PDA

View Full Version here: : Higgs Bosen question


xelasnave
23-01-2011, 05:55 PM
I said as a joke that dark matter may be simply groupings of HB's in space.
After I realized how little I understood the HB.

All I know is this. THe HB is thought to exist to give matter mass and there exists a HB field...now I have no idea the extent of this field .. does anyone know if a HB field is very big or very small?

It would seem if the HB is to do its job a HB field must exist everywhere even in remote space...in case some matter gets out there we will need HB's to tell the matter its mass and so it would seem the HB field could be everywhere... I mean I really dont know how to see the HB field and where they are thought to operate and how they are thought to operate.

I ask because nothing I have read gives me a clue.

alex:):):)

CraigS
23-01-2011, 06:08 PM
Do you mean a Higgs Field ?

Cheers

xelasnave
23-01-2011, 06:18 PM
Yes Craig I think so ... in the standard model there is reference to the Higgs Mechanism and the need for such a field and much upon why etc but I cant understand how it will occupy space ..being a field I would think it continues to exist outside matter in much the way magnetism is not limited to the magnet.
Can we see it as similar to a magnetic field... in fact any help may help me consolidate what I have read.

alex

CraigS
23-01-2011, 06:23 PM
Alex;

It seems that a physical description, (or mechanical mechanism), of ANY field is difficult to articulate. (Knowing a little of what you usually seek, I'm going to take a punt that this is what you're after).

And I'll answer it from my own knowledge .. I have no idea how to give you what you seek.

I'm happy for someone who understands QM to handle this one.

Cheers

Robh
23-01-2011, 06:40 PM
Don't look to me for details but I found this useful ...

http://en.wikinoticia.com/culture-science/Science/47314-the-higgs-boson-for-dummies

Regards, Rob

Robh
23-01-2011, 08:07 PM
This is a better communicated version ...
http://www.hep.ucl.ac.uk/~djm/higgsa.html

Rob

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 08:31 AM
Thanks Rob:thumbsup:.
Rather interesting analogy:) ... so politicians can be useful if only to spice up an explanation of physics:D

Having read this material( and other stuff) it seems the suggestion is that the Higgs field exists everywhere (a hypothetical lattice through out space )... no doubt Peter pinched such a concept from the push universe:lol::lol::lol:....

Anyways howe very interesting when one considers the magnitude of this field... I did think and the suggestion is it is everywhere.

So HBs must be everywhere as well is a safe conclusion if no one says contrary.... assuming we are working in a universe that does in fact have HBs...

Now all these HBs are there to make up the field that is everywhere.... my next question would be.... are they at rest or are they traveling all over at or near the speed of light.... I cant imagine they sit still.

I wonder if CERN does not find any will they conclude they are or are not in our universe...

alex:):):)

CraigS
26-01-2011, 08:48 AM
Hi Alex;

A recent Physicsworld article gives an update on things at CERN LHC (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/44805).

In the Section on Supersymmetry:



First time I've seen a scientist say they were in the truth business. ;)
(Mind you, I think he's speaking in another sense of the word).

This would suggest that no matter what they find, the Standard Particle Model & appropriate theory will be adjusted accordingly.
(At least as far as Arkani-Hamed is concerned).

Cheers

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 09:40 AM
Hi Craig Thanks for all of that.

I have never seriously thought that firstly....

a) that they would not find it ...given the investment I would like to think the project was allowed to proceed because the chances of success were very high ..as they should be to justify the investment of money and people on such a scale.

and secondly

b) if they did not find it that the standard model would be adjusted to run without a HB.

I like the concept of the Higgs mechanism as it is so close to the push gravity idea ... they think attraction rules and of course I know that it does not and all forces are of fundamentally a push mechanical nature.

