Higgs boson could also explain the earliest expansion of the Universe

The Higgs boson could also explain the earliest expansion of the Universe
The influence of the Higgs boson and its field (inset) on cosmological inflation could manifest in the observation of gravitational waves by the BICEP2 telescope (background). Credit: the BICEP2 Collaboration (background); © 2014 Fedor Bezrukov, RIKEN–BNL Research Center (inset)

Fedor Bezrukov from the RIKEN–BNL Research Center and Mikhail Shaposhnikov from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne propose that the Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass, may also be responsible for the mode of inflation and shape of the Universe shortly after the Big Bang. "There is an intriguing connection between the world explored in particle accelerators today and the earliest moments of the existence of the Universe," explains Bezrukov.

The Universe started with a giant explosion known as the Big Bang, and has been expanding ever since. The expansion is balanced such that its shape is flat and not bent, which can only be the case for a very specific distribution of matter density.

The coupling between the Higgs and other fundamental particles provides . In the first moments of the Universe, however, coupling between the Higgs field and gravity accelerated the Universe's expansion. An important parameter for this coupling is the mass of the Higgs boson. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) have shown that the mass of the Higgs boson is very close to a critical value that separates two possible types of Universe—the stable one we know or a potentially unstable alternate.

Bezrukov and Shaposhnikov have now studied the implications arising from the Higgs mass being near this critical boundary and the impact this has on cosmological inflation. Through theoretical arguments, they found that as the mass of the Higgs approaches the critical value, gravitational waves from the Big Bang become strongly enhanced. The Big Bang is thought to have created many gravitational waves, which act like ripples in space and time, and it is these waves that are amplified for a Higgs of near-critical mass.

Experimentally, the influence of the Higgs boson could have significant implications for the observation of gravitational waves, which had eluded physicists until recently, when analysis of data acquired by the BICEP2 telescope near the South Pole suggested the first signs of gravitational waves in the that fills the Universe (Fig. 1).

The BICEP2 result, however, is far from unequivocal, with continued debate as to whether the incredibly faint signal of could really be detected in this way. The effects of a near-critical Higgs mass could put such debate to rest. "The Higgs mass at the critical boundary could explain the BICEP2 result," Bezrukov explains.


Explore further

Should the Higgs boson have caused our Universe to collapse?

More information: Bezrukov, F. & Shaposhnikov, M. Higgs inflation at the critical point. Physics Letters B 734, 249–254 (2014). DOI: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.05.074
Journal information: Physics Letters B

Provided by RIKEN
Citation: Higgs boson could also explain the earliest expansion of the Universe (2014, August 15) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-08-higgs-boson-earliest-expansion-universe.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 15, 2014
"Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass" Did I miss this article? I thought that we weren't even sure the particle found was the higgs yet.

Aug 15, 2014
"Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass" Did I miss this article? I thought that we weren't even sure the particle found was the higgs yet.


http://home.web.c...gs-boson

Aug 15, 2014
Universe Shouldn't Be Here, According to Higgs Physics One peer-reviewed study against another one...

Aug 15, 2014
Or more likely the reverse is true:-
The state and laws of the brand new universe, before the first symmetry (or possibly second symmetry?) broke, determined the mass of the Higgs boson, now that we have mass.

(I suspect that a second broken symmetry may have existed where it was equally likely Anti-matter could have dominated matter at its breaking rather than as in our matter dominated universe?)

Aug 15, 2014
And this- more to the point of your question, Grallen: http://home.web.c...gs-boson

Aug 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 16, 2014
What is this... Another bogus interpretation of Higgs boson on BB theory? The last I heard according to CERN Higgs physics explained that after the BANG the universe must have collapsed and not able to sustain.. This is so opposite of reality where the universe is presently sustaining. Yet here we are again with their bogus experiments.

Aug 16, 2014
What is this... Another bogus interpretation of Higgs boson on BB theory? The last I heard according to CERN Higgs physics explained that after the BANG the universe must have collapsed and not able to sustain.. This is so opposite of reality where the universe is presently sustaining. Yet here we are again with their bogus experiments.

I'm pretty ignorant. The farthest I went with science studies were freshman intro courses. And yet, you make me feel like a genius. Thank you.

Aug 16, 2014
Does anybody actually believe this stuff? There's no proof, no evidence, it seems mainly conjecture to me! In my experience, when things have to get really complicated to fit known facts, they usually turn out to be wrong, and a simple explanation usually turns out to be right. The statement that the Higgs confers mass on elementary particles has no basis in proven evidence.

Aug 16, 2014
The Universe started with a giant explosion known as the Big Bang, and has been expanding ever since. The expansion is balanced such that its shape is flat and not bent, which can only be the case for a very specific distribution of matter density.
Actually it's not quite flat- it has to be very slightly positively curved. The two most obvious arguments are the existence of Λ (because the universe is expanding) and its nearness to zero (since atoms are not ripped apart by it, nor is anything smaller than a galaxy cluster), and the existence (proven in the lab) of the Casimir force, which again shows a low value close to zero (because otherwise the plates would fly apart at greater distances, rather than being pushed a little bit when they're very close together); Λ is the only good explanation for the Casimir force, and explains dark energy/exponential expansion quite readily.

Aug 16, 2014
Does anybody actually believe this stuff? There's no proof,
Proof is for mathematical theorems. Scientific theories are supported by evidence, which consists of the original thing the hypothesis/es was/were were developed to explain, and the observations it predicted before anyone looked, as well as the lack of any prediction that turned out wrong.

no evidence, it seems mainly conjecture to me!
This is incorrect. The Higgs is now a theory, not a conjecture or hypothesis; it's what the LHC was built to check for, and they found it to the necessary confidence level.

In my experience, when things have to get really complicated to fit known facts, they usually turn out to be wrong, and a simple explanation usually turns out to be right.
And that's why we use Newtonian physics for the GPS satellite orbital adjustments. Oh, wait...

Aug 16, 2014
"Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass" Did I miss this article? I thought that we weren't even sure the particle found was the higgs yet.
François Englert and Peter Higgs just won a Nobel Prize in Physics for it in 2013, according to CERN's web site, "for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN's Large Hadron Collider."

What we don't know is if it's the Standard Model Higgs or a different one that implies reality that we have not yet definitively seen which is outside the standard model. But that's a detail; the Higgs is real, and it's the origin of mass (which they can tell from the decay modes, which are as predicted by Peter Higgs' theory) and this is according to not one but two experiments.

Aug 16, 2014
I suspect that the Higgs mass will be PRECISELY at the critical boundary. And so, it will be necessary to explain how that came about, give all the other possible values.
This is an amusing and interesting speculation similar to another speculation I saw today from another user on another thread. In support of it, nature always seems to "hide" underlying realities from higher level phenomena; quantum mechanics (QM), classical thermodynamics, and the Fluctuation Theorem (FT) form an excellent example. Classically, the 2LOT predicts that entropy will never be reduced in any closed system, whereas QM doesn't predict entropy at all; the FT shows how they gradually fade from one to the other, resolving the conflict, and predicts the size/speed point at which the changeover occurs, and how the 2LOT fades incrementally away below that point. Also there is the famous Lewis Carrol quote after FitzGerald found that by applying his contraction it fixed the Michelson/Moreley experiment.

Aug 16, 2014
Actually, the Universe never exploded. We just observe, how the light gets scattered with density fluctuations of vacuum at distance in similar way, like the ripples at the water surface. Their change of wavelength is interpreted as a metric expansion of space-time with scientific trolls, who cannot imagine any other mechanism, than this one prescribed with their religion. The Higgs field are the density fluctuations of vacuum at smallest scales, so we can say, it's responsible for light scattering at highest energy density observable, i.e. this one which is attributed to universe expansion at the very first moments after its alleged formation.

The religion is not characterized with absence of logical reasoning (after all, even the theologists developed many logical proofs of God existence) - but with unwillingness to think about any other option.

Aug 16, 2014
Scattering doesn't cause a wavelength change, Zephir/Tolea. Certainly not from gamma rays to microwave.

Aug 16, 2014
So which effect is responsible for wavelength change at the water surface? A Holy Spirit? Try to surprise me...

Aug 16, 2014
That's not a picture of water waves changing wavelength *during propagation* but of the frequency of oscillation changing *at the source* due to the decreasing energy of the oscillator (water that has been vertically disturbed, generating transverse waves in the water surface driven by momentum conservation after the initial energy input, and damped by friction and dissipation). You'll need to provide a reputable source that claims water waves change wavelength *during propagation* because that's what you're claiming light does.

Hint: you won't find one. To change the wavelength of water waves you need to change their energy, which requires energy to be created or annihilated, which are things that never happen in our universe due to conservation of energy. Water waves can change energy due to input from the wind, which can add or subtract energy according to its direction relative to their direction of propagation. But that's not happening in your picture.

Aug 16, 2014
That's not a picture of water waves changing wavelength *during propagation* but of the frequency of oscillation changing *at the source* due to the decreasing energy of the oscillator
This is the remnant of rain droplets. Which change of "source frequency" do you have on mind? I just like how you're trying to twist an apparent physical reality...;-)
You'll need to provide a reputable source that claims water waves change wavelength *during propagation* because that's what you're claiming light does
This is typical attitude for mainstream physicists: what isn't published in Nature, it doesn't exist, despite of many photographs (1, 2). As nonsensically as it sounds, this attitude helps the scientists to continue in their "Duh" research and taking money for trivial research too.

Aug 16, 2014
BTW This effect is called a Stokes scattering and the change of wavelength during it is routinely known to everyone, who deals with physics just a bit seriously. The water surface exhibits both anti-Stokes scattering, both Stokes and Rayleigh scattering, depending on the original wavelength of wave scattered. And the vacuum is not different in this matter.

Aug 16, 2014
Do you understand that a raindrop forms the only energy input, but that conservation of momentum causes the elastic water surface to act as a damped oscillator under the influence of gravity and surface tension? Apparently not. A bug walking on water knows more about it than you.

If you don't understand the difference between damped and undamped oscillators, or how a damped oscillator works, what the heck are you doing talking about light?

Aug 16, 2014
Damped oscillator doesn't change its wavelength/frequency during its damping - the water surface does. Apparently some other strange effect unknown to contemporary physics gets involved here - which one? A Holy Spirit? Just say it..

Aug 16, 2014
It's actually called Rahman Stokes scattering, and it only happens at specific wavelengths; those wavelengths correspond to energy differences between various vibration modes of molecules, not atoms (for example hydrogen in free space), or between those various modes and the ground state. Free hydrogen atoms cannot get rid of an absorbed photon at any frequency but the one they started with, or one of a small number of frequencies that are well known and can easily be blocked out of the data.

You, however, are alleging that this happens to *all wavelengths*, which is inconsistent with Rahman scattering of any kind. The only scattering the light does is Rayleigh scattering, except at those well-known, easily blocked out frequencies.

Perhaps you should study Rahman Stokes scattering a bit more carefully, Zephir.

Aug 16, 2014
It's actually called Rahman
Do you mean Raman or Brahman? Nope, we aren't talking about hydrogen atoms here - just about water surface. Not all words and strange names which you possibly remember from textbooks in connection to scattering will apply here. You're supposed to understand the subject, not to parrote it randomly.
The only scattering the light does is Rayleigh scattering, except at those well-known, easily blocked out frequencies
So why are talking here about Rahman-Brahman scattering of photons here at all? Such a scattering should never ever happen, until light is formed with photons.

Aug 16, 2014
Damped oscillator doesn't change its wavelength/frequency during its damping - the http://image.shut...497.jpg. Apparently some other strange effect unknown to contemporary physics gets involved here - which one? A Holy Spirit? Just say it..
This is incorrect, as can clearly be seen in your picture. You're violating energy conservation again, Zephir.

