Higgs Bosen question

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

Yes there are papers and if you want to see all my publications just PM me.

Bert

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

They are very sensitive about being called Creationists.

Regards

Steven

They're also very sensitive to being called ignorant fools

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

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Yes there are papers and if you want to see all my publications just PM me.

Bert

They would be interesting to read. I might just do that

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

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?

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 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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

And I can name a few offhand without even taking a breath

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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

alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by avandonk

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

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

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 (Kenith Gee)]

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
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]

Hi Kenny ..thanks for the link.

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.

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]

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:

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…

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

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.

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]

Alex;

Steven found this link a while ago now …

and Carl came up with this beauty …

Originally Posted by renormalised

There once was a guy named Peter Higgs
Loved his astronomy as well as his figs
Wondered why atoms were so damn heavy
Not one equation to define this he could levy

But one day an idea he saw that appealed
An answer as easy as a scalar field
But to give them some mass he had to arrange
Something as simple as a particle exchange

To tie them down as they whizzed on by
An exchange of energy whilst on the fly
But what could give such a boost by post on
Another particle perhaps, a truly big boson

But how to produce such an enormous mass
Out of this new field it sounded so crass
So instead of resorting to magical trickery
All that it took was some broken symmetry

Hooray and hoorah, Peter became famous
With something so simple it really did shame us
And now there's a particle that we rely the most on
To give us some weight, the Higg's bloody boson!!!

Cheers

[sjastro]

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.

Here is the answer again.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...1&postcount=25

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by sjastro http://www.iceinspace.com.au/vbiis/i...s/viewpost.gif
They are very sensitive about being called Creationists.

Regards

Steven

Originally Posted by renormalised

They're also very sensitive to being called ignorant fools

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

Note the remarkable similarities between how creationists and EU advocates argue against science.

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

http://www.creationtheory.org/Argume...fections.xhtml

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

http://www.creationtheory.org/Argume...tingTips.xhtml

Also applies to how to debate an EU advocate.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

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]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

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 ) 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]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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 ) 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.

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.

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

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.

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

Again, I whole-heartedly agree.

Cheers & Rgds