Modifying Newton's First Law of Motion

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by hansda, Jun 8, 2017.

  1. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    No. What you call the Higgs "mechanism" is a field. As such it clearly has no "speed".

    I cannot parse this statement, but I suspect it is derogatory to modern physics.
    Is that your intention?

    About what, exactly?

    I strongly suspect you have no idea what you are talking about, in spite of the amount of your (presumably) valuable time spent posting here
     
    danshawen likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    I mean exactly what I wrote, exactly as I wrote it. If you disagree with it, include a reason on your rebuttal or don't expect an answer. This will prompt me to ignore faster than light propagates in a vacuum.

    Einstein's E=mc^2 received similar resistance, and this is to be expected. Gird yourself hansda. Here it comes.

    I recommend use of 'ignore' status when you get discouraged. Works well for me.

    You have gotten many well reasoned responses.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    The Higgs mechanism requires more than just a field to impart inertial mass to things like fermions.

    The excitation has mass, of course, but whoever said that it was a linear propagation mode responsible for imparting inertial mass to electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons or their antiparticles? This too may occur faster than light propagates in a vacuum. Look again at Tom Kibble's graphic model.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    http://berkeleysciencereview.com/article/hunting-down-the-higgs/

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    In this case, former prime minister Thatcher is crossing a room full of reporters and groupies. As she crosses the room, a mechanism similar to the Higgs mechanism appears to provide her with more inertial mass than she would otherwise have.

    Does anything about Tom Kibble's (co-author of the original paper on the Higgs mechanism) graphic suggest to anyone else here that the interaction that provides the former prime minister with inertial mass might be acting radially or circumferentially in order to do so? The crowd that is closest to her (in yellow) is the excitation of the Higgs field (Higgs bosons). Note that they need not propagate at c in order for the mechanism to work to provide the inertial mass.

    The Higgs mechanism, in theory, provides inertial mass to electrons, quarks, electroweak bosons, neutrinos, and their anti-particles, accounting for about 2% of atomic structure. The other 98% (of mc^2) for atomic structure is comprised of interactions between quarks, gluons, and color charge. I seem to get static about this statement here and elsewhere each and every time I roll it out. Why is that? anti-Einstein trolls is all I can figure.

    This is Nobel Laureate science, as hard as science can possibly get. The details of the mechanism may not be known in detail yet, but the science itself is as solid as Newton's laws or Einstein's E=mc^2. It is so far consistent with what we know for certain about the particle that is the underpinning of the Standard Model of particle physics.

    And I am not exaggerating when I say that many particle physicists do not put much stock in anything connected with this "G-d" particle. As many accredited scientists doubted the existence of the neutrino when Wolfgang Pauli predicted it as well.

    Skepticiam about new scientific findings because they have not been vetted is one thing. Skepticism about new scientific findings because you have spent most of your career working with some other theory as the basis of whatever you do that explains less or isn't even falsifiable is something different.

    String theory, for example, never even stipulated that strings possess inertia / mass / inertial mass / energy. You can't ever derive such things using the wrong model. A mathematical model with first principles that have no bindings to reality whatsoever might as well be dividing by zero, for all of the useful science other than math you are ever likely to get out of it.

    I actually think that hansda's ideas about instantaneous inertia / mass / inertial mass is needed for part of the Higgs mechanism model. If the Higgs mechanism only operated at the speed of light, it would not be fast enough to keep atomic structure intact, much less allow EM to interact with photons while all of what is depicted in Tom Kibble's graphic is happening. Electrons change state within an atom when a photon is emitted, and that doesn't happen as predicted unless something gives it inertial mass and isn't slow about doing so. A slower Higgs mechanism would mean that atomic structure would lose electrons to recoil each and every time a photon interacted with it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2017
  8. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Nobody said that, least of all Peter Higgs. He postulated a strictly non-linear model where the field "gives" mass to its own associated interaction boson, as well (obviously) to all other massive particles
     
    danshawen likes this.
  9. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Well, you receive credit for knowing that Peter Higgs is a co-author of the paper predicting the Higgs mechanism.