The standard model universe works via a particle that attracts and repels whereas the push universe works by particles pushing (not attracting or repelling)...so I do feel we are close;)

On a side note about CERN.... a cynical friend asked me...over a beer :)

"What is the military interest in CERN as you dont get that sort of funding unless there is a military payoff"

I was horrified but the more I thought the more I wondered....mmmm....

alex:):):)

CraigS
26-01-2011, 09:52 AM
How about seriously thinking that they won't find it ? A bit lopsided there Alex. ;)



.. of course (groan) :sadeyes: :)



another conspiracy theory !!! I love conspiracy theories .. I've got a few of my own !! ...
Man, it would be fun to visit your pub sometime !! (Except my theory here is that ex-patriots leave after too many beers, and experiment with push gravity models involving rock throwing (at moving vehicles )
;):)

Cheers

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 10:01 AM
I am just in a playful mood to day Craig ...the Sun is out and its a holiday.
Have a great day.
alex:):):)

avandonk
26-01-2011, 12:18 PM
I have been to the Synchrotron in Grenoble France. This is a very expensive machine. The politicians most probably have no concept of what it really is. They are after all scientifically ignorant. You have to tell porkies to politicians if you want your great big shiny machine to do experiments. Just say with a wink it will give them world domination and the wallet will be opened. They are only interested in power as they completely lack any redeeming human attributes.
The LHC is the same. It may give us an insight into the putative Higg's Boson.
It may give us some answers. If we do not look at all we are fools.
Bert

CraigS
26-01-2011, 12:40 PM
The LHC is well such a European machine wouldn't you say so ?

Everyone co-operating sharing the burden of the cost . sharing the rewards of the venture everyone living close together in harmony how could anyone say it should have been elsewhere ..? so very European ..

:)

Cheers

avandonk
26-01-2011, 12:56 PM
Craig I went into Grenoble and got pissed. I spent a night in a bar called 'Le Hades' in a 17th century building. The decor was Medieval! When I got back to the Synchrotron one of the armed guards (there is a Nuclear Reactor on site) did not even want to see my pass. They knew where I had been and what I had done! They were to a man the equivalent of our SAS. They just knowingly waved me through.
The LHC is a vast machine an I applaud the people who designed it. I hope to live long enough to see some real results!
As an aside when the Synchrotron at Grenoble first started they had difficulty controlling the beam. It turned out that tidal forces were distorting the whole ring due to tidal distortion of the granite the ring was built in.

bert

CraigS
26-01-2011, 01:03 PM
Glad to hear you made an 'Australian contribution' at Grenoble Bert !

The LHC: I'd love to visit it. I reckon it would be an awesome eye-popper.

"Tidal distortion" ?? what is this ? Gravitational or geo-magnetic ?

Cheers

sjastro
26-01-2011, 01:05 PM
Yeah sure Alex.

If so here are a few questions.

(1) What is the Lagrangian of your system?
(2) What is the symmetry group for the Lagrangian to be invariant?
(3) How does spontaneous symmetry breaking occur for the formation of push particle mass?

I'm sure the sentences are goobledygook but in it lies your answers as to what a Higgs field, mechanism, and boson are.
I'm afraid analogies as provided by Rob are as about as close as one can come to explaining the Higgs mechanism without going into the mathematics which makes GR look very simple.

Particle physicists are confident of finding the Higgs boson.
In a strange twist of fate the predictions of the standard model have gone beyond the Higgs boson.
The discovery of the W and Z bosons in the 1980s require the existence of the Higgs boson.
If there was a a "timeline of discovery", the Higgs boson should have been discovered before the W and Z bosons.
The Higgs mechanism predated electroweak theory which predicted the W and Z bosons.:)

Regards

Steven

avandonk
26-01-2011, 01:11 PM
Tidal implies gravitational!

Yes it was an eye opener. All my concepts for x-ray optics was existing in reality at Grenoble. The Australian Synchrotron in Clayton has got beam lines for Protein Crystallography based on designs from our laboratory in Parkville at CSIRO.

Bert

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 01:11 PM
Is it reasonable to conclude that if the Higgs field exists that the components of the field are the hunted HBs and that they must travel thru space at speeds near C..

and would they not travel in all possible trajectories???..

so that at any (and every point in the Universe) point HBs will pass by at every conceivable angle or trajectory.... in the same way I suggest particles fly all over in a push Universe;)...otherwise what do we have.. All the HBs sitting around all over in states of rest waiting for some matter to pass by upon which it can pounce and give it mass:D.... and so if we have (or must have in my view) a universal field that permeates all there is (both space and matter) could we not consider such to be the aether thrown out by MM?
How does the aether, as first proposed by the Greeks way back when they had multiple Gods with each overseeing his particular department, differ significantly from the field proposed by the Higgs mechanism.... and given the reasonable expectation as to the enormity of numbers of HBs in space and matter could the mass of HBs be linked to the dark matter we seek to explain observed gravitational anomalies and abnormalities...why could it not be that GR merely describes the universal flow of HBs ...and also what contribution do HBs have on gravity?

