Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

Recommended Posts

On Newsnight tonight - CERN are to make an announcement on Tuesday that they have found evidence of the existence of the HB particle.

I hope so because I'm just starting to understand a little about the current theories of particle physics - I don't want to have to start again on a new theory :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to bet you 50 quid the higgs boson is never found!

Mass is the product of relativistic effects of virtual particles under extreme angular momentum.The force of gravity is an emerging force from a region of space time containing a large number of these particles.Mass does not curve space time, it is curved space-time that causes mass!

Mass is confined energy and energy is simply the momentum of particles in a particular direction.

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take that bet DarkStar. My side of the bet is opened ended, your best possible outcome is not to lose.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A respected scientist from the Cern has told the BBC...
Gets evermore like the world of tabloid scandal... :) :)

But, following the (blog) paper chase from the above:

Higgs rumour anaylsis points to 125 GeV viXra log

2-3...4 sigma? Who knows? Yet... :(

P.S. The learned comments to the following are intriguing - Poetic, even? :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2011/dec/06/is-higgs-boson-real

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Darkstar7 a few questions for you,

What are these virtual particles you refer to?

Did Einstein not predict mass curves space-time and Eddington prove he was correct?

What 'confines' the energy as mass?

Are the Sun, Earth and Moon's masses a collection of relativistically affected virtual particles with extreme angular momentum due to curved space time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Darkstar7 a few questions for you,

What are these virtual particles you refer to?

Flat space-time has produces no force and no momentum. Virtual particles are produced by curving space-time in a particular way. Virtual particles are related to hiesenburgs uncertainty principle.

Did Einstein not predict mass curves space-time and Eddington prove he was correct?

I argue that curved space time produces mass. Ie The other way round.

What 'confines' the energy as mass?

Special relativity in relation to angular momentum. All momentum has to be bounded within limits. You are aware of speed of light, but all momentum has limits including angular momentum. You can not have an object spinning with infinite frequency, that is why photons form. Photons are packets of solitron waves packets that occur due to relativistic effects in the 5th dimension.

Are the Sun, Earth and Moon's masses a collection of relativistically affected virtual particles with extreme angular momentum due to curved space time?

Basically Yes, twisted space-time of Evans Field theory. Everything is made electromagnetic waves of different energies. With increasing frequency and energies-, space time becomes a photon solitron wave which becomes a meson boson, which which becomes a pair of quarks, which becomes a neutrino and lepton.

E =MC^2 Mass is energy, energy is momentum in a particular direction. Virtual particles spinning is momentum in an angular direction. Seems obvious to me that mass emerges from spinning spacetime.

Edited by DarkStar7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DarkStar7,

I am a little old fashioned in outlook in that if a theory is to be accepted, then it should be supported by experimental evidence.

Wasn’t the mathematics supporting the Evans Field theory shown to be incorrect.?

Where is the testable evidence to support your theory?

At least Einstein’s theory was supported by Eddington’s measurements.

There is no evidence for other dimensions, only a theoretical possibility, so all assumptions based on it are mere conjecture.

I find it a little unlikely that I am spinning space time, spinning makes me dizzy and I can prove I am not dizzy by walking in a straight line!

(Just to show all budding scientists should have a sense of humour).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I'm getting awfully confused now. I DO agree re. experimental evidence / supporting math(s) etc. :)

Aside: Working my way (belatedly) through my NEW "Griffiths". Stuff I should've known, back in the 80s... :)

The mind is certainly less... "dexterous" these days sadly. <sigh> :)

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if what is going to be announced is that evidence of a Higgs field...has been recorded....rather than a Higgs- Boson particle found

Edited by Space Bat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We now have to contend with a "mature" internet, where informal, internal (collaboration!) confidentiality re. discoveries has little meaning... :) A sign of the times, I guess? <shrug> Blog on Physicists... Jog on Kitties? :)

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious then what those who don't believe in the Higgs make of this new announcement showing signs of the Higgs behaving and being located where they thought it would do/be?

And if it isn't the Higgs what is it they are looking at that supposedly behaves just like the Higgs should?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really about the immense practical difficulties of extracting experimental results. A vast chain of "hardware" that has to work, the calibration thereof, triggering (event selection) electronics that has to work, even before one impose the prejudice of software cuts, data analysis... and compares it with [supposed] theoretical prediction. :)

"Signal versus background", basically. Not totally unlike looking for a faint DSO in light-polluted skies. Is it there or not? Do you "see it" because you know it's "supposed to be there" from your star map etc. Or do you need a bigger telescope, a "longer exposure" etc. The LATTER in this case, I sense. :)

Edited by Macavity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Newsnight tonight - CERN are to make an announcement on Tuesday that they have found evidence of the existence of the HB particle.

I hope so because I'm just starting to understand a little about the current theories of particle physics - I don't want to have to start again on a new theory :)

BBC News - LHC: Higgs boson 'may have been glimpsed'

Going back in time in the VERY EARLY Universe, when the Temperature of the universe was equivalent in Energy to 124-125 gigaelectronvolts (GeV), what other particles would have been in the particle soup with the Higgs Boson and what would the interactions have been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is everything made of flipping particles? Particles have been shown to be packets of waves. The universe is not a snooker tournament. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is everything made of flipping particles? Particles have been shown to be packets of waves. The universe is not a snooker tournament. Lol

Ok what if I rephrased to String Vibrations...Would I now get a response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry NeutrinoWave that statement wasn't directed at any one here. String theory will do nicely... This Higgs field.. What's the difference between this and a magnetic flux field within a Dirac sea of electrons and positrons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is magnetism works on protons and electrons - easy to see with trivial experiments. Neutrons are unaffected by magnetism, but still have mass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is everything made of flipping particles? Particles have been shown to be packets of waves. The universe is not a snooker tournament. Lol

What physicists call "particles" are quantized excitations of quantum fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What physicists call "particles" are quantized excitations of quantum fields.

I like that answer, but quantized implies discrete does it not, is there room for smooth functions.

Waves could be continuous mathematically.

Are string vibrations, discrete or smooth?

Edited by NeutrinoWave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.