The Higgs boson looks just like Marc Sher said it would. Now what?

Mar 18, 2013 by Joseph Mcclain
The Higgs boson looks just like Marc Sher said it would. Now what?
Theoretical physicist Marc Sher wrote his first paper on the Higgs boson in 1978. Announcements from CERN have depicted discovery of a subatomic particle that's exactly what Sher and other theorists had described. Credit: Stephen Salpukas

It turns out that the Higgs boson looks exactly like Marc Sher always said it would, and now he's a little bummed.

Sher, professor of at William & Mary, has devoted his entire professional life to theoretical description of the Higgs. Announcements this week refined and cemented a July 4, 2012 report that the European collaboration at CERN had found the Higgs. The Higgs boson is a subatomic particle, first postulated in the 1960s as a link between energy and matter.

Analysis of data from experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider resulted in a "5 sigma" announcement of Higgs discovery in July. Sher explained that the recent reports verified the anticipated spin and parity of the Higgs and laid to rest concerns about some of the July data related to decay of the particle.

Physicists are happy that the Higgs results fits with the Standard Model, the physicists' inventory of the particles and forces from which the universe is assembled. For Sher, the results are the vindication of a career and verification of a great deal of work. Despite all that, he maintains that the much-anticipated Higgs results add up to a nightmare scenario.

"I always said that the nightmare scenario would be if they found the Higgs and nothing else," he said on Thursday. "That's what they found—the Higgs and nothing else ."

He explained the CERN experimenters have proved existence of a conceptually nice and neat all-wrapped-up . Anomalies or oddities that arose along with the Higgs discovery would have represented entry points for new physics.

"Then it would mean that there's something we could learn, something we don't understand. But when it's exactly what you expect, you don't learn much," he said.

"Now, we're like the cat who has stalked a mouse for 35 years," he continued. "We finally catch the mouse…and now we're wondering what to do with it."

Just as he was following the July 4 announcement, Sher is being sought by media for context, explanation and commentary on the Higgs. An interview with NPR's Richard Harris was featured on All Things Considered on March 14, the same day of the announcement and, coincidentally, the birth date of Albert Einstein.

Even though the Higgs data offered no apparent points of entry for new physics, Sher says there's plenty to keep a theoretical physicist busy.

"There's neutrinos. There's supersymmetry. There's dark matter—that's the next big thing, I think," he said. "I'm writing a paper now on the possibility that there's another Higgs that they had missed at CERN. It's lighter and decays into what we call dark photons. There's certain things they could look at over at CERN that would help them find these, But odds are they're not there."

CERN is dark now, shut down for refitting and for preparations for the next round of experiments, slated to begin in 2015. Sher begins his post-Higgs career by preparing a talk. The final slide on his PowerPoint sums up his take on the Higgs experiment results.

The slide shows "The Scream," by Edvard Munch.

Explore further: Information storage for the next generation of plastic computers

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Interview: CERN chief firmer on Higgs boson

Jan 27, 2013

The world should know with certainty by the middle of this year whether a subatomic particle discovered by scientists is a long-sought Higgs boson, the head of the world's largest atom smasher said Saturday.

Recommended for you

How to test the twin paradox without using a spaceship

Apr 16, 2014

Forget about anti-ageing creams and hair treatments. If you want to stay young, get a fast spaceship. That is what Einstein's Theory of Relativity predicted a century ago, and it is commonly known as "twin ...

User comments : 96

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SethD
1.3 / 5 (40) Mar 18, 2013
"I always said that the nightmare scenario would be if they found the Higgs and nothing else," he said on Thursday. "That's what they found—the Higgs and nothing else." ... "-So what now?" ... "There's neutrinos. There's supersymmetry. There's dark matter—that's the next big thing, I think," he said. "I'm writing a paper now on the possibility that there's another Higgs that they had missed at CERN."

What a total waste of money and time. But then most people knew it from the beginning, except for the military complex who wanted their new toy. There they can have it.

BBWWHHAHHAHAHAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (31) Mar 18, 2013
"Then it would mean that there's something we could learn, something we don't understand. But when it's exactly what you expect, you don't learn much," he said.
…….
Even though the Higgs data offered no apparent points of entry for new physics, Sher says there's plenty to keep a theoretical physicist busy.

So this seems hopeless for general people to get in touch to the 'expensive' Higgs in the near future because even the experts still don't understand it! While waiting, maybe this could help to visualize it.
http://www.vacuum...=9〈=en
ant_oacute_nio354
1.2 / 5 (40) Mar 18, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist.
The mass is an electric dipole moment.
The standard model is wrong.

Saraiva
nEc
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2013
Zephyr, go read some QFT (if ur maths level allows it, which i seriously doubt) and spare us your bonga-bunga sh*t, pls.
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (20) Mar 18, 2013
Zephyr, go read some QFT (if ur maths level allows it, which i seriously doubt) and spare us your bonga-bunga sh*t, pls.


I'll wait for the published version of QFR (that would be Quantum Field REALITY) once it is all figured out, tested and proven. Until we see this, particle physicists can enjoy their parking spots at a dead end and keep talking about how close they are while they try to figure out how to answer the glaring question "now what?". (we all know the answer....SMASH EM HARDER!) It is simply not sound logic to think that any minute quanta of energy that decays in a fraction of a nanosecond can be anything more than that, otherwise it would have caused some/any sort of fluctuation in the field it is supposed to comprise. Did we apply a boson name to every mindblowingly shorlived "particle" we detected after we collided the protons or was it just the one at the energy we were looking for?
rubberman
2.3 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2013
And when did Danny Devito and Peter Falk have a particle physicist love child?
Q-Star
4 / 5 (27) Mar 18, 2013
Did we apply a boson name to every mindblowingly shorlived "particle" we detected after we collided the protons or was it just the one at the energy we were looking for?


No, the bosons were named long before they were actually detected in colliders. As were the properties of the proposed bosons.

That is what this article is about. The particle detected is exhibiting the properties that were predicted that this boson would have.

Though in the past they have just collided particles to see what would come out, this is not really the case today. The time available on the machines is just too tight. It's much too costly for "lets see what happens if we do...." sort of experiments. Those days are long gone.

Now the experiments are planned years in advance,,,, to search for a specific observation. It's like the super telescopes, they don't just randomly point them at something as ya would in your backyard. Ya start by making a very specific proposal.
avengers
1.2 / 5 (35) Mar 18, 2013
That is what this article is about.

No it is not. This article is clearly about admitting the failure of the Higgs boson fable. They found just another particle. Big deal!

Nice try though.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (28) Mar 18, 2013
That is what this article is about.

No it is not. This article is clearly about admitting the failure of the Higgs boson fable. They found just another particle. Big deal!

Nice try though.


So sorry, maybe this try will be better,,,, from the article.

