Yang–Mills and Mass Gap

[hansda]

Please provide a source that states that the photon is symmetrical in the same sense of the word as it is used in "symmetry breaking".

In particle photon, E-field and M-field are sine waves which are symmetrical relative to its line of propagation.

In what sense are the resulting particle asymmetrical?

If the symmetry is broken, the two particles are asymmetrical.

 

[NotEinstein]

In particle photon, E-field and M-field are sine waves which are symmetrical relative to its line of propagation.

You have just proven you have utterly no idea what you are talking about. First of all, that's indeed exactly not the symmetry meant in the term symmetry breaking. More importantly, photons are the result of symmetry breaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking#Higgs_mechanism
Remember that Higgs mechanism you mentioned? Well, there is it.

So, according to you photons are both symmetrical (because their EM waves are) and asymmetrical (because they are the result of symmetry breaking). You, sir, are being silly.

If the symmetry is broken, the two particles are asymmetrical.

(See above.)

 

[hansda]

That last equation has a radius with units of length per time. A fine demonstration of "garbage in, garbage out".

Ok. Here $$r=\frac{2c}{\pi f} $$

 

[NotEinstein]

Ok. Here $$r=\frac{2c}{\pi f} $$

Can you please re-post the entire derivation, but with this fix? Where did the error come from? Which formulae are affected?

 

[hansda]

You have just proven you have utterly no idea what you are talking about. First of all, that's indeed exactly not the symmetry meant in the term symmetry breaking. More importantly, photons are the result of symmetry breaking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking#Higgs_mechanism
Remember that Higgs mechanism you mentioned? Well, there is it.

So, according to you photons are both symmetrical (because their EM waves are) and asymmetrical (because they are the result of symmetry breaking). You, sir, are being silly.


(See above.)

Can you quote the statement, where it is mentioned E-M waves generate from symmetry breaking. I am not able to find that line.

 

[hansda]

Can you please re-post the entire derivation, but with this fix? Where did the error come from? Which formulae are affected?

For c and f, you put the same unit of time and put numerical value of f as 1.

 

[NotEinstein]

Can you quote the statement, where it is mentioned E-M waves generate from symmetry breaking. I am not able to find that line.

Funny, I thought you were an expert in these things, throwing terms around like you did?

But I'll point it out to your explicitly:

In the standard model of particle physics, spontaneous symmetry breaking of the SU(2) × U(1) gauge symmetry associated with the electro-weak force generates masses for several particles, and separates the electromagnetic and weak forces.

Remember that the electromagnetic force is what gives rise to photons.

The W and Z bosons are the elementary particles that mediate the weak interaction, while the photon mediates the electromagnetic interaction.

Oh look, it says it explicitly! Photons are the result of symmetry breaking!

 

[NotEinstein]

For c and f, you put the same unit of time and put numerical value of f as 1.

This is nonsensical: frequency can't always have the numerical value of one. Take two objects. One rotates twice as fast as the other. Let's say one makes a full rotation once an hour, the other twice an hour. Yet, both have a $$f$$ of $$1$$. Question: What is the used unit of time?

 

[hansda]

Funny, I thought you were an expert in these things, throwing terms around like you did?

But I'll point it out to your explicitly:

Remember that the electromagnetic force is what gives rise to photons.


Oh look, it says it explicitly! Photons are the result of symmetry breaking!

In pair production also you get photon particles along with massive particles.

 

[NotEinstein]

In pair production also you get photon particles along with massive particles.

True, but that has nothing to do with symmetry breaking, so I don't know why you are bringing that up?

 

[hansda]

This is nonsensical: frequency can't always have the numerical value of one. Take two objects. One rotates twice as fast as the other. Let's say one makes a full rotation once an hour, the other twice an hour. Yet, both have a $$f$$ of $$1$$. Question: What is the used unit of time?

I am talking about minimum frequency.

 

[hansda]

True, but that has nothing to do with symmetry breaking, so I don't know why you are bringing that up?

So in Higgs mechanism also you can get photon.

 

[NotEinstein]

I am talking about minimum frequency.

You were talking about "cycles" (which you haven't defined), and minimum mass generation (which you haven't defined). Then you were talking about pair production, confused that with symmetry breaking, mixed up different types of symmetries, and now you're jumping back to the incoherent idea of a "minimum frequency". Care to actually explain any of it?

So in Higgs mechanism also you can get photon.

Sure, but that doesn't mean the two processes are the same. You do understand that there can be multiple ways to get to the same point, right?

 

[hansda]

Sure, but that doesn't mean the two processes are the same. You do understand that there can be multiple ways to get to the same point, right?

Mass generation basically is symmetry breaking.

 

[NotEinstein]

Mass generation basically is symmetry breaking.

Source please.