To recap... how fast do HBs travel and in what direction?

alex:):):)

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 01:21 PM
AND I have to check my numbers ....
IS not neutrino of considerably less mass than a HB?

If so does that not confuse the issue... as it would suggest particles exist with mass but of less mass than the HB... how could this be?

In fact I am sure there must be various particles with mass less than the HB... if so this suggests that it is the operation of the field that gives mass not the interaction between a hb and matter...the same as the push universe machinery:D

I am now going over to the Drake Pub for a progress report on the tracking of planet X and discuss how we can make a gun barrel with a bore the diameter of a HB (higgs bulet).

alex

sjastro
26-01-2011, 01:22 PM
Off topic but a story of human interest.

My sister who is a psychologist was appointed by the mangement of the Australian Synchroton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Synchrotron ) to deal with the collapsing work environment.

Horror stories abound such as particle physicists using the synchroton as a racing track for cars as a protest against management.

Still my sister claims it's easier to deal with particle physicists than mathematicians.

I have no idea where she got that idea.:lol:

Regards

Steven

sjastro
26-01-2011, 01:30 PM
No a Higgs field is not composed of HBs much like an electromagnetic field is not composed of photons. When the field is perturbed through vacuum fluctuations the bosons come into existence.

Higgs bosons cannot travel at C as they have mass.

Regards

Steven

avandonk
26-01-2011, 01:31 PM
Management as usual thought they should manage something they did not understand. The Scientists thought that management should manage the whole enterprise so that some science can be done!
Puerile and facile comments on both sides is what started this mess!

Bert

renormalised
26-01-2011, 01:34 PM
Mathematicians are too abstract....very hard to know what they're thinking :):P:P

Unless, of course, you think in numbers :):P

CraigS
26-01-2011, 01:35 PM
The thing Alex would seem to be looking for is the graviton .. the graviton would be massless, thereby avoiding the above problem, eh ?

Cheers

sjastro
26-01-2011, 01:37 PM
No it doesn't. Think of the velocity of the particle as contributing to the relativistic mass.

Regards

Steven

CraigS
26-01-2011, 01:38 PM
Yeah … better off being an electrical engineer … keep things simple !!
:P:P:P:)

Cheers

renormalised
26-01-2011, 01:43 PM
Alex...think of a field in this way....imagine the flat surface of a pond being a field, stretching out in all directions. Doesn't matter if it's moving or not, the "field" is always there. Now, if you drop a stone in the pond and watch the ripples move out from their point of origin, the ripples can be likened to the particles, each ripple representing a particle and the size of the ripples representing different particles or different energy levels of the one type of particle. Once the disturbance dissipates, the particles disappear but the field remains.

renormalised
26-01-2011, 01:45 PM
Just like Anthony Peratt :):P:P:P

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 01:47 PM
Hi Steven thanks for your input.
I dont know that I can answer your concerns about the push system as everyone is out today and I am the only one working on the idea :).

Answer to no. 1............P=P ;)
answer to no. 2............P/S
answer to no. 3............You assume there needs to be a new particle for a push universe when there are many candidates (in my view). my simple P=P is really what we can hope to find in void like space and really P=E is my point...so simple that folk will not dwell upon the issues such uncovers.

But you are correct as the areas you cover I find difficult to understand... moreover I dont fully understand the idea of super symmetry and find the concept difficult to accept.

I am not sure I even have the general premise of SS correct but it seems to me the idea requires super partners to all particles in our universe..where these super partners exist I also dont understand but it seems the suggestion is they exist in some kind of other dimension or universe...well for what ever reason (ignorance presumably) I dont buy it.

But Steven I assure you I am trying to understand the language of math ...like the concept of symmetry breaking its not a big deal in my book and it seems trivial to think about... does it not simply mean variatio0n of conditions leading to change... the math has run away with a simple notion again ....maybe.

ANYWAYS you know my ignorance and help me address the things I should and I sincerely thank you for that..I really do appreciate your (and others) help.


alex:):):)

avandonk
26-01-2011, 01:47 PM
The first time I went to the synchrotron in Chicago I had a very large argument about the size of their beam. It took four years before they agreed with me. That the beam size should be about the size of the crystal. Any extraneous xrays not hitting the crystal would just add noise!