Analysis of data from experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider resulted in a "5 sigma" announcement of Higgs discovery in July. Sher explained that the recent reports verified the anticipated spin and parity of the Higgs and laid to rest concerns about some of the July data related to decay of the particle.


Maybe ya could quote the part of the article that reflects in your words:

This article is clearly about admitting the failure of the Higgs boson fable.

ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (29) Mar 18, 2013
Zephyr, go read some QFT (if ur maths level allows it, which i seriously doubt) and spare us your bonga-bunga sh*t, pls.
I see... So, Higgs boson actually looks like the CMBR noise - just a little bit smaller. From my perspective the whole rest of comments is a sh*t instead, because the people here just don't (want to) understand, what this stuff is all about.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (24) Mar 18, 2013
Zephyr, go read some QFT (if ur maths level allows it, which i seriously doubt) and spare us your bonga-bunga sh*t, pls.
I see... So, Higgs boson actually http://www.aether...iggs.gif - just a little bit smaller. From my perspective the whole rest of comments is a sh*t instead, because the people here just don't (want to) understand, what this stuff is all about.


Wow, that is one of the nicest pictures yet. I will say this Zeph, ya do post the best pictures (whether they or germane or not.)
ValeriaT
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2013
In 2007, Thomas Schücker wrote a preprint that collects dozens of predictions: The guesses go from 109+-12 GeV to 760+-21 GeV, plus two unconventional theories with 1900 GeV and 10^{18} GeV. Marc Sher predicted the mass of Higgs to be 197.2 GeV - a well outside of the experimental value actually found. At least twenty guys predicted it better...
nEc
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2013
Ok, Zephyr, tell me what's all about :) But pls, could you put some maths on the line, just to be sure u're serious.
ValeriaT
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2013
"That's what they found—the Higgs and nothing else." ... "-So what now?" ... "There's neutrinos. There's supersymmetry.
The supersymmetry was just excluded with vanilla Higgs boson finding (it predicts multiple versions of Higgs, some of them are charged). In addition, the SUSY predicts the Higgs boson somewhat lighter (bellow 114 GeV be more specific), than the Higgs boson found (126 GeV).
could you put some maths on the line, just to be sure u're serious
I don't quite understand your problem - all my comments are sourced heavily and all the math is presented there. I'm just commenting the results of other physicists and mathematicians.
nEc2
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2013
It ain't no kernel to be vanilla :) And who said it should be vanilla, even if SUSYs (cuz there are many SUSY models) are proven wrong? There could be many versions of Higgs, no one still knows. And from what i've seen, excuse me, but u're citing sh*t, Zephyr, oh boy :)
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (23) Mar 18, 2013
The supersymmetry was just excluded with vanilla Higgs boson finding (it predicts multiple versions of Higgs, some of them are charged). In addition, the SUSY predicts the Higgs boson(bellow 114 GeV be more specific), than the Higgs boson found (126 GeV).
could you put some maths on the line, just to be sure u're serious
I don't quite understand your problem - all my comments are sourced heavily and all the math is presented there. I'm just commenting the results of other physicists and mathematicians.


Ya read your sources wrong, apply them out of context, and sometimes use sources that are just plain crank.

Zephyr, first ya don't know what YOU are looking at with that picture (but it was pretty). Second ya can't use SUSY (an untested and inadequately modeled theory) to argue against an ACTUAL observation that meets the predicted models.

All that means is that THAT SUSY prediction was wrong. SUSY needs more work. It's a valid area of research but incomplete.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 18, 2013
ya can't use SUSY (an untested and inadequately modeled theory
I'm just saying, that MSSM predicts lighter Higgs, that's all. You cannot deny it - after all, even Marc Sher believes, he could find some lighter Higgs, if you read carefully.
All that means is that THAT SUSY prediction was wrong It's a valid area of research
Can we have valid area of research, which was proven wrong already? How do you think the validation of theories should behave? Can we have valid theory falsified with experiments?
nEc2
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2013
MSSM is a theoretical extension to used and tested model - the SM itself. As Q-Star pointed, you can't use work in progress to argue against experimental data. FYI, ANY theory is non-stop being tested and could be proven wrong (or just low-energy approximation).
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (22) Mar 18, 2013
Can we have valid area of research, which was proven wrong already? How do you think the validation of theories should behave?


Ya test them. Where they fail, ya look for the things ya over-looked, adjust your models, or abandon the theory. It all depends on what failed, how it failed, and to what degree it failed.

Can we have valid theory falsified with experiments?


Certainly, Zeph, this why no one can help ya. Ya just don't realize how science works. It's seldom an "all or nothing" situation. It's never, ever EXACTLY as predicted. It's never, ever EXACTLY exact and perfect. YOU or anyone else can only produce things are correct to some degree of certainty.

Aether is not 100% based on false science. But it is based on 99.99%% pseudoscience. I know ya will ride that 0.01% for all eternity, but that's just ya.

General Relativity is not 100% correct. But is has passed 99.99% of the tests it's been subjected to.

ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2013
you can't use work in progress to argue against experimental data
BTW SUSY is forty years old theory already. It was developed at the beginning of 70's. It's probably older, than the parents most of posters here and it failed experimentally many times already. IMO such a questions are perfectly legitimate in every area of research.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (25) Mar 18, 2013
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges


Ya left out the part of "being recognized by the Who's Who in the East". (After ya paid $385/volume for a 5 year subscription).
avengers
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 18, 2013
So sorry, maybe this try will be better,,,, from the article.

Analysis of data from experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider resulted in a "5 sigma" announcement of Higgs discovery in July.


That's exactly why what I said ("They found just another particle. Big deal!") is correct.

What are you, a moron? Apology accepted. Not easy being a moron like you.
Pressure2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2013
Where is the proof this particle called the Higgs boson has a single thing to do with the origin of mass. It is nothing but a model built on math that may or may not have a single thing to do with the origin of mass.
Scryer
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2013
Could there be even smaller particles, that we can't detect yet?
avengers
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2013
Where is the proof this particle called the Higgs boson has a single thing to do with the origin of mass. It is nothing but a model built on math that may or may not have a single thing to do with the origin of mass.

Exactly. And that's the point that Sher makes in this interview.

But for some reasons the high clergy from Church of Particles is not getting it. Or they do but are clinging on to their privileges.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 18, 2013
Could there be even smaller particles
Definitely yes, but they will be blurred with quantum noise even more, than the Higgs boson itself. The universe appears like landscape under the fog at both large, both small scales: the fact we cannot see farther doesn't mean, nothing is there...
Where is the proof this particle called the Higgs boson has a single thing to do with the origin of mass.
In dense aether model it's rather clear, that the Higgs boson represents the smallest density fluctuations, which we can observe. These density fluctuations are something like the Brownian noise at the surface of water - it's just evidence of much bewilder motion of matter beneath it. After all, the conceptual similarity of Higgs field with aether has been mentioned many times. And the particles are getting mass from this hidden environment in similar way, like the solitons and vortices at the water surface are gaining their inertia from the mass of water, which they're all formed by..
SDrapak
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 18, 2013
So sorry, maybe this try will be better,,,, from the article.