Aug 16, 2014
Rahman Stokes scattering loses energy from the photon into the molecule it's scattering from; Rahman anti-Stokes scattering gains energy.

You are apparently unaware that Stokes and anti-Stokes scattering are THE two types of Rahman scattering.

It looks like you're talking about stuff you don't actually understand and hoping you'll find something I don't happen to know about that you can pounce on. And you act like everyone does the same thing.

You're doing this because you want to change the subject so you can stop looking like you don't know what you're talking about, but you've jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Aug 16, 2014
Zephir has confused a spring oscillator, which is designed to minimize damping by being used in air and whose momentum decays only very slowly, with water surface oscillations, which are readily damped by the mass of water underneath, which has much higher friction than air, and which readily transmits energy away from the surface as longitudinal waves within the body of the water.

Furthermore, he also doesn't understand that even a spring oscillator eventually slows down; only by adding energy back in to replace it is the harmonic oscillator kept in time. Zephir has confused a damped oscillator with an undamped oscillator, and real dust and molecular cloud Rahman Stokes scattering with Rayleigh scattering that occurs in intergalactic neutral hydrogen.

He's also forgotten that Rahman scattering only affects frequency lines, which since they are known are readily eliminated by filtering them out.

Finally he's implied that there is a time when light is not photons.

Aug 16, 2014
Another way to look at Rahman Stokes scattering is that it occurs in ground state molecules, whereas Rahman anti-Stokes scattering can occur only in excited molecules. Note that Rahman Stokes scattering can also occur in non-ground state atoms, but anti-Stokes scattering can only occur in them.

And finally, from here: http://en.wikiped...cillator
First sentence: "In real oscillators, friction, or damping, slows the motion of the system. "

We done here?

Aug 16, 2014
And just to complete the picture, note that there is a third type of oscillator, called the driven oscillator. This is where the oscillation receives a "kick" in phase with its oscillation and of the correct energy to offset what it has lost since the last "kick." This is the standard "tank" circuit used in electronics to generate a stable frequency for radio transmission, and also the escapement in a spring-driven watch.

Aug 17, 2014
Water waves can change energy due to input from the wind, which can add or subtract energy according to its direction relative to their direction of propagation.
Surface waves on water loose energy just because water is not a perfect fluid, it has viscosity... I guess you already know that, but I want to reinforce your point.
Rahman scattering
Take away the 'h' in raman please, it hurt my eyes.

Maybe I should not do that. You are so damn good and I do not want to discredit your work, but it was itching to much.

Aug 17, 2014
Bah. My bad. A man who can't take criticism never learns anything. Thank you. ;) Comes of posting lots of politics and foreign policy and not enough physics and cosmology. I'm fixing that, though. :D

You're right about viscosity; friction between the molecules. You're looking at it classically; I'm looking at it from a molecular standpoint and on down to QM. My father once said to me that a really good teacher knows lots of ways to say the same thing in order to reach as many students as possible.

Aug 17, 2014
You are so damn good and I do not want to discredit your work
The real expert would never misspell such a name, because it has the "Raman" name before eyes all time.
note that there is a third type of oscillator, called the driven oscillator
This is another syndrome of contemporary physicists, they cannot focus on problem due to quanta of information which they learned at school. So no, this water surface picture DOESN'T illustrate the Ra(h)man scattering, it doesn't illustrate hydrogen molecules, it doesn't illustrate string oscillator, it doesn't illustrate driven oscillator. The only person who is trying to confuse subject with it here is just you, sorry.
You're looking at it classically; I'm looking at it from a molecular standpoint and on down to QM
The water surface is a typical classical system, only really very bad teacher could look at it from "a molecular standpoint and on down to QM".

Aug 17, 2014
There is another problem of mainstream physicists, they're trying to push their beloved/adored quantum mechanics theory everywhere, despite the system is already very distant from quantum mechanical description already - actually the more, the less they understand it. Does something in real life look like the quantum wave packet? If not, why to drag the quantum mechanics into it? Such an approach will not be insightful, but a misleading instead.

What the formally thinking physicists (and their wannabes like you) are forgetting all the time is, the quantum mechanics is not the only theory describing this world, the general relativity is here too and the general relativity differs from quantum mechanics in 108 orders of magnitude by its predictions. You cannot really know, how many orders of magnitude the water surface is from quantum mechanics behavior already.

Aug 17, 2014
even a spring oscillator eventually slows down
This is not relevant to problem - the spring oscillator doesn't change its frequency with compare to water surface, which is why it's used in clock. For frequency change of ripples at the water surface the string oscillator is apparently irrelevant and its rising here serves only as an evidence of your apparent confusion.

So, what is responsible for change of frequency of water surface ripples? A viscosity only does change the amplitude of undulations, not a frequency. Is it still a Holy Spirit at the very end?

Aug 17, 2014
"Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass" Did I miss this article? I thought that we weren't even sure the particle found was the higgs yet.


yes they confirmed it a few months ago. personally i have to philosophically consider that a grand mistake may possibly have been made but the announcement is at least fully official

Aug 17, 2014
"Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass" Did I miss this article? I thought that we weren't even sure the particle found was the higgs yet.


yes they confirmed it a few months ago. personally i have to philosophically consider that a grand mistake may possibly have been made but the announcement is at least fully official

Yes, it is claptrap, the Higgs is no more the "origin" of mass than any other particle. All particles have mass, even photons (though almost infinitely small)(too many links to include).
Mass of Higgs 125.03+0.26 − 0.27 (stat) +0.13 − 0.15 (sys) GeV/c2
Mass of photon <1×10−18 eV/c2
(courtesy of Wikipedia). So, how many Higgs in a photon?

Aug 17, 2014
The Higggs causes mass. What does "causes" mean?
The best explination that I have heard seems to imply some sort of viscous field, which is way off the observed phenomena of inertia.
And then there is inertia. No-one is discussing what causes a hadron to resist a change of momentum.
How about this? There are no "fields". They are mental constructs. No magnetic field, gravitational field and no Higgs field. There are just rule-sets.
If you jump off a tall building you will suffer damage, not because of some putitive "field" but because those are the rules of the game.
http://www.my-big-toe.com/

Aug 17, 2014
the Higgs is no more the "origin" of mass than any other particle
In mainstream physics it's a Higgs field and it's responsible only for some 2% (?) of matter in form of W/Z bosons mediating weak force inside of hadrons.
The best explination that I have heard seems to imply some sort of viscous field, which is way off the observed phenomena of inertia.
The mass doesn't manifest itself with braking of particles but with their inertia. The best explanation comes from dense aether model, which considers the Higgs field as a density fluctuations of another massive field, aka aether. Every undulation of such a field exposes more density fluctuations at the place where it is spreading and these density fluctuations are giving it mass. This mechanism applies to all bosons and particle solitons, though.

Aug 17, 2014
The Higggs causes mass. What does "causes" mean?
The best explination that I have heard seems to imply some sort of viscous field, which is way off the observed phenomena of inertia.
And then there is inertia. No-one is discussing what causes a hadron to resist a change of momentum.
How about this? There are no "fields". They are mental constructs. No magnetic field, gravitational field and no Higgs field. There are just rule-sets.
If you jump off a tall building you will suffer damage, not because of some putitive "field" but because those are the rules of the game.
http://www.my-big-toe.com/

Very perceptive!

Aug 17, 2014
the Higgs is no more the "origin" of mass than any other particle
In mainstream physics it's a Higgs field and it's responsible only for some 2% (?) of matter in form of W/Z bosons mediating weak force inside of hadrons.
The best explination that I have heard seems to imply some sort of viscous field, which is way off the observed phenomena of inertia.
The mass doesn't manifest itself with braking of particles but with their inertia. The best explanation comes from dense aether model, which considers the Higgs field as a density fluctuations of another massive field, aka aether. Every undulation of such a field exposes more density fluctuations at the place where it is spreading and these density fluctuations are giving it mass. This mechanism applies to all bosons and particle solitons, though.

The best explanation for inertia is conservation of angular momentum and gyroscopic effects, as explained in the part of my book dealing with motion - how matter moves.

Aug 17, 2014
The best explanation for inertia is conservation of angular momentum and gyroscopic effects
This is a description of few of effects, in which inertia manifests itself. The people knew about all of it before two hundred years - do you really believe, they already understood, what the inertia is just because of it?

The contemporary people are so naive, they're writing a textbooks of classical physics and they present them as a their personal TOE, because they don't know, it's a subject of high school physics. The George_Rajna's posts here are typical example of such attitude.

Aug 17, 2014
even a spring oscillator eventually slows down
the spring oscillator doesn't change its frequency with compare to water surface, which is why it's used in clock. For frequency change of ripples at the water surface the string oscillator is apparently irrelevant and its rising here serves only as an evidence of your apparent confusion.
This is incorrect according to the Wiki article http://en.wikiped...cillator
That article claims and sources reliable evidence to show that in fact all *real* classical oscillators decay in both frequency and amplitude over time unless they are driven.

So, what is responsible for change of frequency of water surface ripples? A viscosity only does change the amplitude of undulations, not a frequency.
This is incorrect, as can be seen from the picture in *your own link*.

Aug 17, 2014
This is incorrect, as can be seen from the picture in *your own link*
It just illustrates, another effect (other than viscosity) gets involved. Which effect it is? A Holy Spirit? As you can see, the knowledge of math means nothing, if you cannot understand the phenomena at its intuitive level, which would allow the subsequent construction of formal model.

A hint: in [url=http://i.imgur.com/NqMtkaz.jpg]this picture[/ur] the wavelength is changing in both direction depending on original wavelength. The viscosity, damping of oscillator, etc.. blah blah remains the very same - but the result still changes. What's the reason of this, after then?

Aug 17, 2014
Could you imagine some mechanical (spring?) oscillator, which would change its wavelength/frequency with time depending on the original frequency used? If not, you shouldn't drag such a model into your thoughts, as such model will remain misleading: it cannot illustrate the physical situation, which you're trying to describe.

Aug 17, 2014
...they confirmed it a few months ago.

Yes, it is claptrap, the Higgs is no more the "origin" of mass than any other particle.
Better notify the Nobel Prize committee. Good luck with that.

All particles have mass, even photons (though almost infinitely small)(too many links to include).
Photons do not have mass, they have energy, and the energy makes them have momentum. This is basic Special Relativity. The correct equation to calculate the energy for *anything*, including photons as well as tardyons (particles that move slower than the speed of light) is

E² = P²c² + m²c⁴
Where,
E is energy
P is momentum
c is the speed of light, and
m is the mass.

Note that because there are two terms, even if the mass term is zero the energy will be nonzero if momentum term is not. Personally I'm going with Einstein.
Mass of Higgs 125.03+0.26 − 0.27 (stat) +0.13 − 0.15 (sys) GeV/c2
Mass of photon <1×10−18 eV/c2
(courtesy of Wikipedia). So, how many Higgs in a photon?

Aug 17, 2014
Ran out of room; an additional thought, if tachyons exist then physicists expect that they too will follow Einstein's equation above. Since they are expected to have mass that is an imaginary number, the energy is expected to be a complex number.

Aug 17, 2014
The last three lines of the post 2 before this one are not mine; I mistakenly included them in my post and meant to delete them before posting. They are from the same post as the quote in my post. Sorry about that.

Aug 17, 2014
The Higggs causes mass. What does "causes" mean?
Just as electromagnetism and gravity (and for that matter the color and weak nuclear forces) create a field that permeates all of space, which is zero or as close as you can get to it anywhere there is no matter or energy and you are far from any matter or energy, so does the Higgs.

When two electrons, or an electron and a proton, or any other charged particles for that matter, interact by the electromagnetic force, they influence the electric field that fills all of space close to them, which is what "electric charge" means. It falls off in field strength in the familiar inverse square manner familiar to all physics and electronics or electrical students. This field acts upon the field of the other particle, and vice versa, and also on all other electric fields either one encounters.

