Pure Vacuum can exist? True or False?

The Cosmological Constant is still a result of exotic Dark Matter and thus Dark Energy. Still... dark as it may be, it is "something" and not "nothing".

If it decays to its basic fundamental particles, these particles (like the Boson) would then construct something else. There's always "something" and that's the point I'm trying to make.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why?
We can use it without understanding what it is (or even needing to).

Hoo boy are you in for some fun, we have a large contingent here that claim time is nothing more than a mathematical construct.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Evidence?

I can see some discussions ahead.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And then there's the argument that "nothing" can't exist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know. That's only because it's detectable and is actually "something", much like Dark Matter. We don't know what it is, but we can measure them. And what do we measure them with? A ruler called "space" and a clock called "time". Both are "Fundamental Units" of measure, not fabrics at all.

I agree. I believe time to be something entirely differnt and detached to what we know and quite frankly, I won't discuss what I think it is here as it may cause alot of people to hurry here and I'll have to respond to long posts.

It is a deep area to discuss and to me it is very spiritual, but still, what is time to you my friend? Try to answer it as simply as you can with the worldly knowledge we have now?

"Space" is the absence of "something" within a mathematical construct and nothing more. We even call that darkness in the heavens, "space" because there's nothing there, it seems. But is this the case? I don't think so.

hehehe... I know. Wait for the flurry now!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's right. Does it make sense to you though?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Higgs boson doesn't give the other particles mass by decaying into them. The Higgs field is just a neat trick used to smuggle mass into the standard model without having to start off with mass, since having mass to begin with screws up nice properties like gauge invariance. The simplest explanation I have seen is this:

In the Lagragian for a theory (which contains all the information about the dynamics of the theory), for a field \(\psi\) to have mass there needs to be a part that looks something like

\( m^2 \psi ^2\)

but since creates problems with gauge invariance we like to replace it with

\( \phi^2 \psi ^2 \)

where \(\phi\) is the Higgs field. So the Higgs field plays the same role as mass in the equations, while actually describing an interaction between fields. It is obviously more complex than that but I think this captures the basic essence of the idea. Funnily enough the Higgs field itself gets mass through the same trick; it starts off massless like \(\psi\) does.

 

I stand corrected. My thinking that the Higgs was the source of mass assumed that the search for the Higgs boson or at least the remants of its decay was an objective of the LHC.

 

If the Casimir effect is a product of the Uncertainty Principle, then how come fluctuations are reduced when you bring two plates close together?? Instead of being reduced it should rather be transformed from photons to some other particle ..