Analysis of data from experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider resulted in a "5 sigma" announcement of Higgs discovery in July.


That's exactly why what I said ("They found just another particle. Big deal!") is correct.

What are you, a moron? Apology accepted. Not easy being a moron like you.


Every time I decide to read a few comments here, I get a little stupider. They really should rename the section from "Comments" to "Uninformed Beligerant Pointless Rants"
avengers
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 18, 2013
So sorry, maybe this try will be better,,,, from the article.

Analysis of data from experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider resulted in a "5 sigma" announcement of Higgs discovery in July.


That's exactly why what I said ("They found just another particle. Big deal!") is correct.

What are you, a moron? Apology accepted. Not easy being a moron like you.


Every time I decide to read a few comments here, I get a little stupider. They really should rename the section from "Comments" to "Uninformed Beligerant Pointless Rants"

You can't use logic and politeness on a manipulator who tries to paint gray what's obvious as in black-on-white.

Logic and politeness are for decent human beings who respect people and who recognize that people do have normally functioning brains.
Thrasymachus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 18, 2013
"Now, we're like the cat who has stalked a mouse for 35 years," he continued. "We finally catch the mouse…and now we're wondering what to do with it."


That's easy. You do the same thing the cat does. You play with it. See if you can make one in an asymmetric collision so it's got appreciable momentum so it'll appear to us to last longer the way we do with neutrons and other unstable particles.
baudrunner
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 18, 2013
The Higgs doesn't exist.
The mass is an electric dipole moment.
The standard model is wrong.
You could offer something more of an explanation than this comment. It's all you ever say concerning Higgs in every post you've made. And what exactly do you see wrong with the standard model?
theon
3 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
"There's neutrinos. There's supersymmetry. There's dark matter—that's the next big thing, I think," he said.

Everything so far says there's no supersymmetry at LHC. Dark matter not for sure, that's in neutrinos, big things regarding their Compton radius.
rubberman
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013
Could there be even smaller particles, that we can't detect yet?


Oh no. Please....no.

"That is what this article is about. The particle detected is exhibiting the properties that were predicted that this boson would have."- Q

I would have thought that the particle resposible for giving mass to all objects would have been longer lived....but feel free to continue endowing universal signifigance to the energy that decays into photons and neutrinos. When trying to figure out why and how everything around you works, it helps to use the stuff that is still there. Hence the dead end I mentioned. Continued focus on extraordinarily shortlived quanta of energy as though they have more signigigance than the energy they came from will leave all those cars parked indefinitely at that dead end.
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2013

Maybe ya could quote the part of the article that reflects in your words:

This article is clearly about admitting the failure of the Higgs boson fable.



"I always said that the nightmare scenario would be if they found the Higgs and nothing else," he said on Thursday. "That's what they found—the Higgs and nothing else ."- from the article

The failure of the Higgs would appear to be that it doesn't perform. Nothing happened other than it existed somewhat briefly. If it can't last on it's own, the universe has no use for it. Neither should we.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (17) Mar 19, 2013
I would have thought that the particle resposible for giving mass to all objects would have been longer lived....but feel free to continue endowing universal signifigance to the energy that decays into photons and neutrinos.


That's the nature of all bosons, they pop into and out of existence. It's that aspect of them that makes them hard to detect, and play with.

When trying to figure out why and how everything around you works, it helps to use the stuff that is still there. Hence the dead end I mentioned.


The "stuff that is still here" is used, but after ya do so many things with it, ya run out of new things to do on it. So the next step is understanding what the short lived stuff is doing to the long lived stuff.

Continued focus on extraordinarily shortlived quanta of energy as though they have more signigigance than the energy they came from will leave all those cars parked indefinitely at that dead end.


Knowing how the cars got there would be good.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (19) Mar 19, 2013
Nothing happened other than it existed somewhat briefly. If it can't last on it's own, the universe has no use for it. Neither should we.


Ya don't understand the nature & concept of bosons. That is what they do. Without that aspect the universe couldn't be. The bosons are not stable matter (fermions), they are the mediators of what things the matter does.

To say the "universe has no use for it" is ridiculous. If it exists in the universe, it's presence is required for the universe to be what it is.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2013
I'm looking forward to the practical applications. We know what we have it appears so therefore our theoretical framework for working with it should be fairly good as well.

It would be nice to be able to "play with mass" if it turns out to be possible. It would be an incredibly powerful tool.

I've no idea if it's possible or not within the framework, but I know we can shield magnetic fields. If we could nullify or intensify or moderate the Higgs field I think it would be more game changing than our success with electromagnetism.....
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 19, 2013
If we could nullify or intensify or moderate the Higgs field I think it would be more game changing than our success with electromagnetism.....


Game changer indeed. We would able the manipulate the entire nature of "reality" as we know it today.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2013
Then it would mean that there's something we could learn, something we don't understand. But when it's exactly what you expect, you don't learn much

That is such an important quote it bears repeating. And all you conspiracy theorists who think that physicists have some 'vested interest' in keeping some sort of status quo (which you erroneously think the 'standard theory' is) alive should read it over and over to understand what motivates scientists.

The 'standard theory' is NOT a fixed set of theories. It is that set of theories which best describes reality to your current knowledge at any one point of time.
And any time we find something surprising and some new physics then THAT becomes part of the standard theory.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
That's easy. You do the same thing the cat does. You play with it.

That's more something engineers do.

But here's a few ideas:
1) We could start looking at whether the Higgs is its own antiparticle (as most bosons are) or whether there is an anti-Higgs (anti-gravity anyonw?).
2) We could try and have several Higgs bosons interfere with each other and see if we can locally depress the Higgs field (or if there is a saturation effect - either of which would be all kinds of neat...null inertia fields - that would be awesome. Faster than light travel here we come)
3) We could collide a Higgs with a fermion and watch whether the latter temporarily gains mass.

Of course for any of that we'll have to have a reliable source of Higgs bosons - which is going to be no mean feat.
rubberman
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013

Ya don't understand the nature & concept of bosons. That is what they do. Without that aspect the universe couldn't be. The bosons are not stable matter (fermions), they are the mediators of what things the matter does.

To say the "universe has no use for it" is ridiculous. If it exists in the universe, it's presence is required for the universe to be what it is.


No, the universe requires stable components of atoms. Subdividing any of these into smaller portions of energy always results in "decay" to a stable form after such a short time that to apply signifigance to the energy before it stabilizes is the dead end. "Particle" physics assumes that protons have "particle" components and that it is the changes in these components that manifest as changes to the proton. All reflect changes in energy which is what we are really dealing with, not particles. Essentially taken fairly simple transitions caused by photonic emmission and absorption and overcomplicated them.
Q-Star
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 19, 2013
To say the "universe has no use for it" is ridiculous. If it exists in the universe, it's presence is required for the universe to be what it is.