This is explained by physicists as the creation of virtual particles by the field. Dirac developed this approach and Feynman extended it.

Aug 18, 2014
contd

So just as the electric field creates a region of space where the probability of encountering a virtual photon is enhanced, the Higgs field creates a region of space where the probability of encountering a virtual Higgs particle is enhanced. However, this field's value far from any matter or energy is not zero. As a result, there is a virtual field filling all of space, which any particle that has mass interacts with; this interaction is what causes it to have mass.

The mass of the Higgson (if I may coin a New Word™) is immaterial. It's the interaction with the virtual Higgsons that creates mass. Whether this is gravitational mass, inertial mass, or both is unknown at this time; but now that we can detect it we will find out.

Aug 18, 2014
A serious conceptual error underlies the higgs boson finding. Space matter density is 3.6 E minus 25 kgs/cum and this is confirmed by an axiomatic theory. The mass of the higgs is due to the impact velocity of the nuclear particles. The mass of the fundamental particle Ne is 9.6 E minus 35 kgs or 53 EV . One cannot measure the water molecule by a throwing a rock into it.
7 Nes create aphoton or quanta in space. see website kapillavastu dot com and pho pdf for a rigourous & detailed workout. The axiomatic theory is vaid for all times as it has its own internal proof

Aug 18, 2014
the Higgs is no more the "origin" of mass than any other particle
In mainstream physics it's a Higgs field and it's responsible only for some 2% (?) of matter in form of W/Z bosons mediating weak force inside of hadrons This is incorrect. It's the interaction with the Higgs field that causes the effects of mass.

The mass doesn't manifest itself with braking of particles but with their inertia.
This is correct but may only deal with inertial mass. How gravitational mass arises awaits a quantum field theory of gravity that is consistent with the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

Aug 18, 2014
the Higgs is no more the "origin" of mass than any other particle
In mainstream physics it's a Higgs field and it's responsible only for some 2% (?) of matter in form of W/Z bosons mediating weak force inside of hadrons.
The best explination that I have heard seems to imply some sort of viscous field, which is way off the observed phenomena of inertia.
The mass doesn't manifest itself with braking of particles but with their inertia. The best explanation comes from dense aether model, which considers the Higgs field as a density fluctuations of another massive field, aka aether. Every undulation of such a field exposes more density fluctuations at the place where it is spreading and these density fluctuations are giving it mass. This mechanism applies to all bosons and particle solitons, though.


Aug 18, 2014
I waited too long and the edit time was up. Please ignore the previous comment and read this one.
The best explanation for inertia is conservation of angular momentum and gyroscopic effects, as explained in the part of my book dealing with motion - how matter moves.
The Higgs field explains inertial mass, and the gravity field will explain gravitational mass once we prove it exists. The gravity field is difficult to detect and is currently less than our instruments are sensitive enough to find. When we make sensitive enough instruments we will be able to reconcile inertial mass with gravitational mass, as the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity Theory indicates. Then the gravitational field's relation to the Higgs field will be clear, and GRT and QM will be reconciled with one another.

Aug 18, 2014
This is a description of few of effects, in which inertia manifests itself. The people knew about all of it before two hundred years - do you really believe, they already understood, what the inertia is just because of it?
Now we've found the reason for it-- the Higgs field that permeates all of space.

The contemporary people are so naive, they're writing a textbooks of classical physics
The Higgs is not a classical phenomenon. It's a quantum phenomenon. Nobody knew about quanta two hundred years ago. You're making stuff up agaiin.

they present them as a their personal TOE, because they don't know, it's a subject of high school physics.
I've never seen QM and the SM presented as high school physics. I doubt they are in Czechoslovakia either.

Just sayin'.

Aug 18, 2014
This is incorrect, as can be seen from the picture in *your own link*
It just illustrates, another effect (other than viscosity) gets involved.
What effect is that? Reliable links and quotes please.
As you can see, the knowledge of math means nothing, if you cannot understand the phenomena at its intuitive level, which would allow the subsequent construction of formal model.
Math is the language of physics. If you don't understand the math you don't understand the physics. You need at least introductory calculus to understand even classical physics. It's clear you haven't had it and don't.
the wavelength is changing in both direction
This is obviously incorrect looking at the picture. You're making stuff up again.
The viscosity, damping of oscillator... remains the very same - but the result still changes. What's the reason of this, after then?
It only changes downward. You're making stuff up again.

Aug 18, 2014
Could you imagine some mechanical (spring?) oscillator, which would change its wavelength/frequency with time depending on the original frequency used?
Yes. It's in Wikipedia. Already linked above.

Aug 18, 2014
A serious conceptual error underlies the higgs boson finding.

The mass of the higgs is due to the impact velocity of the nuclear particles.
Reliable links and quotes from scholarly peer-reviewed literature please.

What's an "axiomatic theory?" An axiom is not a theory. Please don't make up eclectic terminology and pretend it has real meaning. Thanks.

Aug 18, 2014
"the Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass,"

Please refer me to the experimental results that "confirmed" this. I do not know of ANY! All I know is that they picked up a noisy signal at CERN, which could be ANYTHING!!

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
"the Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass,"

Please refer me to the experimental results that "confirmed" this. I do not know of ANY! All I know is that they picked up a noisy signal at CERN, which could be ANYTHING!!

Nice to see you again, Johan.

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
The best explanation for inertia is conservation of angular momentum and gyroscopic effects, as explained in the part of my book dealing with motion - how matter moves.
The Higgs field explains inertial mass, and the gravity field will explain gravitational mass once we prove it exists. The gravity field is difficult to detect and is currently less than our instruments are sensitive enough to find. When we make sensitive enough instruments we will be able to reconcile inertial mass with gravitational mass, as the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity Theory indicates. Then the gravitational field's relation to the Higgs field will be clear, and GRT and QM will be reconciled with one another.

I like your optimism. Could you let us know when all this is likely to happen? Meanwhile, I stand by my theory that there is NO GRAVITY, the effect is caused by expansion, and we will never detect a gravitational field, gravitinos, gravitons, gravity waves, Dark Matter, etc.

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
if you cannot understand the phenomena at its intuitive level, which would allow the subsequent construction of formal model.

You are aware that our 'intuition' is an evolved feature?
Evolved features relate to things that markedly influence immediate survival. Cosmological, gravitational or quantum mechanical effects have not figured as individual selection mechanisms in the past.

So why would you even expect out intuition to be a good tool for getting at these phenomena? That seems nonsensical.

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
refer me to the experimental results that "confirmed" this
For example http://blogs.disc...R7HJC6E. The scalar boson character of Higgs resonance is already verified well.


This does not prove that the noise they measured at CERN gives "other particles" mass. It only proves wishfull surreal conjectures. Nothing more!

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
For example W. Pauli predicted the existence of neutrinos from missing energy of particle collisions. How he deduced it?

No Zeph.
He took the current theory of his time and extrapolated from that. Energy was missing, but it wasn't coming out in the form of photons. So it had to be something massive.
That's the normal way to go about things unless you have evidence that something is seriously weird (as, e.g., in quantum mechanics). Then you need to start thinking in other directions.

The notion of "shut up and calculate" did not arise because scientists were lazy or lacked intuition. It's just the realization that at some point you have no choice but to trust tools other than intuition (in this case the math/physics that matches observation)

Only when that fails, too, can should go with random guessing (which is what intuition then boils down to).

Aug 18, 2014
Is there anything else beside a higgsfield to provide mass to ...stuff 'n things?

I didn't the point about the mass of the higgs boson, if the higgsfield causes mass for other particles, what gives the higgs particle its' mass, if it is part of the mass-providing-field itself?

Aug 18, 2014
EM-energy =m*c^2. This has been known since 1905. So why does one need a Higgs boson?Unless you are so crazy that you believe that an EM wave moves within an aether. If the latter is the case, the Doppler formulas would not be the ones that we measure.



Aug 18, 2014
Intuition is not "just" produced by evolution. Einstein likened it to a beautiful gift. The Rational mind is the faithful servant. We acknowledge the servant but ignore the gift.

https://www.youtu...9WO2B8uI

This whole fields and Higgs stuff fails the Grandmother test. Can you explain it to your grandmother?

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
EM-energy =m*c^2. This has been known since 1905. So why does one need a Higgs boson?

Because that doesn't tell you what 'm' actually is. And scientists have wondered about the physical meaning of the c^2 ever since (and still do). There's no question that the formula works and has been very successful. But there is still some explaining to do why it works (and I guess the one who figures that one out will get a Nobel Prize)

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 18, 2014
As you can see, the knowledge of math means nothing, if you cannot understand the phenomena at its intuitive level, which would allow the subsequent construction of formal model. Math is the language of physics. If you don't understand the math you don't understand the physics. You need at least introductory calculus to understand even classical physics. It's clear you haven't had it and don't.


Uh,oh, you just made a colossal blunder making a statement like this, the down voting of anything you post will soon begin as the mathematically challenged find this the most offensive language you can post on this site.


Aug 18, 2014
you just made a colossal blunder making a statement like this
It's not evident, which portion of quote you're trying to reply to. Does it actually matter?

BTW Best of all, the Higgs boson is not a prediction of Standard Model, rather violation of it. The Standard Model only requires the presence of Higgs field, but in no equation the mass of Higgs expects a fixed value. Well established "hiearchy problem" implies, that the quantum corrections to SM Lagrangian can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics. The Higgs boson is important for Higgs field detection, but the arguments for its existence are weak and generally come outside of Standard Model - the Standard Model doesn't require any measurable parameter of Higgs boson for nothing specific. The Higgs field can contribute to mass of W/Z bosons even without some Higgs resonance quite comfortably.

Aug 18, 2014
So why does one need a Higgs boson? Because that doesn't tell you what 'm' actually is.
Nope, the only reason for Higgs boson introduction into physicis was the nonzero mass of W/Z bosons. If these bosons would appear massless like all other gauge bosons, nobody would care about some Higgs field at all. The physicists http://www.youtub...e-DwULM, what the 'm' and another quantities actually are, until their equations are working.


Zephyr: No matter how many pseudonyms you invent, you have been born a moron and will die a moron!

Aug 18, 2014
A pseudonyms? You mean arguments? I'm aware, my answers cannot impress both the supporters of Standard Model, both deniers of it. As usually, the truth is somewhere inbetween.

Aug 18, 2014
"the Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass,"

Please refer me to the experimental results that "confirmed" this. I do not know of ANY! All I know is that they picked up a noisy signal at CERN, which could be ANYTHING!!
How about the Nobel Prize Committee? From Higgs' "facts" page on their site: http://www.nobelp...cts.html

Francois Englert shared it with Higgs: http://www.nobelp...cts.html

Aug 18, 2014
The Higgs field explains inertial mass, and the gravity field will explain gravitational mass once we prove it exists.
We already know about curvature of space-time around massive bodies, which is called so and it's already proven well.
My bad. I thought "graviton field" but typed "gravity field."

It only changes downward. You're making stuff up again.
It only changes downward for elastic spring oscillator with viscosity. The water and vacuum can do the opposite for certain range of wavelengths.
Where does the energy come from? Because there's no free energy. The vacuum cannot create energy from nothing; averaged over macroscopic times and distances, the average energy of the vacuum must be the "zero point" defined by the cosmological constant.

Did you see http://i.imgur.com/NqMtkaz.jpg.
Yes. See the decay in the distance between the ripples? It's quite obvious if you look for it.