    Tom Kibble is not a nobody. The graphic depicted was described by Tom in the Wahlberg essay competition to describe the Higgs mechanism.

    'Non linear' in what way? Like a spring stretched or compressed beyond its elastic limit, or like something not propagating in a straight line? I would agree with the latter. Nothing about atomic structure or the forces involved in holding it together could be characterized as "linear".

    Sorry, but I'm not purveying wild claims about this, or at least, not any more. These ideas are not mine. They have been borne out by experiment at the LHC.

    Because a specific physical interpretation involving inertia was never provided by these papers, I think that hansda's interpretation of instantaneous inertia is important, particularly if the process is continuous, as Kibble's graphic suggests. A differential element of inertia will eventually need to be described by someone. That will be difficult to impossible to do with our models of time as screwed up as Minkowski left them.

    Oh, sure, I know it will likely be 50 more years before most people, scientists included, figure out they were missing the point. It's okay.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  10. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    There is no such concept that for a given object mass changes from instant to instant. Mass is an intrinsic aspect of an object quite time invariant. You are going way ahead of what Hansda never meant. That fellow was in circular mode...made a statement from Newton and concluded Newton.
     
  11. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Possibly. I wanted to make certain that the most beautiful idea I'd never thought of, but which made perfect sense, did not get lost by forcing hansda to backpedal on the best idea I've seen since I joined sciforums. It easily beats ideas to extend relativity I've read elsewhere too.

    There is really no concept that it (mass) DOESN'T change from instant to instant, either. On the contrary, there are parts of QM that propose that mass is actually a tensor (vector with time as a component), and that makes sense because you can increase mass easily in a given direction by means of relative motion. If we are going to follow through with a paradigm shift for time, it makes perfect sense for it to ripple through both ideas about inertia and force as well, which is the most powerful aspect of handa's idea, because it did so all at once, the way it really has to be.

    We can't have objects with mass beginning to fly apart or unravel themselves or their masses just because they have relative velocities close to the speed of light in a given direction, really, can we?

    Rest mass AND its associated inertia must be independent of relative states of motion, in every inertial reference frame.

    Well, if you can do that (increase mass in a given direction) so easily, why does it not make sense that in order to provide mass / inertia in all directions at once, something like the Higgs mechanism is just the ticket? If you allow it to do so by means of quantum spin interaction on the particles specified, it certainly does make perfect sense, and it doesn't even need to propagate at the speed of light in order to do so.

    All of the mass of the known universe is only there because of this mechanism. All of the real energy we see in the known universe isn't a flyspeck compared to the virtual energy capacity stored in the vacuum. It's there all the time. It cancels most of its own energy out, most of the TIME, until or unless inertia must be given to something real.

    Reality is stranger and stranger, and that makes sense, too, because no matter how far you extend the truth of the ideas you need to understand something, one more concept outside of the ones you have just learned will need to remain beyond your grasp. That idea, too, is solid reality, as real as anything else in it.

    But you need an idea fine tuned to take advantage of hansda's idea to give something like the Higgs mechanism legs. If mass can be continuously provided in a way that is faster than light propagates, everything else about the way we know bound energy operates makes perfect sense. The bosons that make it happen don't need to be there for more than a zeptosecond, mainly because of hansda's instantaneous inertia. Time dilation must work in every direction at once, preferably without classical ancient greek geometry to give it a boost (pun intended).

    No wonder that until the LHC was built, it was darned near impossible to ever observe this God particle. And it does deserve the name Leon Lederman's publisher serendipitously gave it. All of creation and atomic structure unravels without it.

    And thank you for being by far the most open minded person we've seen in the subject of this thread, The G-d.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Before suggesting a modification to a concept in physics, I think it would be a good idea to at least an inkling of the concept you are hoping to modify.
     
    hansda and danshawen like this.
  13. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Newton's first:
    An object in motion remains in motion or at rest unless it is acted upon by an outside force.