No, the universe requires stable components of atoms.


Ya need EVERY one of the particles for the universe to be as it is, the stable and the unstable. Name one particle which would not change the reality of the universe as we know it were it missing from the universe.

SethD
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013

To say the "universe has no use for it" is ridiculous. If it exists in the universe, it's presence is required for the universe to be what it is.

You exist in the universe, but your presence is not required for the universe to be what it is.
SethD
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2013
That's easy. You do the same thing the cat does. You play with it.

That's more something engineers do.

But here's a few ideas:
1) We could start looking at whether the Higgs is its own antiparticle (as most bosons are) or whether there is an anti-Higgs (anti-gravity anyonw?).
2) We could try and have several Higgs bosons interfere with each other and see if we can locally depress the Higgs field (or if there is a saturation effect - either of which would be all kinds of neat...null inertia fields - that would be awesome. Faster than light travel here we come)
3) We could collide a Higgs with a fermion and watch whether the latter temporarily gains mass.

Of course for any of that we'll have to have a reliable source of Higgs bosons - which is going to be no mean feat.

(4) Or you could simply keep your sticky fingers away from taxpayer money.
Q-Star
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2013
Subdividing any of these into smaller portions of energy always results in "decay" to a stable form after such a short time that to apply signifigance to the energy before it stabilizes is the dead end.


I think ya are missing the concept of the particle zoo. They aren't reduced to simple energy. They don't necessarily "decay" into a a more stable form. Some particles just pop into & out of existence.In particle physics it doesn't just reduce to a single type item which makes all other particles, each one is different, & has different properties.

"Particle" physics assumes that protons have "particle" components and that it is the changes in these components that manifest as changes to the proton.


Ya are seriously lacking in what "Particle physics" assumes.

All reflect changes in energy which is what we are really dealing with, not particles. Essentially taken fairly simple transitions caused by photonic emmission and absorption and overcomplicated them.


What?
rubberman
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013
To say the "universe has no use for it" is ridiculous. If it exists in the universe, it's presence is required for the universe to be what it is.


No, the universe requires stable components of atoms.


Ya need EVERY one of the particles for the universe to be as it is, the stable and the unstable. Name one particle which would not change the reality of the universe as we know it were it missing from the universe.



The universe needs energy in a form that maintains itself in order to maintain itself. Energy that can't very rapidly "decays" into energy that can. That is all. This is reality based on observational evidence, not theory. Even if the component "particles" DO exist, they are only useful when inside a proton or neutron. It's like exploding a human and trying to figure out a use for the lungs outside the body...what's the point?
rubberman
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2013
"Some particles pop into and out of existence"

This is QFT...not QFR. Although I'm sure there is math that says this is possible, we are constrained by the bounds of reality. You may as well say that some humans pop into and out of existence. The only difference is mass.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 19, 2013
Even if the component "particles" DO exist, they are only useful when inside a proton or neutron.


I'm missing something in what ya are proposing. Electrons don't exist inside a proton or neutron, are they not useful? All these things are not bosons, they are fermions.

Photons don't exist inside the proton or neutron, so they are useless? The W/Z bosons are mostly useful between the protons and neutrons, not within them. The gluons are useful inside and outside the proton and neutron.

It's like exploding a human and trying to figure out a use for the lungs outside the body...what's the point?


Ya have to look at it and how it's made before ya can start figuring out what keeps it healthy. Outside of the body is where ya will look at it to see if the guy died of cancer, died of emphysema, died of a bacterial or viral infection or choked to death,,, these are useful things to know.
SethD
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2013
Even if the component "particles" DO exist, they are only useful when inside a proton or neutron.


I'm missing something in what ya are proposing. Electrons don't exist inside a proton or neutron, are they not useful? All these things are not bosons, they are fermions.

Photons don't exist inside the proton or neutron, so they are useless? The W/Z bosons are mostly useful between the protons and neutrons, not within them. The gluons are useful inside and outside the proton and neutron.

It's like exploding a human and trying to figure out a use for the lungs outside the body...what's the point?


Ya have to look at it and how it's made before ya can start figuring out what keeps it healthy. Outside of the body is where ya will look at it to see if the guy died of cancer, died of emphysema, died of a bacterial or viral infection or choked to death,,, these are useful things to know.

You're so ridiculous you're not even wrong, but way worse than wrong.
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
It's like exploding a human and trying to figure out a use for the lungs outside the body...what's the point?

The point is that unless you take a look all you have is wild guesses (which are probably wrong - beause there are always many more ways to guess wrong than to guess correctly). And as soon as you start to build anything complicated - like technology - on guesses that are wrong things tend to blow up in your face.

Yes: by taking stuff apart and looking at individual parts you're always missing something (the interactions of parts amongst each other). But it is a first step in understanding the whole.

First: Understand all the parts
Then: Start to figure out how stuff interacts
Then: Put it back together and see it as a whole

Any other way just doesn't work - because by just looking at the whole you'll never know where to poke to effect the change you want.
rubberman
2 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
By component particles i was referring to the proposed anatomy of the neutron and proton, not the ones that exhibit stability outside of these such as photons, electrons and positrons. Beta decay of a neutron would suggest that electrons and photons DO exist inside them...if we stick to particles. It is much easier to just say that beta decay transforms energy in the form of a neutron to energy in the form of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. This is my whole point, focusing on reality and natures way of balancing energy into a stable state. Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that a photon can survive a 13 billion year journey through space but the "other particles" proposed to comprise protons and neutrons very rapidly "decay" to stable states when removed from their "home".

"Ya have to look at it and how it's made before ya can start figuring out what keeps it healthy."

This is the heart of EM. "Particles" are made of energy that is either stable...or not.
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (15) Mar 19, 2013
Beta decay of a neutron would suggest that electrons and photons DO exist inside them...if we stick to particles. It is much easier to just say that beta decay transforms energy in the form of a neutron to energy in the form of a proton, an electron and a neutrino. This is my whole point, focusing on reality and natures way of balancing energy into a stable state. Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that a photon can survive a 13 billion year journey through space but the "other particles" proposed to comprise protons and neutrons very rapidly "decay" to stable states when removed from their "home".

This is the heart of EM. "Particles" are made of energy that is either stable...or not.


It is appearing as if ya ran into a guru such as the one cantdrive ran into that is ya leading astray, ya have taken on the affect of the True Believer & your science is going the route that Zephyr takes, all misplaced analogies & inconsistent intuition.