Aug 18, 2014
Math is the language of physics. If you don't understand the math you don't understand the physics
I can understand the both, but for construction of formal model you should understand the physical one first (the opposite way it's random guessing and it just doesn't work - compare the SUSY, stringy theories). So that the understanding of physics has always a priority before understanding of math. The math is only descriptive language of physical models - no less, no more. And frankly, the physics is full of phenomena, which still have no formal descriptions yet.
But we're not talking about developing new theories but about understanding what the existing ones say. You need to know the math to understand that thoroughly. On discovering new theories I am not sure I agree either, but that's another subject.

And BTW nice link to the Higgs info.

Aug 18, 2014
Could you let us know when all this is likely to happen?
"Hey Mike, ol' buddy, when you gonna be done with that painting on the ceiling? The Pope is coming for Mass next week and you *know* he hates the smell of paint."

Meanwhile, I stand by my theory that there is NO GRAVITY
"Tomorrow there will be NO WEATHER."

Aug 18, 2014
You need to know the math to understand that thoroughly
This is a stance of the lobby of theorists and high-school teachers. Whole the contemporary world is driven with various lobbies (GMO, BigPharma, fossil fuel lobby) - and the formally thinking people doing research are one of them. Whereas the real physicists are saying, you should be able to explain your model to your grandmother for to understand it at all. Apparently the cake of Nature understanding can be eaten from both sides (formal and non-formal one) and I just did choose this simpler easier to understand one (but more difficult to accept). The problem with acceptation of simple and easy logics of AWT and its water surface analogies is, it steals the jobs for many people, who just planned their safe life in "proper" (but pretty slow) progress in explanation of reality. The fact, this reality can be explained at few pages is very annoying situation for these people.

Aug 18, 2014
The visible manifestation of Higgs field at the human observer scale is the CMBR noise
This is incorrect. The CMB is the redshifted signal from the surface of last scattering when the temperature of the universe goes below the mass/energy needed to keep electrons in atoms.

Aug 18, 2014
The CMB is the redshifted signal from the surface of last scattering
Which surface are you talking about? The surface of what? This is not even mainstream physics.

Aug 18, 2014
BTW I don't want to undermine the significance of math and the relative success of formal physics in the progress of reality understanding of the last century, but from AWT follows, this success was mostly given with accident - the physicists mostly revealed just the portion of Universe, which follows the low-dimensional models well. With increasing distance from human observer scale the character of Universe returns to its intrinsic high-dimensional complex geometry, which poses a real problem for strictly deterministic low-dimensional models of contemporary physics. The problem isn't that the description of this geometry is difficult to describe with formal math, but simply because it's plain noneffective. Nobody will try to derive the exact analytical solution of the fluid inside of turbulent system - but this is exactly, what the quantum gravity theorists are attempting to do with space-time right now - until their money are going, indeed.

Aug 18, 2014
If I simplify the situation, during last century the physicists focused to description of pretty regular symmetric systems, like the electron orbital or massive stars (which are formed mostly with electron orbitals). These objects follows low-dimensional physical models so well, it even annoys the physicists, who are looking for signs of "New Physics" there. Unfortunately, once we move from dimensional scale of atom orbitals or massive stars, the situation becomes increasingly complex again and all these well working formal models developed during last century get gradually violated and poorly conditioned again. And the AWT predicts, that with increasing distance from human observer scale the situation will get only worse - we will be forced to change our gnoseologic paradigms for not to lose the contact with observable reality at all.

Aug 18, 2014
You need to know the math to understand that thoroughly
This is a stance of the lobby of theorists and high-school teachers.
Yeah, like Richard Feynman.

Oh, wait...

Aug 18, 2014
The CMB is the redshifted signal from the surface of last scattering
Which surface are you talking about? The surface of what? This is not even mainstream physics.
Of course not, it's cosmology.

http://en.wikiped...Features
Search on "surface of last scattering."

Aug 18, 2014
Stars are not made of electron orbitals, Zeph.

Aug 18, 2014
Well, it's visibility scope of the universe. BTW Note that the Universe geometry (FLRW metric) is inversed geometry (Schwarzchild metric) of black holes - they have their "surface of last scattering" too - and they remain stationary. Why the same geometry is considered developing in time with cosmologists? It should be stationary as well.

Aug 18, 2014
Stars are not made of electron orbitals
Didn't I say "mostly formed"? It's an example of holographic duality: the objects which are mostly composed of some smaller objects retain the character of these smaller objects. The (behavior of) large groups of people reflect the nature of individual people, the large stars composed mostly of spherical orbitals retain their sphericity (or shape in general).

Aug 18, 2014
Note that the Universe geometry (FLRW metric) is inversed geometry (Schwarzchild metric) of black holes
This is incorrect. The universe would be contracting if it were true, not expanding and not steady state.

... they have their "surface of last scattering" too
Black holes do not have a surface of last scattering.

and they remain stationary.
This is incorrect. They spin. It's one of their only attributes.

Why the same geometry is considered developing in time with cosmologists?
It's not. See above.

Aug 18, 2014
Stars are not made of electron orbitals
Didn't I say "mostly formed"?
That would also be incorrect. Stars are mostly made of protons.

Stars are spherical because of gravity, not because they're "formed (mostly) of orbitals."

Aug 19, 2014
"the Higgs boson, which was recently confirmed to be the origin of mass,"

Please refer me to the experimental results that "confirmed" this. I do not know of ANY! All I know is that they picked up a noisy signal at CERN, which could be ANYTHING!!
How about the Nobel Prize Committee? From Higgs' "facts" page on their site: http://www.nobelp...cts.html


There is no proof whatsoever that mass would not have existed if this excited matter-state (noise) were not observed at CERN. Epicycles fitted the motion of the planets as seen from earth, but this did not prove that epicycles existed: In fact they do not! And I am sure that the "Higgs-field" is NOT required to explain mass. There is no experimental proof for this other than that it fits surreal mathematical symmetries.

Aug 19, 2014
EM-energy =m*c^2. This has been known since 1905. So why does one need a Higgs boson?

Because that doesn't tell you what 'm' actually is. And scientists have wondered about the physical meaning of the c^2 ever since (and still do). There's no question that the formula works and has been very successful. But there is still some explaining to do why it works (and I guess the one who figures that one out will get a Nobel Prize)

Hey, my theory explains what mass actually is! Do you think I should notify the Nobel committee?

Aug 19, 2014
@Da Schneib
Could you let us know when all this is likely to happen?
"Hey Mike, ol' buddy, when you gonna be done with that painting on the ceiling? The Pope is coming for Mass next week and you *know* he hates the smell of paint."

Meanwhile, I stand by my theory that there is NO GRAVITY
"Tomorrow there will be NO WEATHER."

Now, Daz, you should know better than to provoke me.....
Anyway, you know I am right, so stop wriggling. You were warned not to read the book.

Aug 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 19, 2014
Stars are not made of electron orbitals
Didn't I say "mostly formed"?
That would also be incorrect. Stars are mostly made of protons.

Stars are spherical because of gravity, not because they're "formed (mostly) of orbitals."

Stars are spherical because the matter within them is expanding and peer pressure forces a spherical shape. There ain't no gravity!

Aug 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 19, 2014
Hey, my theory explains what mass actually is! Do you think I should notify the Nobel committee?

Currently you have only claims what your alleged theory can do. In this you are like religious nuts: they also claim they have a god - but fail to show it. Unless you show what you have to peer review: who cares?

At the human scale nearly nothing is really spherical

Erm...maybe because spherical isn't a sensible shape in a non-uniform environment with a predominant force direction?

Aug 19, 2014
I am sure that the "Higgs-field" is NOT required to explain mass

Which alternative explanation do you propose?


I do not have to propose an alternative since Einstein already solved this in 1905 with E=m*c^2.

When you Lorentz-transform the dimensions of a moving electron from the IRF in which it is stationary into the one you observe it as being moving with a speed v, the electron becomes longer and has a de Broglie wavelength. This proves that the mass of the electron is electromagnetic energy. Thus, for a stationary electron with rest-mass m(0) one has EM energy h*(nu)=m(0)*c^2. When it moves, it has energy m*c^2 where m>m(0); so that m*c^2=T+m(0)*c^2 where T=kinetic energy.

When it is trapped around around a nucleus it has a STATIONARY energy m*c^2 where m is smaller than m(0).;I.e. m*c^2=m(0)*c^2minusU, where U is the ionization-energy (purely potentialo energy). Sucha n electron-wave has NO kinetic-energy whatsoever. It can have quantum fluctuations though.

Aug 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 19, 2014
I do not have to propose an alternative since Einstein already solved this in 1905 with E=m*c^2.
So why the gluon and photons are massless and the W/Z bosons are massive?


If you slam electrons and protons together you will get matter waves with higher energies, which will decay back into lower mass-energy protons, electrons, neutrino's and photons (light-waves); since the latter are all EM-energy. A photon-WAVE is NOT massless: It has a centre-of mass. This centre-of-mass moves with c within all IRF's and can thus not be stationary: Therefore a photon-wave does not have REST-mass. Gluons, and W/Z bosons are interpretations of excited EM-waves, all of which have mass-energy: Some with rest-mass others not with rest-mass . The interpretation that they are "particles" that cause force, is probably a figment of imagination that lives within halucinary minds.

Aug 19, 2014
Gluons, and W/Z bosons are interpretations of excited EM-waves, all of which have mass-energy: Some with rest-mass others not with rest-mass
That was deep, really. May the Force be with you.

Aug 19, 2014
There is no proof
Physics doesn't have "proof." Proof is mathematics, not physics. Physics has theories, and the theory of the Higgs and its responsibility for the quantum parameter we call "mass" have been accepted as correct by the overwhelming majority of professional physicists.

There is no experimental proof for this other than that it fits surreal mathematical symmetries.
That would be "experimental evidence" in physics. There is no proof in physics.

In fact, the experimental evidence of the detection of the Higgs at the CERN LHC is comprehensive, impressive, and sufficient to convince the physics community that the Higgs has been seen. Its decay modes, which two different detector experiments have confirmed, are the last piece of what you call "proof" required.

Aug 19, 2014
There is no proof
Physics doesn't have "proof." Proof is mathematics, not physics.
Utter BULLSHIT that can only come from a seriously demented mind!

Physics has theories, and the theory of the Higgs and its responsibility for the quantum parameter we call "mass" have been accepted as correct by the overwhelming majority of professional physicists.
Without ANY definite experimental proof!!

There is no experimental proof for this other than that it fits surreal mathematical symmetries.
That would be "experimental evidence" in physics. There is no proof in physics.
If there is NO proof in physics why did they build an acceleotor in CERN for billions of dollars which they STOLE from taxpayers pockets?


Aug 19, 2014
There is no proof
Physics doesn't have "proof." Proof is mathematics, not physics. Physics has theories, and the theory of the Higgs and its responsibility for the quantum parameter we call "mass" have been accepted as correct by the overwhelming majority of professional physicists.
So you are arguing that physics is determined by majority-vote? LOL!!

There is no experimental proof for this other than that it fits surreal mathematical symmetries.
That would be "experimental evidence" in physics. There is no proof in physics.

In fact, the experimental evidence of the detection of the Higgs at the CERN LHC is comprehensive, impressive, and sufficient to convince the physics community that the Higgs has been seen. Its decay modes, which two different detector experiments have confirmed, are the last piece of what you call "proof" required.


You claim thre is "no proof in physics" and in the very next breath you claim "proof" at CERN! LOL! Are you sane?

Aug 19, 2014
If you don't understand the difference between physics and math I can't help. Good luck.

So you are arguing that physics is determined by majority-vote?
You are claiming I'm making the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. However, it's not a fallacy if the authority cited really is expert in the subject at hand. Are you arguing the majority of practicing professional physicists are not experts on physics?

Really?

