”. MY BOLD is the telling part. Somewhere there's another forum and he's telling folks we are his colleagues.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 13, 2016
    paddoboy likes this.
  23. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Good analysis. It's a quandary why this is important to him. It seems that he needs to denigrate scientists to prop up himself. I don't get it.
     

Share This Page