It's not supposed to be easy.
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2013
First: Understand all the parts
Then: Start to figure out how stuff interacts
Then: Put it back together and see it as a whole

Well said Ap, I do agree with everything you said but focused on the above for one reason. If taking something apart destroys any part of it, then you can't put it back together. Therefore there is no point in taking it apart. The binding energy of Protons and Neutrons is generated by the proximity of one to the other and comes from each "particle", "gluonic energy" is a more accurate term than a "gluon" because a gluon denotes existence without the proton/neutron interaction. If it cannot maintain existence on it's own, then it is incomplete or unstable, neither of which are useful.
Nanowill
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013
This Higgs stuff reminds me of "epicycles", just adding fantasy onto speculation leading to total nonsense. And nothing to do with mass. The real question is "How do electrons exhibit mass?" Thinking Higgs as the basis of mass is incredibly silly. Newton said mass is that property of matter giving rise to gravity. Einstein's GRT shows gravity is due to curved metrics. So mass is just locally curved metrics. Go back to basics, forget Higgs.
Prediction: within a few years the LHC will be just a museum to incredible and very expensive folly.
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2013
"It is appearing as if ya ran into a guru such as the one cantdrive ran into that is ya leading astray, ya have taken on the affect of the True Believer & your science is going the route that Zephyr takes, all misplaced analogies & inconsistent intuition."

Please expand specifically on inconsistent intuition or a misplaced analogy. I only ask because the science I understand seems to explain ALOT more about the universal fundamentals than what we are discussing here, mainly because it accepts certain observed realities as they are, with out the preoccupation of further unneccessary disection.

"It's not supposed to be easy."

Understanding the universe is easy compared to particle physics. Chemistry and useful math are also very complicated. Attempting to dissect atomic components has resulted in a preoccupation with the ability to categorize extraordinarily shortlived pieces of energy that decay into boring ones we already know of because they last.
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2013
Please expand specifically on inconsistent intuition

The only important stuff to consider are protons & neutrons. Everything else is just some energy in various stages of longevity.

or a misplaced analogy.

What the lung looks like outside of the body is unimportant.

Understanding the universe is easy compared to particle physics.


To understand the universe, we have to attempt to understand EVERYTHING that makes it what it is. Even the subatomic particles & force mediators.

Chemistry & useful math are also very complicated.

Chemistry at it's most fundamental level IS particle physics.

has resulted in a preoccupation with the ability to categorize extraordinarily shortlived pieces of energy that decay into boring ones we already know of because they last.

Others are investigating many other things.

Should YOUR intuition should decide what is best served by people who have given decades in developing an UNDERSTANDING of very complex science?
rubberman
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013
Chemistry at it's MOST fundamental level is energy management. For it to be useful to us chemistry works from the atom up, the same is true of particle physics, the circle brings us back to the dead end I referred to earlier. Decades of very complex science have resulted in immensely complex theories which frequently depart observed reality only to land in the realm of "mathematically possible". For some reason physics has decided mathematically possible means waiting to be discovered. I don't doubt the people doing particle physics understand it very well and are extremely intelligent. It's the misapplication of it's principles that has lead to (and I'm sorry for saying it like this) some of the utterly illogical garbage that has prevented more scientists from attaining a true understanding of certain physical realities. Particle physics has led to DM, the Higgs boson and blackholes. Each one of these is an example of an entity required to make a theory work. Each one has been given..
rubberman
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2013
properties that support the observations we associate them to. The 2 galactic examples are continually being refined so that they fit new observations which either counter or falsify the properties we had assigned them. That isn't science, it's how people sell used cars. Example: There are countless articles mentioning calculation of stellar motion relating to black hole spin. If a black hole is what physics says it is this calculation is impossible because the only property of a blackhole that can be calculated from outside the event horizon is mass. The schwarzchild radius is an expance of space between the singularity and the event horizon where NO information can leave. If the BH is spinning, this info. cannot be transmitted to matter outside the event horizon if ALL of the properties physicists have assigned to black holes are correct. Then there is how it aquired spin...the only thing I have found on this is the law of conservation of angular momentum of infalling matter...
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2013
It's the misapplication of it's principles that has lead to (and I'm sorry for saying it like this) some of the utterly illogical garbage that has prevented more scientists from attaining a true understanding of certain physical realities.


Welcome to Zephyrland.

Particle physics has led to DM,


Wrong.

the Higgs boson,,,


And it seems they were recently vindicated.

and blackholes.


Again wrong.

Each one of these is an example of an entity required to make a theory work. Each one has been given.


Ya have it backwards, each of these were predicted by the theory, and lend support to the theory.

Do ya really think that ya know physics well enough to pass judgement on "what they think they know" or "the state of all things physics"? That's what my "true believer" reference was earlier. It's what the "newly converted" display while sharing their new found "enlightenment". They don't need to understand, because they KNOW it doesn't feel right.

jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2013
That is what this article is about.

No it is not. This article is clearly about admitting the failure of the Higgs boson fable. They found just another particle. Big deal!

Nice try though.

Did we read the same article or do you have a special for conspiracy theorists version?
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 19, 2013
Example:


The following is an example of someone who has written an article, twisted some facts, misconstrued others and mingled in a small amount of real science to make YOU see things their way.

There are countless articles mentioning calculation of stellar motion relating to black hole spin. If a black hole is what physics says it is this calculation is impossible because the only property of a blackhole that can be calculated from outside the event horizon is mass. The schwarzchild radius is an expance of space between the singularity and the event horizon where NO information can leave. If the BH is spinning, this info. cannot be transmitted to matter outside the event horizon if ALL of the properties physicists have assigned to black holes are correct.


The "black hole" is not just the little ball of matter at it's center. It is the entire critter. The event horizon is part of the black hole,,, if the event horizon is spinning, the black hole has spin.
rubberman
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2013
But an infinite gravity would only allow matter to fall directly onto the surface, there is no angular momentum in a head on collision.

(Responding to your post) They actually HAVE to exist to support the theory Q. Hence the mad scramble for a road out of the dead end. Hence the "nightmare" Columbo mentioned above. Enlightenment comes from the ability to explain the observations without invoking anything hypothetical, theoretic, or temporary.

The clue to the lack of existence of DM is the visual simulation of the universe produced from EVERYTHING we have observed in the Em spectrum thus far. There is no way to configure DM in the structure to explain it because for it to be responsible for the structure, we would need to have it in concentrations that show it beyond a doubt in places where it just isnt. Do you really need me to flood post with references all of the contradictions proposed by real physicists to explain DM and black holes? Above is just the tip of the iceberg...
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2013
The "black hole" is not just the little ball of matter at it's center. It is the entire critter. The event horizon is part of the black hole,,, if the event horizon is spinning, the black hole has spin.

Dude, the matter outside the event horizon spins. The event horizon is a boundary by definition. Not a surface. Are you sure you are an astronomer?
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 19, 2013
But an infinite gravity would only allow matter to fall directly onto the surface, there is no angular momentum in a head on collision.

Someone told ya that when they were mixing false statements to "help" ya see that they HAD the answer. It's just not the way it is. It's why I long ago warned about the tactics of these "web gurus" who have an EASY way to UNDERSTAND & KNOW what others are struggling with. Ya can't let outsiders tell ya what insiders believe.