Aug 19, 2014
@johan

The interpretation that they are "particles" that cause force, is probably a figment of imagination that lives within halucinary minds.
While generally I agree with you, I'm glad you used the word "probably" in there, as EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE splits equally between particle and wave. I suggest that light is actually a wave but when we measure it using time, because time itself is quantum, everything we measure with it at a very small scale APPEARS quantum to us. And a quantum, or packet, of light is as much a particle as any other particle and is composed like them of gyrating sub-particles each of which is composed of lesser particles and so ad infinitum. The Higgs is just another particle and this "conferring mass" is conjecture at best or rubbish.

Aug 19, 2014
@DAz
If you don't understand the difference between physics and math I can't help. Good luck.

So you are arguing that physics is determined by majority-vote?
You are claiming I'm making the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. However, it's not a fallacy if the authority cited really is expert in the subject at hand. Are you arguing the majority of practicing professional physicists are not experts on physics?

Really?

Maths deals with models, physics deals with reality. When"practicing professional physicists " pursue mathematical models with no basis in reality, the result is billions of dollars spent looking for gravity waves, devising equations for string theory in eleven dimensions, etc.

Aug 19, 2014
Particles can actually be seen with the naked eye shining by the light of photons they emit and absorb. You trap them with a Penning Trap (http://en.wikiped...ng_trap) and excite them with a laser. This was done in Seattle at the University of Washington in 1984 by Hans Dehmelt. You can read about it in The Infamous Boundary by David Wick. Dehmelt shared a Nobel Prize for his work with Penning Traps.

Here is an excerpt from the announcement made at the time:
Here, right now, in a little cylindrical domain... in the center of our Penning Trap resides positron Priscilla, who has been giving spontaneous and command performances of her quantum jump ballets for the last three months.


For that matter, if your eyes are well-accustomed to the dark and you are into the scotopic vision domain, your eye can see a single photon.

So denying particles is pretty much contrary to reality.

Aug 19, 2014
Maths deals with models, physics deals with reality. When"practicing professional physicists " pursue mathematical models with no basis in reality, the result is billions of dollars spent looking for gravity waves, devising equations for string theory in eleven dimensions, etc.


@ Reg-Skippy I don't think that is right. You got it mixed up Cher. I'm not a professional physicist like you aren't either so maybe we should ask one of the professional physics-Skippys if that is what think think about what they are doing.

Aug 19, 2014
Maths deals with models, physics deals with reality.
This is incorrect. Physics deals with models of reality. These models are called conjectures, hypotheses, theories, and Laws of Nature. All of them are mathematical, but math is not physics; it's the *language* of physics.

When"practicing professional physicists " pursue mathematical models with no basis in reality
All conjectures have a basis in reality. There is no reason to make a conjecture unless you see something and go, "Gee, that's funny." Isaac Asimov said that's how most great discoveries work in science.

When they figure out a way to test the conjecture, then it's promoted to a hypothesis. When they test it, if it passes the test, then it becomes a theory. This is called the Scientific Method. Later, because of the math in a successful theory, a conjecture outside the scope of that theory might arise based on the theory's math. The source of the conjecture is immaterial. It's the same process either way.

Aug 19, 2014
@Daz
This is incorrect. Physics deals with models of reality.

Crap! Physics deals with reality. Demonstrable experiments, real observations, actual measurements.

When they figure out a way to test the conjecture, then it's promoted to a hypothesis.

Which is of course where modern mainstream physics falls down. Too much conjecture being promoted before it passes any meaningful test.

Aug 19, 2014
WARNING: Real Science based on Objectively Observable Reality. All BBangers read further at own risk!
The CMB is the redshifted signal from the surface of last scattering...
That is the single most misleading continuing BB-Inflation/Expansion etc hypothesis/conjecture-based Interpretation made by professional physicists today. Their 'surface of last scattering' is entirely derived from BB scenarios, not actually confirmed in reality. In fact, every processing/evolving E-M/Gravitational 'feature/body' (from micro to macro scales) has its own type of 'surface of last scattering' from which a certain range of radiations may be detected as the CMB we 'see' now/here given sufficient travel opportunity from 'sources'. Eg, there are innumerable Black Hole features where radiation leaving the close vicinity of event horizons is gravity-red-shifted to a 'CMB-like spectrum' of Microwave lengths/frequencies. Same for massive accretion disk & plasma jet gravity-red-shift.

Rethink it all.:)

Aug 19, 2014
This is incorrect. Physics deals with models of reality.
Crap! Physics deals with reality. Demonstrable experiments, real observations, actual measurements.
Well said. The physics is experimental science and it always was. Just the decadent physicists (of recent decades) attempted to transform it into mess separated from reality. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman

Aug 20, 2014
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman
@toiea/wataba/zephir
I am SO glad you posted that quote
I want you to SEE SOME EXPERIMENTS THAT PROVE SOMETHING:
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

Notice that both of these EXPERIMENTS prove your precious awt is DEAD
this is where you accept reality and accept, per your own quote that I re-posted, that the experiments do NOT match your philosophy, and thus your philosophy is WRONG

just wanted to POINT OUT THE FLAW to you so that you will remember it more clearly, because I am using your own argument for proof. Perhaps now we can sink it for good?

THANKS

Aug 20, 2014
So you are arguing that physics is determined by majority-vote?
You are claiming I'm making the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. However, it's not a fallacy if the authority cited really is expert in the subject at hand. Are you arguing the majority of practicing professional physicists are not experts on physics?


In Galileo's time the majority explained planetary motion in terms of epicycles. So according to your argument the majority was correct and Galileo was wrong? Are you really as stupid as all this or are you just a troll? The majority of "experts'' can be wrong, as they have been time and again: Remember tectonic plates?

Really?

Aug 20, 2014
Particles can actually be seen with the naked eye shining by the light of photons they emit and absorb. You trap them with a Penning Trap (http://en.wikiped...ng_trap) and excite them with a laser. This was done in Seattle at the University of Washington in 1984 by Hans Dehmelt. You can read about it in The Infamous Boundary by David Wick. Dehmelt shared a Nobel Prize for his work with Penning Traps.
How do you know that they are "particles" before they ABSORB light-energy? When a wave is trapped within a cavity, it MUST form a stationary wave that fills the WHOLE cavity. When you shine light on these waves you change the BOUNDARY CONDITIONS, and the waves collapse onto localised waves. Quantum mechanics is quite adamant about the fact that when you measure, what you measure changes. So this experiment does NOT prove the existence of particles AT ALL!!

So denying particles is pretty much contrary to reality.
BULLSHIT. You are not posting logic.

Aug 20, 2014
While generally I agree with you, I'm glad you used the word "probably" in there, as EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE splits equally between particle and wave. I suggest that light is actually a wave but when we measure it using time, because time itself is quantum, everything we measure with it at a very small scale APPEARS quantum to us.
Nope! An electron is always a wave which acts as an antenna that can absorb light. The fraction of light that an antenna can absorb is determined by the physical properties of the antenna: As any radio engineer can attest to. An electron has energy m*c^2=h*(nu)" ALWAYS. This is where Plancks's constant comes into the picture. A trapped electron has an energy m*c^2=h*(nu) which is smaller than its rest-mass energy m(0)*c^2=h*(nu0). Threfore it can be ionized when it gains energy h*(nu0)-h*(nu)=h*(nuEM), where (nuEM) is the frequency of the light wave required. Thus h comes from the properties of the electrons: NOT from a light-wave being quantized!

Aug 20, 2014
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard P. Feynman


That is NOT the full story: Even when it fits known experimental data it could still be wrong! If you are a competent physicist you expect that it might be possible to discover new data that the existing theory cannot model. If you do not keep this option open, you should get the hell out of physics research. Particle physicists fudge away what they do not like, using renormalization, to "doctor" up their numbers. This is not physics but FRAUD!

Aug 20, 2014
@johan
Nope! An electron is always a wave which acts as an antenna that can absorb light.

Why are you talking about electrons in particular when I was talking about photons? If you are choosing to focus on electrons, why electrons rather than any of the other "particles"? But I'll play along. For electrons, how do you explain the results of Young's experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment where electrons behave as PARTICLES? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks........

Aug 20, 2014
@johan
Nope! An electron is always a wave which acts as an antenna that can absorb light.

Why are you talking about electrons in particular when I was talking about photons? If you are choosing to focus on electrons, why electrons rather than any of the other "particles"? But I'll play along. For electrons, how do you explain the results of Young's experiment en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment where electrons behave as PARTICLES? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks........


They do NOT behave like particles, since by definition particles cannot diffract EVER! The electron is an EM-wave moving with a speed v that is less than c. ALL waves change their shapes and sizes when the boundary conditions change. When the electron-WAVE reaches the double slits, NEW boundary conditions are encountered, so that the wave morphs and MOVE THROUGH BOTH SLITS. On the other side of the slits the two lobes that moved through th slits interfere and form ...

Aug 20, 2014
.... a diffracted wave-front that approaches the screen in which there is a distribution of atomic-sized absorbers or entities with which each wave can interact. Only ONE of the absorbers can absorb the incoming single electron wave. Thus, as soon as the wave resonates with one of the absorbers, it HAS TO COLLAPSE IN SIZE TO BE ABSORBED AND THUS LEAVES A SPOT.

Since resonance is higher where the identical impinging waves have their highest intensities, the spots accumulate after many electron-waves to give the intensity of the identical waves. There is NO VOODOO probabilities involved except for the NORMAL probability one has for a roulette-wheel, caused in this case by resonance, which allows the incoming waves to collapse into different absorbers.

If you are a moron and try and check through which slit a single electron-wave has moved, your detector collapses the diffracted wave BEFORE it reaches the screen, AND THEREFORE YOUR DIFFRACTION PATTERN DISAPPEARS.

NO Particles!!!


Aug 20, 2014
Why in God's name do theoretical physicists want to believe in Voodoo? Why can they not realise that Niels Bohr had a mental problem when he argued that "if you think you understand quantum mechanics you do not understand it"! This is bullshit!

All mainstream physicists from Bohr to Feynman have confessed that "they do not understand quantum mechanics". But when Schroedinger and de Broglie, and other competent physicists, argue that it can be explained totally in terms of wave and wave interactions, they are villified and mocked, since "one can only understand QM if you do not understand it". What a load of claptrap. To understand physics you must first confess that you are unable to understand it: If you do not do so, you do not understand it!

Theoretical physics is thus based on the absurd!

Aug 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 20, 2014
@johan
Sorry. J, I should have been more specific, rather than quoting Young in general, this is the part to which I refer:-
versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave).
Particles!
(Actually, I don't believe either explanation. I think an electron (and a photon) are that part of a wave we perceive in a quantum of time, which to us is the same as a particle.)

Aug 20, 2014
IMO the wave-particle duality has its tangible physical representation: why not to handle the electron as a pin-point particle, which is surrounded with its wake wave like the boat or the fish at the water surface? Such a mutually connected system would fit both the attitude of particle physicists, both the people, who just want to see the waves everywhere.

Aug 20, 2014
I think an electron (and a photon) are that part of a wave we perceive in a quantum of time, which to us is the same as a particle
IMO it applies to photon only (and still for quite long-wavelenght ones). Only microwave photons do behave like / are identical with their own deBroglie wave. The photons of increasing frequency are gradually separated more and more from their deBroglie wave like energetically more dense solitons.

Such an interpretation fits well the results of double slit experiment, in which the long-wavelength photons interfere with slit rather like the homogeneous classical wave, whereas the short-wavelength photons manifest itself like the better or worse distinguished spots or sparks at the target. There must be a seamless transition in behavior of both types of photons with increasing frequency.


Aug 20, 2014
The mainstream physics ignores all thougts about actual shape of photons consequentially, but we already know, that the long wavelenght photons behave and interfere like the classical wave, the X-ray photons behave like the diffuze clouds inside of Wilson cloud chamber and the gamma ray photons spread like the well localized sparks across space. Therefore the appearance of photons at the target during double slit experiment corresponds well with their bulk behavior inside of detectors. Maybe we should less speculate and better observe the artifacts, which we already know well (or at least believe so).