When they finally agreed a few people had been moved sideways including number one.

The real loss was the time due to stupidity and stubbornness.

Bert

renormalised
26-01-2011, 01:51 PM
Management never likes to be proven wrong, and it's even worse when management is made up of those scientists whose whole raison detre is the project you're working on. You showed them up and they resented it, so since they were in a position of power, they exercised it by shoving you sideways.

avandonk
26-01-2011, 01:56 PM
I should have been more clear. It was not me that was moved. They sacked or moved #1 from the synchrotron in Chicago. Others were told to implement my ideas. The worst part was that they finally implemented all my ideas and then claimed them as a major breakthrough. Self delusion is rampant. Sad, Sad, Sad really.

Bert

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 01:58 PM
Thanks Carl.
I can not imagine a field to be static. It may be the only way we can reduce the concept to manageable terms for math and human understanding but how could it be static... I can not prove this but I will bet that all fields produce their force by the movement of particles... if not we can only get a force by relying on magic..the magic of math which can quantify but does not explain the mechanics. What is happening in a magnetic field ( dont we need some bosens or something moving around?).. some would say its just a field but just play with a magnet and iron dust for hours and you get the feeling a field is no way static.... just my view and guys I know this is belief which does not count so dont worry about my digression.

All I am trying to understand however is how the HBs live and get around and although the math is the best way to understanding I am hopeful I can get a visualization of how it may all work.

alex:):):)

sjastro
26-01-2011, 02:03 PM
I don't see the relevance here Craig. Alex was referring to the speed of HBs.

Regards

Steven

sjastro
26-01-2011, 02:15 PM
Come now Alex. This is what they do at the Tbolts forum. They don't understand the questions so they change the questions to give the appropriate answers.:)

In your own words explain what symmetry breaking is given that you see that it is "no big deal". Symmetry breaking is seen all the time in nature.
Think of a marble sitting on an inverted bowl......

Regards

Steven

renormalised
26-01-2011, 02:18 PM
I'd have recorded all the arguing and such somehow, then when they claimed to have their "major breakthrough" I'd have come out and told it like it was :):)

Or written a paper about it :)

renormalised
26-01-2011, 02:20 PM
It's called "Creation" Science :):P

sjastro
26-01-2011, 02:25 PM
They are very sensitive about being called Creationists.;)

Regards

Steven

Rob_K
26-01-2011, 02:30 PM
"In fact I am sure... if so this suggests... the same as..."

Love your work Alex, but you really should examine what you write more closely. What you have here is a conclusion based on an assumption based on a belief.

Cheers -

Rob

PS: Like I'd know anything, I thought a bosun was a member of a ship's crew...:shrug:

avandonk
26-01-2011, 02:33 PM
Steven in the USA they have this strange partitioning of expertise and responsibility. That way no one is guilty as it is distrubuted amongst the guilty.

I am not complaining as it was a great learning experience.

Bert

avandonk
26-01-2011, 02:35 PM
Yes there are papers and if you want to see all my publications just PM me.

Bert

renormalised
26-01-2011, 02:36 PM
A field, Alex, is like a potential. It has the ability to be something even when there is no disturbance to make it something. That something which drives the change across the field is another potential, so the Higgs Field, in this case, interacts with another field...let's say a particle field. Both induce a change across their respective fields of particular intensities...the particle field produces a proton (let's say) and the higgs field a higgs particle. The higgs particle transfers energy to the proton giving it mass and the proton sets up a "ripple" in the higgs field, generating more higgs particles which in turn give more protons mass. This keeps going until the potentials stop interacting and the disturbance dissipates. Since protons always have mass and a "real" existence, the higgs particles/field are always interacting with the protons. Same with the protons and gravity...add more protons, get more gravity and so the interactions between the particles and the gravitational field increases. So there is a connection between the Higgs Field and the gravitational field via the protons. However, gravitons have no mass, so they don't interact with the Higgs Field....neither do photons.