Angular momentum IS conserved. There is NO infinite gravity in black holes.

The momentum of all the matter that made the black is what gives the black hole it's angular momentum. The gravity, far from being "infinite" is based entirely on the amount of matter in the black hole.

Do you really need me to flood post with references all of the contradictions proposed by real physicists,,,,,,,,,

No, we don't really need that. I'm afraid ya are going to. Others are already filling that need, in spades.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 19, 2013
The "black hole" is not just the little ball of matter at it's center. It is the entire critter. The event horizon is part of the black hole,,, if the event horizon is spinning, the black hole has spin.

Dude, the matter outside the event horizon spins. The event horizon is a boundary by definition. Not a surface. Are you sure you are an astronomer?


Quite sure, "dude".

The matter is getting it's spin by by the gravity tugging on it as it spins. The gravity doesn't just turn off at the event horizon. This "boundary" ya think is some magical end of any effects that the black hole can influence? When we speak of black holes, generally we are speaking of the ENTIRE system that makes it what it is. The same way that our solar system is much more than the sun.

The accretion disk IS part of the black hole, outside the part called the event horizon.

Not being an astronomer, ya should first make sure that you are using the jargon correctly, "Dude", otherwise ya look silly.
rubberman
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2013
LMAO....thanks for that one. YA made my day,,,,

At no point did I say gravity "turned off"...that is as rediculous as a spinning event horizon. The thing I would concede about this one is that a spinning blackhole, because of relativistic effects, has more mass than one of similar diameter that is static. This would manifest as a larger diametered event horizon, not faster motion at the boundary because the boundary has the same properties in all cases.
Manhar
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2013
Discussion of God Particle may continue. If we avoid name of God and use scientific term we may have less questions. As this article says there is a link between mass and energy and God Particle proves that. So where is the equation for converting mass in to energy and energy to mass? God particle ties BIG Bang Theory that universe is created from nothing and Einstein equation e=mc square gives relation. There may be problem with application of Einstein equation in space including time dimension but further search is required to tie all aspects together. E=mc square does not address mass of antimatter and that also may requires further investigation.
I had seen the theory equal to Big Bang Theory in other book (information passed on generation to generation until printing was invented) which is supposed to be 5000 years old.
rubberman
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2013
One last amusing thought i had on my drive home. We began this Q, with me saying it was illogical to place so much importance on the validity or usefulness of shortlived "particles" and you defending the purpose and science behind it...to you telling me that i have to look at a black hole as a whole system.
YA gotta see the irony,,,dude
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2013
This Higgs stuff reminds me of "epicycles", just adding fantasy onto speculation leading to total nonsense. And nothing to do with mass.
Higgs boson is real stuff. Of course it's completely, utterly insignificant from practical point of view - it just serves as a salary generator for whole army of physicists.

In dense aether model the space is formed with myriads of tiny density gradients in similar way, like the water surface filled with Brownian noise. The space simply can be never fully homogeneous, or it couldn't exist at all. But the question is, if this inhomogeneity is fully homogeneous, i.e. if it has some size/energy density proffered? For example, the CMBR noise isn't fully homogeneous, it exhibits the maximum of intensity at the 2 cm wavelength. And the Higgs field is behaving in the same way, just at much smaller distance scale. This maximum is the peak of Higgs boson, similar to CMBR.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2013
The role of Higgs boson for gaining of mass of massive particles is analogous to role of Brownian noise for gaining of inertia for wave solitons at the water surface. Of course, the surface solitons gain their mass from mass of underwater, the Brownian noise is solely insignificant for it. We should rather say, the mass of particles and Higgs boson share the common origin in Higgs field. How?

At the water surface every wave deforms the water surface, thus exposing additional density gradients for another surface waves. The undulating water surface is therefore behaving like sparse blob, filled with Brownian noise - which is what slows down another water ripples like sparse field of matter. And the role of Higgs field is similar: it gives the E=mc^2 equation its physical origin and meaning. The fully homogeneous space wouldn't slow down the energy waves after its deform - it would behave like the wave on ideal string described with fully linear dAlambert wave equation.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2013
IMO fully homogeneous space couldn't even oscillate. The waves of light in vacuum indeed appear nice, but their causal explanation requires some concept of elastic matter. The fully homogeneous matter cannot be elastic, because it has no collapsible spaces in it. Therefore the intrinsic inhomogeneity of space not only slows down the energy waves (it gives the time to space-time) and it gives their solitons the inertia, it even enables them propagate at all. Of course, the intrinsic dynamical inhomogeneity of space-time manifests itself with many other effects, like with the quantum and CMBR noise, with Cassimir force and particle-antiparticle pairs creation. With respect to atoms it behaves like the Brownian noise to pollen grains and keeps them in neverending motion (the liquid helium never freeze at room pressure). Best of all, it can power the magnetic motors and another negentropic devices like the Woodward drive. It's infinite ocean of energy, which just waits for its exploitation
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 19, 2013
YA gotta see the irony,,,dude


I must have missed it. All the parts make the whole (pun intended) universe. Even the little ones that aren't around that long. Each does what it does, and all are worthy of study.
avengers
1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013
This Higgs stuff reminds me of "epicycles", just adding fantasy onto speculation leading to total nonsense. And nothing to do with mass. The real question is "How do electrons exhibit mass?" Thinking Higgs as the basis of mass is incredibly silly. Newton said mass is that property of matter giving rise to gravity. Einstein's GRT shows gravity is due to curved metrics. So mass is just locally curved metrics. Go back to basics, forget Higgs.
Prediction: within a few years the LHC will be just a museum to incredible and very expensive folly.

Excellent points.

a small note: Einstein's GRT is just a mathematical construct with no physical meaning unless you believe in one. So it makes no sense to say "mass is locally curved metrics" as physics ain't the same as mathematics. If they were the same they would be called the same.
rubberman
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2013
YA gotta see the irony,,,dude


I must have missed it. All the parts make the whole (pun intended) universe. Even the little ones that aren't around that long. Each does what it does, and all are worthy of study.


Agreed. But the length of study should be determined by observed signifigance of the piece to the puzzle. Trying to figure out the present universe using a sea of shortlived energies when its the stable ones that we can detect and manipulate because they stick around is equivalent to parking your car at a dead end because what should have been a brief detour from the main road became the final destination. Unless we are trying to figure out what particle makes the soul.

Re the black holes...static....spinning.....diameter of the event horizon...do you get why the calculation of mass or spin of one isnt possible from out here?
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2013
Re the black holes...static....spinning.....diameter of the event horizon...do you get why the calculation of mass or spin of one isnt possible from out here?


There several reasons "why the calculation of mass or spin of one isn't possible from out here". The reasons have to be taken on a case by case basis.

1) One reason why is because a particular person doesn't know the maths and fundamentals required to do the calculation.

2) Some individual black holes offer up differing degrees of observational phenomena to work with.