Aug 21, 2014
versions of the experiment that include detectors at the slits find that each detected photon passes through one slit (as would a classical particle), and not through both slits (as would a wave). Particles!
The detector CANNOT determine through which slit the photon has moved since it can ONLY detect the photon-wave by COLLAPSING it.
Thus when you have two detectors behind the slits and think that you measure through which slit the wave has moved, you are arguing like an idiot. The wave moves through BOTH slits but can only be detected by ONE of the detectors. It thus collapses into the detector with which it resonates FIRST.
Thus by sending many photon-waves THROUGH BOTH SLITS, half of them will collapse within one detector and half within the other detector. THIS DOES NOT TELL YOU THAT THE WAVE MOVED THROUGH A SINGLE SLIT.
It is unbelievable that the mainstream theoretical physicists could have been so stupid for nearly 100 years. No wonder they are hunting surreal Higgs!

Aug 21, 2014
@ Reg Mundy

Actually, I don't believe either explanation. I think an electron (and a photon) are that part of a wave we perceive in a quantum of time, which to us is the same as a particle.


There is no quantum in time: There is only a quantum in EM wave-energy. Time is continuous and absolute (not relative as Einstein has incorrectly argued). See the draft of my recent book entitled: EINSTEIN=GENIUS: But a genius sometimes blunders:
https://www.resea...=prf_act


Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
@johan
The detector CANNOT determine through which slit the photon has moved since it can ONLY detect the photon-wave by COLLAPSING it.
What about electrons?
There is no quantum in time: There is only a quantum in EM wave-energy. Time is continuous and absolute

Beg to differ. Time is quantum. Unless you can prove it isn't.....

Aug 21, 2014
@johan
Liked your abstract. Agree with your assessment of modern physicists, who have been subverted by mathematical models which fail the traditional PHYSICS tests of reality and experimental evidence. However, disagree with your clock having to keep a million different times for a million observers, clock only keeps one time and each observer perceives a different time. Great fun!

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
@johan
The detector CANNOT determine through which slit the photon has moved since it can ONLY detect the photon-wave by COLLAPSING it.
What about electrons?
An electron is also an electromagnetic wave. This follows from relativity (read my book). An electron-wave also adapts its shape and size when the boundary conditions change. The Copenhagen baboons called this behaviour "quantum jumps" of "particles".
There is no quantum in time: There is only a quantum in EM wave-energy. Time is continuous and absolute

Beg to differ. Time is quantum. Unless you can prove it isn't.....
It is not necessary for ME to disprove your statement. The onus is on YOU to prove that it is so. It is your statement for which there is NO experimental evidence whatsoever.

Aug 21, 2014
@johan
Liked your abstract. Agree with your assessment of modern physicists, who have been subverted by mathematical models which fail the traditional PHYSICS tests of reality and experimental evidence. However, disagree with your clock having to keep a million different times for a million observers, clock only keeps one time and each observer perceives a different time. Great fun!

Read the correct derivation of the Lorentz equations in chapter 6: You will then see that the million times deduction is absolutely correct. And, Oh yes, first read chapter 4, so that you can understand what "the principle of relativity" actually is. Einstein, Lorentz, Poincare, and all mainstream modern theoretical physicists up to the present have NEVER understood Galileo's genius!

A relativistic transformation of physics CAN NEVER be covariant.

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 21, 2014
@ Watebba, Zephyr or whatever.

Anybody who argues that an EM wave moves within an aether, is so lost that it is a waste of time to argue with him/her. The Doppler-shifts for a wave moving within an aether is TOTALLY different from the Doppler shifts for a wave that moves with the SAME speed c within ALL inertial refrence frames. Experimental data proves that the Doppler-shifts for electromagntic waves are NOT those of waves moving within an aether!

Regards,
Johan

Aug 21, 2014
@ Watebba, Zephyr or whatever.

Anybody who argues that an EM wave moves within an aether, is so lost that it is a waste of time to argue with him/her. The Doppler-shifts for a wave moving within an aether is TOTALLY different from the Doppler shifts for a wave that moves with the SAME speed c within ALL inertial refrence frames. Experimental data proves that the Doppler-shifts for electromagntic waves are NOT those of waves moving within an aether!

Regards,
Johan
@johanfprins
yes, it is zephir (Watebba is zephir)
5 stars for this comment! great one

Next time add something like THIS for zephir to chew on: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf

THANKS

Aug 21, 2014
The Doppler-shifts for a wave moving within an aether is TOTALLY different from the Doppler shifts for a wave that moves with the SAME speed c within ALL inertial reference frames
You're right, but the trick is in the way of observation of this motion. At the water surface we can walk around river and we can observe its ripples with using of light waves, which are indeed much faster and which they mediate another reference frames for us. But in vacuum we have no such option available and we are forced to observe the spreading of its waves with the very same kind of waves.

For to get the AWT analogies, you should live at the water surface like the blind waterstrider and you should observe the waves, measure their wavelength and timing frequency with just, well with surface waves again - pretty consequentially. Which may be indeed difficult to imagine for someone - but IMO it's still better to have some illustrative & faithful physical analogy for relativity, than none at all.

Aug 21, 2014
For example, this is the picture of AWT analogy of the relativistic length contraction at the water surface. If we would observe the boat with light waves, then we will observe nothing unusual and the boat could achieve the arbitrary speed. But if we could use only the surface ripples for its observation, then the whole notion of boat will become reduced to the pair of wake waves at the bow and stern of boat. And we can measure the length of the boat only as a distance between them. Under such a situation the perceived length (and motion direction vector) of boat will depend on relative speed of boat pretty much. As we can imagine easily, under such a situation we can never observe the boat moving faster than the wake wave itself.

Aug 21, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy,

Thanks for the reference: I will read it with interest.

I see he/she has just now posted the same old crap under the name Toiea. He/she just cannot understand that a water-wave moves within an aether called "water" and that the Doppler formulas FOR ALL WAVES MOVING WITHIN A MEDIUM CANNOT EVER BE WHAT IS MEASURED FOR EM-WAVES!!

I wish this person would go back to primary school and learn a bit of physics!

Aug 21, 2014
the Doppler formulas FOR ALL WAVES MOVING WITHIN A MEDIUM CANNOT EVER BE WHAT IS MEASURED FOR EM-WAVES
Well, the situation is exactly the opposite. The EM-Wave motion is equivalent to motion of all transverse waves in any (material) environment. Actually, until these waves are perfectly transverse, the exact nature of environment doesn't matter here at all - their reference frame remains undefined anyway.

The tiny capillary waves at the water surface are rather close to true transverse waves and for such a waves the water behaves like the thin elastic membrane driven with surface tension only. No motion or reference frame of underwater gets actually detectable here, because it has no meaning for transverse wave. The weak residual reference frame drag coming from Brownian noise can be eliminated with using of waves of the same effective wavelength - and this is the main trick of the zero result of this study.

Aug 21, 2014
BTW: Thre is NOT ANY RELATIVISTIC LENGTH CONTRACTION: Einstein transformed from the WRONG IRF into the WRONG IRF. When you do the transformation correctly, YOU GET LENGTH DILATION: THE ROD BECOMES LONGER!!

Aug 21, 2014
When you do the tranmsformation correctly, YOU GET LENGTH DILATION: THE ROD BECOMES LONGER!
That's nice, but this is not what we can actually measure from extrinsic perspective. The length contraction is actually required for to maintain the light speed invariance - it's the straightforward consequence of the Lorentz invariance postulate. Without lenght contraction the light emanated with object in motion would propagate with superluminal speed.

animation

You can believe me, my logics is straightforward, consistent and undeniable. It's based only and just on geometric assumptions, as expressed with various pictures and animations. So it cannot be a subject of accidental inversion of observational perspectives and similar stuffs, which are typical for formal derivations of mainstream physics (including yours).

Aug 21, 2014
This is incorrect. Physics deals with models of reality.

Crap! Physics deals with reality. Demonstrable experiments, real observations, actual measurements.
What about the theorists? You're only paying attention to the experimenters. The experimenters don't know what to look for, how to look for it, or anything else without the theorists telling them, and if the experimenters see something strange it's the theorists who look for an explanation. You've left out half of physics and called it "not physics." This is silliness.

When they figure out a way to test the conjecture, then it's promoted to a hypothesis.

Which is of course where modern mainstream physics falls down. Too much conjecture being promoted before it passes any meaningful test.
Are you suggesting that adding a test that experimentalists can check to a conjecture is somehow invalid? How then do you suggest hypotheses be formed? You will cripple physics. Again, more silliness.

Aug 21, 2014
So you are arguing that physics is determined by majority-vote?
...it's not a fallacy if the authority cited really is expert in the subject at hand. Are you arguing the majority of practicing professional physicists are not experts on physics?
In Galileo's time the majority explained planetary motion in terms of epicycles.
Irrelevant. In Galileo's time the scientific method of the time did not involve testing hypotheses, or even devising tests for conjectures.

You haven't answered my question.

Aug 21, 2014
The experimenters don't know what to look for, how to look for it, or anything else without the theorists telling them
Apparently at least one guy would disagree with you in this matter. You can count me a second one, BTW.
"I have no patience with social scientists, historians, and philosophers who insist that the "scientific method" is doing experiments to check somebody's theory. The best physics I have known was done by experimenters who ignored theorists completely and used their own intuitions to explore new domains where no one had looked before. No theorists had told them where and how to look".

Aug 21, 2014
Particles can actually be seen with the naked eye shining by the light of photons they emit and absorb.
How do you know that they are "particles" before they ABSORB light-energy?
Because charge, mass, energy, lepton count, electron family count, and angular momentum are all conserved quantities, and light doesn't get absorbed by empty space.

When a wave is trapped within a cavity, it MUST form a stationary wave that fills the WHOLE cavity.
The wave isn't trapped in a cavity. The particle is trapped in a magnetic field.

When you shine light on these waves you change the BOUNDARY CONDITIONS, and the waves collapse onto localised waves.
Yes. The electron absorbs the photon, then re-emits it in a random direction.

contd

Aug 21, 2014
Quantum mechanics is quite adamant about the fact that when you measure, what you measure changes. So this experiment does NOT prove the existence of particles AT ALL!!
1. Then what's absorbing and emitting the light?
2. Your argument proves that experimenting is useless. Are you serious?

Aug 21, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
...light doesn't get absorbed by empty space.
Careful, mate. Conventional mainstream theory has it that photons emitted away from just above the EH of black holes 'fade to nothing', and their energy/perturbations/oscillations of 'field/vacuum' are effectively subsumed back into 'diffuse' vacuum-energy state/content. :)
The experimenters don't know what to look for, how to look for it, or anything else without the theorists telling them, and if the experimenters see something strange it's the theorists who look for an explanation
Again, careful. Most often, it has been 'pure research' experimentalists who have discovered 'phenomena' which had not been previously treated/explained in the current professional theory-set. Once these experimentalists have got enough to go on, the theorists add conjectures/hypotheses for FURTHER experiments designed to 'tease out' SPECIFIC aspects. At no stage did theory precede original experimenters 'pure research' efforts. :)

Aug 21, 2014
IMO the wave-particle duality has its tangible physical representation: why not to handle the electron as a pin-point particle, which is surrounded with its wake wave like the boat or the http://i.imgur.com/LVKGkjo.gif? Such a mutually connected system would fit both the attitude of particle physicists, both the people, who just want to see the waves everywhere.
You have re-discovered the "wave packet" analogy, but be aware that this is only a teaching tool, not the true state of affairs.

Aug 21, 2014
There is no quantum in time: There is only a quantum in EM wave-energy.
It is not yet known if time or space are quantized. If they are it would contradict relativity, but possibly only on the smallest scales of time and size.