The "force" within a field is not because it's made up of particles that move, it's essentially a disturbance or movement of information (in this case a change in energy). The particles which may form from the disturbance don't move at all. They only carry the energy of the disturbance and pass it on to the next particle. It's the disturbance which moves...the exchange of information between particles.

renormalised
26-01-2011, 02:41 PM
They're also very sensitive to being called ignorant fools :):P

Which is basically the same....just a little more direct :)

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 03:02 PM
I suppose what I was trying to say was symmetry breaking is seen all the time in nature ...it is sort of obvious something will give just like the marble trying to sit on the bowl... it will roll off...what else would you expect...but these simple expectations are laboured upon as being novel and interesting... Is it right to say it this way..the marble is happy in a hollow (its happy symmetry state) but that happy state will change if we change its environment or break its symmetry?

AND it is true to say I dont understand the questions for they are in another language ...I would attempt answers if made in English if answers are what you want..however I will take it (with good grace) that you draw my attention to a fact I am already aware of that I do not speak math.

I thank you and my brain thanks you for stimulating us both.

alex:):):)

renormalised
26-01-2011, 03:06 PM
They would be interesting to read. I might just do that :)

sjastro
26-01-2011, 03:36 PM
Alex it's not in a happy symmetrical state. The most important point is that marble is in a symmetrical state because it exists in a higher energy level. A marble balanced on top of the bowl has a higher gravitational potential energy. When it rolls off symmetry is broken and the particle losses energy. In QFT terminology it has gone from a false vacuum state to a "true" vacuum state. The energy released by symmetry breaking can initiate a number of mechanisms from inflation to the Higgs mechanism.



And what I don't understand, is that the people who criticize the maths are those that do not understand it or fail to see the physical significance behind the maths.

Regards

Steven

avandonk
26-01-2011, 03:41 PM
Alex most of science is counterintuitive. Wishing or visualizing is not reality. Do you really think that a four hundred tonne plane takes off with a bit of hand waving science? It happens everyday without incident.

The science and engineering behind these aircraft is not unknown.


Bert

CraigS
26-01-2011, 03:54 PM
Absolutely !!

and then, what I don't understand is those people who take the physical insights resulting from the maths, turn around and criticise the maths underpinning it all, and then attempt to bolster themselves by 'talking up' their own ideas, substituted with an incorrect version of their own maths !
(I'm not talking about anyone involved in this thread).

This seems to happen all over the internet these days, with sites set up to specifically achieve this warped goal !

Cheers

renormalised
26-01-2011, 04:09 PM
And I can name a few offhand without even taking a breath :)

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 07:30 PM
Hi Steven I did not mean to sound as if I was criticizing but rather that I recognize my inability with the terminology.

I am old and cranky I know but please do not interpret that at any level other than that... No doubt I get frustrated because I dont have the tools to peruse my interests more deeply.

I spent the day reading about all of this and frankly I am no further ahead and say that the only clarity I have gained today has been because of your input and that of Carl ..and other times Craig is most helpful..as is Bojan..well I could make a list really.

AND you must have noticed you all have had an impact upon me ...I am less whatever these days;)

ANYWAYS thanks again:thanx::thumbsup:

alex:):):):)

xelasnave
26-01-2011, 07:46 PM
There is nothing that you have said Bert that I can not but agree.
My point of "visualizing" the HB and or the Higgs field is to understand how it works...to somehow imagine in my mind how it works given all the information that I gather upon the subject.


Take the concept of a wing contour ..there is a reason why a wing has lift... and although one can not "see" the difference in the behavior of the air under and above the wing when moving I think it is easy to "visualize" how the effect works. Now there is so much more to consider..thrust, drag, weight but without a limited understanding of what is going on under and above the wing it would be impossible to explain the rest of the considerations because ones mind would never get past the why does it lift question...

I am designing a plane at the moment which is about to model stage... a flying boat really... and I have been reading all I can find on air craft... anyways I understand what you all say about the math science relationship and my obsession with gravity etc is unfortunate with no tools... but I go on..and on some would say:lol::lol::lol:

I still believe of myself that I dont go that far overboard but of course that is a mere belief and perhaps no reflection of reality.

alex:):):)

KenGee
30-01-2011, 01:35 AM
Hi Alex, If I may try and help here what they guys a trying to say is, you really do have to understand the math to understand it. Think of it this way, Do you speak another language? Often people will talk about thinking in French and having to swap over to thinking in English. The whole deal with Maths is, it is a language, a very beautiful language unlike any other we have ( for a start it's based on logic ). Think of the word Hygge look it up here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Denmark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Denmark)
It's a difficult concept to understand without knowing the language, so no easy answer Alex in fact people may draw you away from the real answer in an attempt to help you understand.
BTW I'm bilingual my native tongue is gibberish though I do speak a bit of English.

xelasnave
30-01-2011, 01:52 PM
Hi Kenny ..thanks for the link:thanx::thumbsup:.