3) Given enough information from the environment, a solid understanding of mechanics and basic physics and applying the proper perspective of the parametrics, it's relatively easy to determine the angular momentum, charge, and mass of a black hole.

But if ya want an exact to 100 significant digits type of answer that includes ALL black holes, ya are wanting that "perfection" the lay public always demands, because they just don't understand.
Q-Star
4 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2013
But the length of study should be determined by observed signifigance of the piece to the puzzle.


The length of the study should be determined by the people in the field, actually doing the study. Not by the significance awarded by those outside of the field, and unconnected with the study.
rubberman
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2013
OK - Either you are totally delusional, or YOU are following blind faith (or perhaps some internet guru of your own). Your 3 points above fail to address the issue I pointed out to you. Let me restate as clearly as I can: Schwarzchild radius is calculated using the mass of an assumed static BH. A BH spinning would have an increased mass because of relativistic effects. The only way for this to manifest is an event horizon with a larger radius from the central BH or as I said earlier an increased diameter, because the mass of the BH determines this measurement. At the event horizon matter behaves the same regardless of the mass of the BH because the event horizon means the same thing in ALL cases. If we could measure gravity at every event horizon boundary it would always be the same. This is YOUR PHYSICS, not mine. You are wrong on the case by case basis remark because that isn't what the science says, there are things that can be calculated based on the event horizon diameter,
rubberman
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2013
which directly effect matter outside of it, but none of those can be based on gravity because of the parameters YOUR physics has set for the way BH's are proposed to work. The only thing you can use to attempt to calculate the mass of a BH is the diameter of the event horizon, and this will not indicate rotational velocity if it has any for the reason I mention above. It could be static, or half the size but rotating at a velocity of .5c (or whatever it would take for a similar diametered event horizon to be produced.)

The belief that stellar motion is based on the mass of the central BH and that the mass of the BH can be calculated by the motion of the stars means that both ideas fall on their face at the first step unless you completely review and revise the accepted structure of BH's. It's sloppy and illogical and requires 75% of the mass in galaxy to be undetectable other than gravitic effect in order to make the math work, THAT is religion, not science.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2013
Schwarzchild radius is calculated using the mass of an assumed static BH.


Correct.

A BH spinning would have an increased mass because of relativistic effects.


TOTALLY INCORRECT!

The only way for this to manifest is an event horizon with a larger radius from the central BH or as I said earlier an increased diameter, because the mass of the BH determines this measurement.


Ya can not view/measure an event horizon. Ya can only infer where it may lay.

At the event horizon matter behaves the same regardless of the mass of the BH because the event horizon means the same thing in ALL cases.


So? What's the point?

You are wrong on the case by case basis remark because that isn't what the science says, there are things that can be calculated based on the event horizon diameter,


The case by case merely means that some black holes offer more or less observational data to make your calculations. Some objects are easy to observe, others are not so easy.
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2013
The belief that stellar motion is based on the mass of the central BH and that the mass of the BH can be calculated by the motion of the stars means that both ideas fall on their face at the first step unless you completely review and revise the accepted structure of BH's. It's sloppy and illogical and requires 75% of the mass in galaxy to be undetectable other than gravitic effect in order to make the math work, THAT is religion, not science.


Thank ya for your deep insight. I'm on the verge of another delusion,,,,,, ya have not a clue as to how motions, masses, and interactions in universe are calculated. And ya seem to be one of those people who, rather than take the time and effort to learn, choose to say it is ALL wrong. That is easy to do. That's why in your "presentations" ya always include things ya assume the people in field "think" rather than what they actually say.

It is hard to learn it. And ya can't refute it, until ya understand it.

Sloppy & illogical?
Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2013
@ rubberman

If ya would like to debate the fine points, it would be a lot easier if ya would present one question at a time, rather than use the shotgun approach, of trying to get as many "irrefutable" arguments as possible in 1000 words. Because it is hard to work on the entire five or six arguments when each assumes a priori a not so trivial misconception.

One point at a time please, semantics do matter in science.
rubberman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2013
"If ya would like to debate the fine points, it would be a lot easier if ya would present one question at a time,"

How's about the "spinning surface" of the event horizon?

"ya have not a clue as to how motions, masses, and interactions in universe are calculated."

I've read volumes on how they have been calculated and mentioned but one of them above. Ya tell me I'm wrong but ya don't offer a clue to what ya think is right.

"And ya can't refute it, until ya understand it".

I can and did, but ya refuse to acknowledge it. The fact that ya have to ask "what's the point"? means ya can't grasp the downstream effect of all event horizons being the same.

I don't assume what people in the field think, I read what they say, spot the parts that are bullshit and call it out. Then i wind up in the middle of backpeddle theatre with intelligent people who are supposed to spot this BS because it's their job and they instead wind up trying to defend it.
rubberman
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
"Ya can not view/measure an event horizon. Ya can only infer where it may lay."

It'll still be roughly spherical though right?

I may be working on an outdated assumption that it is still generally accepted that no info. escapes the event horizon of a BH (being as light can't and all). So if this is no longer true then I apologize for the entire tirade. But if it is true then exactly what information do astophysicists use for the calculations of BH angular momentum?

Totally incorrect about the spin and relativistic effects...OK.
Makes proving that WE can tell spinning from static even more difficult but i can't wait for your explanation of how this determination is made.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2013
It'll still be roughly spherical though right?

Correct.

I may be working on an outdated assumption that it is still generally accepted that no info. escapes the event horizon of a BH (being as light can't and all).But if it is true then exactly what information do astophysicists use for the calculations of BH angular momentum?

We can not SEE the black holes spin. But if there is spin, and if we are blessed with some "stuff" around and near it, we can infer the spin from known physics mechanics. The same way we know that distant galaxies rotate. The same way we evaluate the orbits of any body around another. It how we calculate masses of planets, etc,,,

Q-Star
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2013
Ya are still mixing too many questions together. Do ya do this intentionally?

Totally incorrect about the spin and relativistic effects...OK.
Makes proving that WE can tell spinning from static even more difficult but i can't wait for your explanation of how this determination is made.


Some black holes have no detectable spin. Some spin slowly. Some spin not so slowly. Some spin very fast. THAT is what I mean it is a thing to discuss on a CASE by CASE basis. Ya can't argue the entire subject of black hole theory on phenomena that which is not universally present in ALL black holes.

Please try to help me here. Let's discuss one thing at a time, not the shotgun disputation tactic. That leads only to word games.
rubberman
1 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2013
It's those "known physics mechanics" that require further description because you still have to deal with the issue of gravity at the event horizon being the same in every case. None of your other examples of mass calculation or orbital evaluation can apply because of the spectrographic information available about those types of systems that isn't available about the BH.
Q-Star
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2013
It's those "known physics mechanics" that require further description because you still have to deal with the issue of gravity at the event horizon being the same in every case. None of your other examples of mass calculation or orbital evaluation can apply because of the spectrographic information available about those types of systems that isn't available about the BH.