Time is continuous and absolute (not relative as Einstein has incorrectly argued).
There is no absolute time. You are arguing against Special Relativity Theory, which is a foundational theory that has been proven literally millions of times. College physics students prove it every day.

Aug 21, 2014
A relativistic transformation of physics CAN NEVER be covariant.
What does this even mean? A transform changes one set of coordinates into another, not one physical fact into another. How can the original coordinates not be covariant with the new ones, should the underlying physical quantity of them both change?

Aug 21, 2014
Experimental data proves that the Doppler-shifts for electromagntic waves are NOT those of waves moving within an aether!
How can we experiment on aether if it doesn't exist?

Aug 21, 2014
No theorists had told them where and how to look".
So they had no education in physics?

Really?

Aug 21, 2014
...light doesn't get absorbed by empty space.
Conventional mainstream theory has it that photons emitted away from just above the EH of black holes 'fade to nothing'
This is incorrect. In fact, current theory has it that energy from inside the black hole can quantum tunnel past the event horizon if it's sufficiently close, and if this happens then two particles must be created to preserve conservation of momentum and other more esoteric laws of nature. One of the quanta then escapes, and the other falls back into the EH.

Please detail where exactly you believe this means a photon is being absorbed into empty space.

At no stage did theory precede original experimenters 'pure research' efforts.
So experimenters don't test hypotheses?

Really?


Aug 21, 2014
You have re-discovered the "wave packet" analogy, but be aware that this is only a teaching tool, not the true state of affairs
How can you know, what the "true state of affairs" is?

Aug 21, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
...current theory has it that energy from inside the black hole can quantum tunnel past the event horizon if it's sufficiently close, and if this happens then two particles must be created to preserve conservation of momentum and other more esoteric laws of nature. One of the quanta then escapes, and the other falls back into the EH.
Careful. That scenario wasn't what I was referring to. I said any radiation away from the vicinity of EH. Ie, as in 'gravitational redshifting' per current theory. Ok?

Please detail where exactly you believe this means a photon is being absorbed into empty space.
My 'detail' on that aspect is in my ToE, so not at liberty to expand. However, current quantum theory of vacuum energy/processes etc is close enough for the caution I made earlier re possibility for vacuum to absorb photonic energy.

So experimenters don't test hypotheses?
Who said that? Please read again my comments re 'pure research' and 'specific aspect' etc :)

Aug 21, 2014
You have re-discovered the "wave packet" analogy, but be aware that this is only a teaching tool, not the true state of affairs
How can you know, what the "true state of affairs" is?
Because a million physicists say so and have confirmed it by experiment.

Aug 21, 2014
I said any radiation away from the vicinity of EH. Ie, as in 'gravitational redshifting' per current theory.
Radiation away from the EH of a BH propagates as photons per current theory.

My 'detail' on that aspect is in my ToE...
Not interested in your ToE. Sticking with the mainstream.

So experimenters don't test hypotheses?
Who said that?
It's an inescapable implication of what you said. Sorry, not responsible for your words. If you choose not to back them up I will simply ignore anything further on the subject as more politics.

Aug 22, 2014
When you do the transformation correctly, YOU GET LENGTH DILATION: THE ROD BECOMES LONGER!
That's nice, but this is not what we can actually measure from extrinsic perspective. The length contraction is actually required for to maintain the light speed invariance - it's the straightforward consequence of the Lorentz invariance postulate.
No it is NOT. You are misinterpretating Galileo's principle of relativity which demands that a relativistic coordinate transformation of physics equations is not invariant.

Without lenght contraction the light emanated with object in motion would propagate with superluminal speed.
BULLSHIT!!! You just do not understand mathematics. You should consider going back to kindergarten.

You can believe me, my logics is straightforward, consistent and undeniable. It's based only and just on geometric assumptions, as expressed with various pictures and animations
You have not got a clue what logic is all about! Ducks farting?

Aug 22, 2014
So you are arguing that physics is determined by majority-vote?
...it's not a fallacy if the authority cited really is expert in the subject at hand. Are you arguing the majority of practicing professional physicists are not experts on physics?
In Galileo's time the majority explained planetary motion in terms of epicycles.
Irrelevant. In Galileo's time the scientific method of the time did not involve testing hypotheses, or even devising tests for conjectures.
Are you sure you are not Zephyr? Testing was largely ignored, until Galileo brought it back in full force. It is exactly for this why Galileo was nearly burnt at the stake. You are now arguing that we should go back to the time when hypotheses were not tested: Since the hypothesis that Higgs causes mass-energy is untestable, you want to argue that tests are not required.

You haven't answered my question.
Which question?

Aug 22, 2014
When a wave is trapped within a cavity, it MUST form a stationary wave that fills the WHOLE cavity.
The wave isn't trapped in a cavity. The particle is trapped in a magnetic field. A cavity can be generated by using either electric- or magnetic-fields. The wave morphs to adapt to these boundary conditions: There are no particles involved anywhere or at any time.

When you shine light on these waves you change the BOUNDARY CONDITIONS, and the waves collapse onto localised waves.
Yes. The electron absorbs the photon, then re-emits it in a random direction.
What is the electron before it absorbs a photon? Within an ideally perfect metal it is a stationary wave that fills the whole metal (a delocalised wave). When you shine light, the boundary conditions change and the wave collpases into a localised wave, which can be ejected if the frequency of the light-wave is high enough.


Aug 22, 2014
Quantum mechanics is quite adamant about the fact that when you measure, what you measure changes. So this experiment does NOT prove the existence of particles AT ALL!!
1. Then what's absorbing and emitting the light?
The electron-wave absorbs the light and since its energy increases it has to change size and shape: It can thus either collapse or inflate. If you are a baboon you call this a "quantum jump" by a "particle".
2. Your argument proves that experimenting is useless. Are you serious?

Where in God's name does it prove that? You must be the person who Mark Twain met and commented: "Today I have met a man who knows more things that are not so than any other man I have ever met!"

Aug 22, 2014
There is no quantum in time: There is only a quantum in EM wave-energy.
It is not yet known if time or space are quantized. If they are it would contradict relativity, but possibly only on the smallest scales of time and size.
Thus thre is NO PROOF that time can be qunatized: It is at present just a conjecture coming from a halucinating mind!

me is continuous and absolute (not relative as Einstein has incorrectly argued).
There is no absolute time. You are arguing against Special Relativity Theory, which is a foundational theory
Wrong again!! I am not arguing against the Special Theory of Relativity, but against the wrong interpretation of this theory. It does NOT require time to be anything else but absolute. In fact, by assuming that a single event can occur at different times is absurd! Or that two simultaneous events occur at different times is also absurd, since simultaneous means THE SAME TIME!! It cannot ever mean anything else!

Aug 22, 2014
A transform changes one set of coordinates into another, not one physical fact into another.
Wrong again! When you do a relativistic coordinate transformation it DOES change one physical fact into another. This is what Galileo argued already 400 years ago. It is a pity that Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, Minkowski and all the modern theoretical physicists have been too stupid to understand Galileo.

How can the original coordinates not be covariant with the new ones, should the underlying physical quantity of them both change?
The coordinates on their own might be, but covariance does not refer to coordinates but to the equations of physics. And the equations of physics can NEVER be covariant under a relativistic coordinate transformation. They are only covariant if the origins of the two coordinate systems do NOT move relative to one another.

See: https://www.resea...=prf_act




Aug 22, 2014
Experimental data proves that the Doppler-shifts for electromagntic waves are NOT those of waves moving within an aether!
How can we experiment on aether if it doesn't exist?


Are you really so stupid? Air is the aether of sound waves. and the formulas that can be verified to be valid for sound waves, ARE NOT THE SAME as the formulas for light waves. You can only obtain the correct formulas for light-waves when you derive the Doppler-formulas by assuming that there is NO AETHER! You cannot obtain these formulas IN ANY OTHER MANNER!!

Aug 22, 2014
You have re-discovered the "wave packet" analogy, but be aware that this is only a teaching tool, not the true state of affairs
How can you know, what the "true state of affairs" is?
Because a million physicists say so and have confirmed it by experiment.


Any person using this argument is not even a physicist's arsehole!!

The guiding principle in physics MUST BE that no matter how well and for how long a theory has withstood the test of time, a new fact could emerge at any time to prove that the theory has been flawed all along. If a person is not willing to accept this, he/she should stay the hell out of physics (or any science for that matter).

You should rather become a priest in some fundamentalist dogmatic religion and stop posting rubbish on a physics forum!

Aug 22, 2014
This is incorrect. Physics deals with models of reality.

Crap! Physics deals with reality. Demonstrable experiments, real observations, actual measurements.
What about the theorists? You're only paying attention to the experimenters. The experimenters don't know what to look for, how to look for it, or anything else without the theorists telling them, and if the experimenters see something strange it's the theorists who look for an explanation. You've left out half of physics and called it "not physics." This is silliness.

Would you mind reading what I actually said, rather than what you imagined I said.

Aug 22, 2014
Which is of course where modern mainstream physics falls down. Too much conjecture being promoted before it passes any meaningful test.
Are you suggesting that adding a test that experimentalists can check to a conjecture is somehow invalid? How then do you suggest hypotheses be formed? You will cripple physics. Again, more silliness.

Ditto. The point being that current mainstream physics accepts as PROVEN hypotheses which have no experimental proof, e.g the constant assertion that Dark Matter exists as if it was fact, the constant references to gravity waves as if they have been proven to exist, and so on. I don't want to "cripple physics", I love physics! I just want it to return to a reasonable level of sanity!

Aug 22, 2014
I love physics! I just want it to return to a reasonable level of sanity!


@ Reg-Skippy, then why you don't go to a science school like the real physicist-Skippys so you can make a theory that peoples can understand? Until you go to science school nobody is going to pay any attention to ideas except to call you silly.

Aug 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Aug 22, 2014
Because a million physicists say so and have confirmed it by experiment
Which experiment disproves the insight, that the deBroglie wave is the wake wave of particle in vacuum? Just this insight was confirmed with Couder & Fort experiments. And which physicist denies it? IMO you're completely confused.


I deny it. The Couder & Fort experiments are water-waves. Water acts as an aether; while for electromagnetic waves there is NO AETHER!!!!!!! The Doppler effect measured for EM waves proves that these waves do not move in an aether! Can you not get it through your bony head?

Aug 22, 2014
The Couder & Fort experiments are water-waves. Water acts as an aether
Well and the waves in Couder & Fort experiments act like the quantum waves in vacuum. Take it or leave it.

Aug 22, 2014
The Couder & Fort experiments are water-waves. Water acts as an aether
Well and the waves in Couder & Fort experiments act like the quantum waves in vacuum. Take it or leave it.

I will gladly leave it since it is unproven BULLSHIT that comes, without any experimental proof, from a demented mind.

Aug 22, 2014
Irrelevant. In Galileo's time the scientific method of the time did not involve testing hypotheses, or even devising tests for conjectures.
Testing was largely ignored, until Galileo brought it back in full force.
What's "brought it back" mean?

It is exactly for this why Galileo was nearly burnt at the stake.
This is incorrect. Galileo was permitted to publish a book consisting of a dialog regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism; unfortunately, he named the querent "Simplicio," which is a translation from Latin of "Simplicius," but also has a bad connotation in Italian of "simpleton," and he inadvertently put Pope Urban's words in Simplicio's mouth. Urban had formerly been a supporter of Galileo, but this angered him, and he ordered Galileo to be tried for heresy, with results we're all familar with.

However, this had nothing to do with testing or not testing hypotheses, nor with devising tests for a conjecture to upgrade it to a hypothesis.