I have worked out maths is another language that is for sure:).
Nevertheless I still want to know what is being said and how maths describes reality.

If the maths is translated finally what is being said about the higgs field:shrug:.

My impression is the field must be universal and the Higgs Bosen must be everywhere...I dont know if something has been lost in my translation however.

Still I wont give up on seeking an understanding of the reality that is our Universe and how science sees how it works.

I am not getting enough net time to follow up on so many things but I am interested now in finding out the mass of a HB and how its mass compares with other particles.

I think I commented somewhere above that I recalled that a neutrino had less mass than a HB ... I dont recall the numbers and I dont hold numbers in memory but I am sure that there are particles with mass less than the HB and if so I will wonder more on how the HB works.

Although I dont understand the math it would seem if such were so such a situation would defy logic as how could the HB impart only a fraction of its mass... and although I may be barking up the wrong tree finally I will find out more even without the math..or so I do hope.

Although dangerous in some respects I do like the visualizations given in some utube movies but none really suggest how the Higgs mechanism works. So far it seems some sticky little critter that bumps into particles and there by gives them mass... I cant imagine it is so simp-le as this would be no more than the push idea really.

AND notwithstanding everyone's call that I must know the math I can not fathom why the math can not be translated to describe the reality it seeks to describe. After all it is logic that the formulas that is the language of math.

I lack the time at the moment to read more than your link.
Thanks again for your help as always I really do appreciate it.

alex:):):)

CraigS
30-01-2011, 02:14 PM
Maths is more than just a language to be translated.

Maths provides answers to a vital part of the empirical side of science questioning.

It provides the quantitative perspective and without that perspective, it is not science.

For example, the very questions you ask Alex:



.. is an empirical question, requiring an empirical explanation. It only defies logic, because there is no logic, without the logic which underpins maths.



The internal logic of maths quite often has significance within the maths domain, but has no physical significance (ie: no translation into English). I'm not saying this is the case with the HB mechanism, but how would you understand it, if there was no physical analogy for the maths logic underpinning the result ?

Also, maths can condense huge verbosity in verbal language, down to a succinct relationship described in text and meta-language. Frequently, this IS the description which answers the empirical questions. If it contains a meta-language concept, how could you ever understand what it is telling you ?

Eg: if I was to say that 'r' is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the 2-sphere … what would that mean to you ?

Cheers

CraigS
30-01-2011, 02:33 PM
Alex;

Steven found this link (http://www.phy.uct.ac.za/courses/phy400w/particle/higgs.htm) a while ago now

and Carl came up with this beauty



:lol::lol::)

Cheers

sjastro
30-01-2011, 04:52 PM
Here is the answer again.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showpost.php?p=680761&postcount=25

Regards

Steven

sjastro
03-02-2011, 08:34 AM
Note the remarkable similarities between how creationists and EU advocates argue against science.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Page11.xhtml

http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/Imperfections.xhtml

Substitute the term "creationist" for "EU advocate" and the result is the same.:D

http://www.creationtheory.org/Arguments/DebatingTips.xhtml

Also applies to how to debate an EU advocate.

Regards

Steven

CraigS
03-02-2011, 11:04 AM
Some would say why even bother debating with them ?
..Let them go, let them set up their own website, to recruit those who seem to be unwilling to pursue a thorough understanding of mainstream's explanations for physical phenomena.

But it is just not that simple. Whole areas of Science have been hijacked and are now even beyond debate on certain forums, (such as this one). Climatology/Atmospheric Physics and Genetically Modified Crops/Bio-Engineering, are two classic examples.

Are we to ignore those who give up on the mainstream science process, and take their distorted views directly into the public arena for tacit consensus approval … thereby leaving mainstream science with the image of being a 'grand conspiracy' ?

I could never bring myself to call someone an 'ignorant fool' during such a debate as unfortunately, no-one has ever appointed me as a 'Judge' of others. I might call somebody on exhibiting 'silly', maybe even 'foolish' behaviours, as these can be modified (if so desired), by the protagonist. This is not as absolute as branding someone as a 'fool', from which there is seemingly never any escape, and implies that the accuser is above ever exhibiting this characteristic (which is highly unlikely).