And not one astrophysicist (except cranks) has ever proclaimed that anything inside the event horizon can be modeled. That is where the models leave off and the "theorizing" begins.

We can determine the angular momentum from the SYSTEM, the black hole and the stuff around it and how it's acting.

We can determine the mass from the SYSTEM, the black hole and the stuff around it and how it's acting.

We can determine the net charge, again from the SYSTEM, the black hole and the stuff around and how it's acting.

For some, we have many observational phenomena to work with, some few, some (undiscovered) none.
rubberman
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2013
You are talking about things that happen outside the event horizon in the accretion disk. The properties of the accretion disk are PART of the BH system, but effects produced in the accretion disk or by it are a direct result of the accreted materials interaction with the event horizon, the EM fields present and the other matter/energy in the accretion disk. Do these known physics mechanics explain how a spinning BH can transmit the information that it is spinning across the expanse of the schwartzchild radius to the event horizon and how this particular information manifests outside it in a pattern that allows us to differentiate spin from static?
Q-Star
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2013
You are talking about things that happen outside the event horizon in the accretion disk. The properties of the accretion disk are PART of the BH system, but effects produced in the accretion disk or by it are a direct result of the accreted materials interaction with the event horizon, the EM fields present and the other matter/energy in the accretion disk.


The event horizon is not a thing. It is a place.

Do these known physics mechanics explain how a spinning BH can transmit the information that it is spinning across the expanse of the schwartzchild radius to the event horizon and how this particular information manifests outside it in a pattern that allows us to differentiate spin from static?


Gravity is a force that acts at distance. From the center of the black hole right up to and through the event horizon and beyond.

If what ya are really wanting to argue is: "A New Concept Of Gravity" then there is a less circular, & more direct way to broach the subject.
rubberman
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
Nope sticking to the point. The event horizon is both a thing and a place.

"Gravity is a force that acts at distance. From the center of the black hole right up to and through the event horizon and beyond."

This is obvious, and a cryptic response that makes no mention of physics mechanics relating to spin detection. I will say it again, the EH is defined as the place where the BH's gravity allows light to escape vs. be pulled in with all other matter. Since the speed of light is a constant, the gravitational effect at this place must be the same in all circumstances. If the gravitational effect has to be the same in all circumstances at the event horizon, what DIFFERENT effects do we see that are telltale signs of spin? Are you trying to say that rotational velocity effects gravity and therefore the motions of material outside the EH?
Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2013
This is obvious, and a cryptic response that makes no mention of physics mechanics relating to spin detection.


Obvious? Apparently not to everyone. Would a body that has no angular momentum create an accretion disk around it? What part of physics do we use to describe a disk shaped mass which has rotational motion? Mechanics?

I will say it again, the EH is defined as the place where the BH's gravity allows light to escape vs. be pulled in with all other matter. Since the speed of light is a constant, the gravitational effect at this place must be the same in all circumstances.


And why do ya think I'm saying it does not?

If the gravitational effect has to be the same in all circumstances at the event horizon, what DIFFERENT effects do we see that are telltale signs of spin?


If it didn't have spin, we would not see an accretion disk. Orbiting objects would be evenly distributed in a spherical space.

Please stop with the shotgun approach to questions.

Q-Star
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 20, 2013
Are you trying to say that rotational velocity effects gravity,,,,


Gravity? It determines the rotational velocity at a given distance for a given mass. Think centripetal acceleration.

and therefore the motions of material outside the EH?


Of course the rotational velocity affects the motions of the material outside of the event horizon. Centripetal acceleration is one of the cornerstones of mechanics.

Ya seem to be trying to propose "new" physics without coming right out and saying what the point is ya are trying "tickle" me into stating for ya. Word games is not my strong suite.

It (fundamental physics as we know it) all makes sense to me. I am not sorry for that. If it doesn't for ya, that is not my fault. I'm having trouble understanding what ya are proposing, so we're even.
Reg Mundy
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Gravity? It determines the rotational velocity at a given distance for a given mass.

Na, Na, you've got it backwards again, the rotational velocity at a given distance for a given mass (actually TWO masses) DEFINES GRAVITY - well, what you insist on calling the effect of the non-existent force of attraction between masses. Look, its simple. At relative velocities between two masses approaching light speed the mass of each one relative to the other increases with increasing speed. To an outside observer, the same thing is occurring in our frame of reference, and for anything other than a circular orbit either the force of "gravity" is going up and down like your mother's drawers, or the observed mass of the two-body system is.
Yet astronomers use "gravity" to deduce the existence and location of "dark matter" without any thought of these effects. We just need a couple of black holes orbiting each other at near light-speed scattered about here and there.....
rubberman
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 21, 2013
"It (fundamental physics as we know it) all makes sense to me. I am not sorry for that. If it doesn't for ya, that is not my fault. I'm having trouble understanding what ya are proposing, so we're even."

I was thinking the same thing (what I understand makes sense to me). In all my research on accretion disks, none mention that the gravitational body doing the accreting had to also be rotating. And it makes no sense to me that rotating a sphere changes it's gravitational field configuration to produce a disk vs. a "cloud" when accreting matter. Centripetal force doesn't require the gravity source to rotate either from what I understand, bodies with retrograde orbits would contradict this.

The issues I see stem from what I percieve to be contradictory lines of reasoning. To me a sphere's gravity field configuration is independant of whether it is spinning or not because the attraction is at the center of the sphere.

Can we agree to disagree?
Lurker2358
1 / 5 (2) Mar 23, 2013
Q-Star:

If you only look at stuff you already know about, then you aren't going to find anything new.

The "Let's see what happens if I do 'x'," is exactly what we really need in science, because that's how it always was in the past, which discovered everything we know about now...

Telescopes should be randomly pointed at something, or an "empty" space in the sky at least once in a while. It would be a shame if the only thing people looked at with new telescopes is the objects they've already discovered.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
How many sock puppets are participating in this discussion?

Humpty
1 / 5 (5) Apr 04, 2013
Zephyr, go read some QFT (if ur maths level allows it, which i seriously doubt) and spare us your bonga-bunga sh*t, pls.


You should not spell "shit" as "sh*t", other wise people will not know what you mean.

Other wise people will think your an idi*t.

More news stories

Robotics goes micro-scale

(Phys.org) —The development of light-driven 'micro-robots' that can autonomously investigate and manipulate the nano-scale environment in a microscope comes a step closer, thanks to new research from the ...

Clean air: Fewer sources for self-cleaning

Up to now, HONO, also known as nitrous acid, was considered one of the most important sources of hydroxyl radicals (OH), which are regarded as the detergent of the atmosphere, allowing the air to clean itself. ...

Turning off depression in the brain

Scientists have traced vulnerability to depression-like behaviors in mice to out-of-balance electrical activity inside neurons of the brain's reward circuit and experimentally reversed it – but there's ...