Aug 22, 2014
You are now arguing that we should go back to the time when hypotheses were not tested:
This is incorrect and is a massive distortion of my position. If you're just going to make stuff up about me to try to get me riled up, I'll stop paying attention to you.

Since the hypothesis that Higgs causes mass-energy is untestable, you want to argue that tests are not required.
I am arguing nothing of the kind. In fact, the Higgs was predicted not merely to be the field that causes mass attributes of quanta, but also to have many other characteristics, such as a lower mass limit, a particular spin, particular decay modes, particular half-lives for these different modes, etc., etc. All of these other qualities have been confirmed. The Higgs is now the Higgs Theory, and Higgs won a Nobel Prize in Physics for it.

You're making stuff up again.

Which question?
Are you arguing the majority of practicing professional physicists are not experts on physics?

Aug 22, 2014
Galileo was permitted to publish a book consisting of a dialog regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism; unfortunately, he named the querent "Simplicio," which is a translation from Latin of "Simplicius," but also has a bad connotation in Italian of "simpleton," and he inadvertently put Pope Urban's words in Simplicio's mouth. Urban had formerly been a supporter of Galileo, but this angered him, and he ordered Galileo to be tried for heresy, with results we're all familar with.

LOL, the Da!
I was not familiar with that little bit of historical nuance, but I love it!

Aug 22, 2014
Quantum mechanics is quite adamant about the fact that when you measure, what you measure changes. So this experiment does NOT prove the existence of particles AT ALL!!
1. Then what's absorbing and emitting the light?
The electron-wave absorbs the light
What electron wave? We're talking about at the edge of a black hole's event horizon.

2. Your argument proves that experimenting is useless. Are you serious?

Where in God's name does it prove that?
Nowhere in Bog's name; Bog isn't involved. You said:
So this experiment does NOT prove the existence of particles AT ALL!!
implying experimenting is useless.

Aug 22, 2014
What's "brought it back" mean?
Archimedes started it but was afterwards ignored. Galileo brought it back! It seems you do not know anything about the history of physics. Tsk! Tsk!

This is incorrect. Galileo was permitted to publish a book consisting of a dialog regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism; unfortunately, he named the querent "Simplicio," etc. etc. etc.
I know this history better than a thick-skulled bonehead like you can EVER do. Please read before opening that useless orifice in your upper extremity!
https://www.resea...=prf_act

However, this had nothing to do with testing or not testing hypotheses, nor with devising tests for a conjecture to upgrade it to a hypothesis.
Oh yes it has! You are just too STUPID to understand it!!

Aug 22, 2014
You are now arguing that we should go back to the time when hypotheses were not tested:
This is incorrect and is a massive distortion of my position. If you're just going to make stuff up about me to try to get me riled up, I'll stop paying attention to you.
Oooh! How worried I am! An IDIOT, hiding like a criminal behind a pseudonym, is going to ignore me!! I am mortally insulted: Boo-hoo-hoo!

the Higgs was predicted not merely to be the field that causes mass attributes of quanta, but also to have many other characteristics, such as a lower mass limit, a particular spin, particular decay modes, particular half-lives for these different modes, etc., etc. All of these other qualities have been confirmed. The Higgs is now the Higgs Theory, and Higgs won a Nobel Prize in Physics for it.


There is NO EXPERIMENT THAT PROVES that if there is NOT the noise seen at CERN there will not be rest-mass. Only a moron will claim that the latter has been proved!!


Aug 22, 2014
Which question?
Are you arguing the majority of practicing professional physicists are not experts on physics?


I am arguing that "experts" have been wrong many times in history, and that a person who thinks that a coterie of "experts" cannot ever be wrong is a certifiable moron: Just like you are!!! And will always be until you die!

Aug 22, 2014
So this experiment does NOT prove the existence of particles AT ALL!!
implying experimenting is useless.


No, the incorrect interpretation of experimental results, as in this case, is useless. If you do not have the brains to correctly interpret what you see, as in your case, you should rather keep your trap shut!!

Aug 22, 2014
Hi Schneib. :)
Careful.
Radiation away from the EH of a BH propagates as photons per current theory.
Look up current theory 'interpretations/explanations' re 'infinitely redshifted' light trying to escape from too close vicinity of EH. Where does the energy go when such photons are redshifted so extremally that their photonic energy effectively goes to nil? When the e-m field 'perturbation feature' of such a 'photon' is effectively 'damped to practically zero', then the field has effectively absorbed the 'oscillatory energy' back into its quantum vacuum ground state 'background e-m energy content'.

Sticking with the mainstream.
Who suggested otherwise? I refrained from detailing from my ToE, didn't I; and kept to current conventional quantum vacuum theory for your benefit.

It's an inescapable implication of what you said
You jumping to misconstrued inferences was the problem, not what I said.

So careful, mate, not to sound so 'certain' all the time, ok? Cheers. :)

Aug 23, 2014
What is this... Another bogus interpretation of Higgs boson on BB theory? The last I heard according to CERN Higgs physics explained that after the BANG the universe must have collapsed and not able to sustain.. This is so opposite of reality where the universe is presently sustaining. Yet here we are again with their bogus experiments.

If the universe collapsed, what fueled its expantion after the collapse? That's a rhetorical question. It doesn't have an answer because the Big Bong never happened. someone thinks there is a RELIC micro wave abckground, so then assumed an entire story of the Big Bong right down to what happened to a trillionth of a second after it started. They can lie about this because they know there is a lot of "smart" stoopid people around.

Aug 23, 2014
time is continuous and absolute (not relative as Einstein has incorrectly argued).
There is no absolute time. You are arguing against Special Relativity Theory, which is a foundational theory
Wrong again!!
What "again?" What do you claim was the first time?

I am not arguing against the Special Theory of Relativity
You are arguing against one of its postulates by arguing that "Einstein [was] incorrect" about absolute spacetime, and about relative time and space.

but against the wrong interpretation of this theory.
The postulates of SRT are not "interpretations."

Aug 23, 2014
It does NOT require time to be anything else but absolute.
This is incorrect. Space and time are relative; only spacetime is absolute. The first is a postulate of relativity; the second is a result of it.

On Earth.

In fact, by assuming that a single event can occur at different times is absurd!
Actually, it's irrelevant if it's "absurd;" it's correct. The order of events can be different between observers in inertial frames, moving differently. Which order is correct? Answer: both.

Or that two simultaneous events occur at different times is also absurd, since simultaneous means THE SAME TIME!! It cannot ever mean anything else!
You don't understand relativity.

Aug 23, 2014
I am not arguing against the Special Theory of Relativity
You are arguing against one of its postulates by arguing that "Einstein [was] incorrect" about absolute spacetime, and about relative time and space. Please quote the postulate by Einstein that time is not absolute but relative. Einstein formulated two postulates, and not one of them contains this as a postulate. Clearly you do not know your physics. Have you had some instruction in logic and physics? If you have you should sue your professors, since they are then just as incompetent as Minkowski had been.

but against the wrong interpretation of this theory.
The postulates of SRT are not "interpretations."
I repeat again: Where in Einstein's postulates is it claimed that time is relative and not absolute? You are promoting an urban myth.

Aug 23, 2014
It does NOT require time to be anything else but absolute.
This is incorrect. Space and time are relative; only spacetime is absolute. The first is a postulate of relativity; the second is a result of it.
The FIRST is NOT a part of Einstein's postulates: And space-time cannot exist since the Lorentz-equations are not isometric within a 4D manifold.

In fact, by assuming that a single event can occur at different times is absurd!
Actually, it's irrelevant if it's "absurd;" it's correct.
It is obviously absurd.
The order of events can be different between observers in inertial frames, moving differently. Which order is correct? Answer: both.
WRONG! It only means that an observer cannot "see" a moving event at the actual coincident time that it occurs within his AND the moving reference-frame. This is a result of the Doppler effect: Not of the relativity of time: The latter is absurdly impossible!

It is YOU who wants to believe Voodoo!

Aug 23, 2014
A transform changes one set of coordinates into another, not one physical fact into another.
Wrong again!
You're making stuff up again. I quoted the definition of "transform."

When you do a relativistic coordinate transformation it DOES change one physical fact into another. This is what Galileo argued already 400 years ago.
Where?

It is a pity that Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, Minkowski and all the modern theoretical physicists have been too stupid to understand Galileo.
It's a pity you don't understand Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, and Minkowsky.

How can the original coordinates not be covariant with the new ones, should the underlying physical quantity of them both change?
We were not discussing covariance. We were discussing transforms. And you claimed transforms change the underlying physical reality, an obvious gaffe. See the quote above.

Aug 23, 2014
The coordinates on their own might be, but covariance does not refer to coordinates but to the equations of physics.
The equations of phyics give coordinates as some of their results, and those coordinates are covariant. That's the point of writing the physical equations. Your statement is meaningless.

And the equations of physics can NEVER be covariant under a relativistic coordinate transformation.
This is incorrect. The Lorentz and Poincare symmetries show the invariance of relativistic transforms from one inertial coordinate system to another.

They are only covariant if the origins of the two coordinate systems do NOT move relative to one another.
This is incorrect according to the relativity postulate of SRT. You're making stuff up again.

See: https://www.resea...=prf_act
Why would I bother? You deny relativity.

Aug 23, 2014
Experimental data proves that the Doppler-shifts for electromagntic waves are NOT those of waves moving within an aether!
How can we experiment on aether if it doesn't exist?
Air is the aether of sound waves
Please quote reliable scientific literature that confirms this claim. Otherwise I will dismiss it as more of your made-up fantasies.

Aug 23, 2014
A transform changes one set of coordinates into another, not one physical fact into another.
Wrong again!
You're making stuff up again. I quoted the definition of "transform."
And I quoted the definition of a relativistic transform as it follows logically from Salviati's arguments. You obviously are still a Simplicious!

It's a pity you don't understand Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, and Minkowsky.
They did not understand what they were doing wrong: Why must I agree with what they did wrong?

We were not discussing covariance. We were discussing transforms. And you claimed transforms change the underlying physical reality, an obvious gaffe.
This is exactly what a relativistic transform does. When you "look out" into another IRF in which physics is occurring, you do not see a covariant transformation of the latter physics equations into your IRF. This is what relativity is all about my dear Simplicious! Have you ever heard of the Cariolus-force?

Aug 23, 2014
Experimental data proves that the Doppler-shifts for electromagntic waves are NOT those of waves moving within an aether!
How can we experiment on aether if it doesn't exist?
Air is the aether of sound waves
Please quote reliable scientific literature that confirms this claim. Otherwise I will dismiss it as more of your made-up fantasies.
Are you able to derive the Doppler formulas for say sound waves in air? Are you able to derive the Doppler formulas for light-waves from the Lorentz transformation? It seems you are too incompetent to do this simple physics.

Now, if you have enough brains, which you obviously do not have, you can look these formulas up and you will see that they are different for sound-waves and for light-waves, since the Lorentz tranformation is based on the fact the there is NOT an aether. There are many experiments which measured the Doppler shift of light-waves that proved that the formulas for NO AETHER apply.

Aug 23, 2014
What's "brought it back" mean?
Archimedes started it...
This is incorrect. Archimedes claimed that objects of different mass accelerate at different rates. Galileo proved this wrong.

You're making stuff up again.

This is incorrect. Galileo was permitted to publish a book consisting of a dialog regarding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism
I know this history better
This is obviously incorrect since you claim that Galileo was prosecuted for heliocentrism.

You're making stuff up again.

However, this had nothing to do with testing or not testing hypotheses, nor with devising tests for a conjecture to upgrade it to a hypothesis.
Your answer contained only insults. I reiterate my original claim which you have not successfully refuted.

Aug 23, 2014
Johan, if you can't properly quote you're obviously incompetent to have this discussion. Stop making stuff about what I said up or I will not respond to you again other than to mark everything you say with a 1.

Aug 23, 2014