    Newton's second:
    F=ma

    Newton's third:
    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

    Hansda's first, second, third:
    The same as Newton's, except that force, inertia, and acceleration may now be instantaneous (all scales, including and especially quantum interaction), because an instant in time is simply a time interval subordinate to the threshold defined by means of the uncertainty principle.

    Mass / energy only exists from instant to instant of time only because inertia exists from instant to instant of time.

    Force acting over an interval of time only exists by means of force carriers in the standard model (including and especially photons) existing from instant to instant of time. Forces acting on quantum scales may not be vectors which include intervals of time in their descriptions. Intervals of time are replaced by instants of time.

    Acceleration only exists because instantaneous relative velocity exists from instant to instant of time. On quantum scales, acceleration may be replaced from a vector to a change of direction or spin ONLY. Another word for acceleration on quantum scales would be entanglement.

    Assumptions (provided by danshawen):
    'Object' gets replaced by 'bound energy', which combined with time, is the subject of Newton's laws of motion. All motion, including the speed of light in a vacuum, gets replaced by 'relative motion'. The speed of light remains invariant, for all inertial frames in relative motion, but it is not assumed that any time interval associated with its propagation is either the fundamental basis of time, nor the fastest (shortest) process or interval of time in the universe on any scale.

    Relativity for speeds < c and the Higgs mechanism, which is essential to hansda's law of instantaneous inertia. The instant of time referenced in hansda's laws is already known to be less time than it takes for a Higgs boson to decay, which is less than a zeptosecond (10^-20 seconds).
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    So no difference at all, then, seeing as Newton's concepts of force, mass and acceleration can and do have instantaneous values, at any moment of time.

    Why have we had three pages on this?

    And please, please, try not to include sodding entanglement in your answer.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    OK, lets say

    At a given instant t=0, these are m, F, a.

    So you know F and m but you have no means to calculate 'a' at t = 0, it requires duration. And what do you achieve with F, either acceleration or work, both have no meaning without dt. Can you apply a force for dt = 0?
     
    danshawen likes this.
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    If the force is a continuous function of time, which it often will be, then it will have a value at every instant of time, will it not?
     
    hansda likes this.
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546

    Yes yes, you are right, F can have value at any given instant, but application of force instantaneously has no meaning, because it's effect requires duration.

    In that sense you can have instantaneous mass too, for example decaying matter lump or even a leaky balloon or even a star who is losing mass due to emission.

    What Dan was attempting, reversal of spin in dt = 0, that means application and effect of force in zero duration.
     
  18. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    Yes, the same. Correct me if this answer is wrong, hansda.
     
  19. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    The duration is less than a zeptosecond, at the threshold of uncertainty limitations placed on time, given mass, position, momentum. Not necessarily limited by the speed of light either, but I doubt that even applies here, because instantaneous acceleration at the same rate exists. Not quite zero duration, but what hansda is proposing also means, nothing faster exists. And don't forget to correct your figures for any time dilation. This is why, the speed of light cannot be involved. It is not the basis of time.

    Takes laws of motion to a whole new level, doesn't it? Proportional math starts working again, if you can avoid dividing by zero, that is.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017
  20. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Ah OK. I have no wish to read all the correspondence on this but would just comment that, if it is spin reversal in atoms for example, then rest assured the QM model does not suggest instantaneous reversal. Transitions between states take a finite time in QM and the transition process is governed by the time-dependent form of the wave equation while this is happening.
     
  21. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    OK thanks Dan.
     
    danshawen likes this.
  22. danshawen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,951
    It comes down to a question of how fast energy can change direction WITHOUT actually propagating.

    You're welcome.
     
  23. hansda Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,424
    Effect of this Instantaneous Force(IF) will remain for the time duration dt. After dt if another IF is applied, the state of motion will change or else it will continue with the earlier state of motion. And this process will repeat at every instant of time.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2017

Share This Page