As far as understanding debating 'logical fallacies' and how to form a rational argument … this might work if there is a semblance of rationality behind BOTH debaters AND there are 'rules' which guide the debate. Unfortunately, I'm starting to feel that the instances where all of these are present, is a rarity, tending towards the extreme.

Cheers

sjastro
03-02-2011, 03:38 PM
Craig,

The issue here is that there is no debate.

A scientific debate is where the "loser" can make a positive contribution by forcing science into addressing their claims.
For example in the Bohr-Einstein debates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr%E2%80%93Einstein_debates )over)) over Quantum mechanics, Einstein ultimately lost the debate, but the wealth of information generated by the protagonists left Quantum mechanics in a much stronger state.
Your issues over quantum entanglement, Bell's Theorem etc are dealt with in the debates.

As I mentioned to you in a PM, I'm not terribly interested in the specific views of individuals. It's when the view is manifested in a campaign of lies, deceit and misinformation over mainstream science I feel compelled to present mainstream as it is, not the strawman account fashioned by creationists and EU advocates.

From that aspect Creationism and EU are inseparable. Rather than engaging in a scientific debate both parties see mainstream as an ideological foe.

It doesn't provide the necessary ingredients for a debate.

Regards

Steven

CraigS
03-02-2011, 04:51 PM
Whole heartedly agree . I also see no debate ! Pity 'EU advocates', or even 'EU theorists', can't see it too.

Your above example was a productive debate.

EU vs everyone else, generally isn't.
:)




And its great that you take the time to do this, too (IMHO).
I can see no other way to handle this issue.

I also have real concerns with those who go further by attempting to suppress the presentation of mainstream facts, (which I also see, very frequently).

Using flawed, distorted scientific principles, philosophy and incorrect mathematical arguments to 'prove' that their argument contains no opinions, is distasteful and deceitful, to me.

Unwillingness to even spend a moment to consider that they may be basing their 'arguments' on a completely flawed understanding of mainstream science, also seems to be extremely common.

That these occurrences have become as big a problem as they evidently have, is a major concern for us all.



Again, I whole-heartedly agree.

Cheers & Rgds

xelasnave
07-02-2011, 11:23 AM
Sorry to take so long to get back.
Thanks again Steven and Craig.
Sorry to make you chew your cabbage twice Steven re velocity and mass.
If the HB has a "mass" then should we not say it has a particlular mass at a particular velocity?... I guess CERN must know the velocity that it will escape or seperate whatever and the expected mass will be based on the velocity they expect to observe the HB.
I am finding the more I learn the more questions I raise....
Thanksagain I know how I must frustrate you all and it is with such an appreciation that I thank you all.

alex:):)

xelasnave
14-02-2011, 09:19 AM
I have been thinking about the relationship between mass and velocity:eyepop:.

I think Special Relativity suggests that as a particle approaches C its mass increases :shrug: so I wonder along the following lines.

As the velocity of the accelerated particles in the CERN accelerator increases it would seem that their mass increases also.

IF I am correct so far I ask:question: ...given that the HB gives mass can we conclude that as the particles accelerate to higher velocities they "pick up" more HB,s so as to give more mass..if HBs give mass and the mass increases with velocity it seems there may be a relationship between velo0city and either the number of HBs or at least a change in the relationship.. I am sorry that I cant speak math and I hope someone can understand what it is I am trying to ask.

Also thinking about a possible military application I wonder what damage would the accelerated particles do if they could be redirected and smashed into a gum tree or a car or anything really (I know they have particles going in both directions but if we took only one set for blasting a gum tree etc)...the reason why I wonder is although CERN could be a large canon it would be difficult to use given is is underground and huge etc..mobilitry would seem to render it useless as a weapon.. but what if we had an accelerator orbiting in space able to direct the accelerated particles to targets on Earth... would the accelerated particles be like a huge (er maybe small:)) shotgun blast or would they be too small etc to have any effect? Could we use such a canon to take out enemy space stations (for example)...forget the power etc could it do the job I speculate upon?

Curious thoughts I know but I have been in the bush alone, (no TV or radio even reading material) since my last posts and had too much time to think I guess.

alex:):):)