http://www.physorg.com/news12049.html
With a confidence level of 99.99 percent let me propose that if a tree gets the mass it has from its parent seed, then the postulate is rational that the universe gets the mass it has from the parent seed of the universe – i.e., what is dubbed the Higgs particle. As the Higgs particle interacts with chaos, its field of life or cosmic biofield, known as the quantum vacuum, acts upon the elementary particles of chaos, and synthesizes them into the mass of the universe for the reproduction of itself.
From the inference that life constitutes the perpetual seed of the universe follows that the Higgs mechanism is the cosmic seed’s mechanism, and consequently mass-giving is life-giving. The perpetual cosmic seed or Higgs boson – prophetically dubbed the God particle – exists in a state of supersymmetry, consisting of two opposite but complementary superpartners or cosmic common ancestors, whom we’ll call Y and X (or, if you will, male and female). When the seed of the universe feels an inner urge to have progeny, the superpartners break their supersymmetry by the act of self-division. Their subsequent recombination into the zygote of the next universe, and the generation of a cosmic biofield by that zygote, results the birth of the universe, and the synthesis of the elementary particles of chaos into the cosmic system’s structure. Most importantly, when the universe reaches maturity, it yields XY progeny in the XY cosmic seed’s image, similarly as a tree yields seeds in the parent seed’s image. The XY progeny’s division into X and Y partners, and their sexual reunion, led to the proliferation of human beings in the universe.
Thus from systems cosmology’s point of view the Higgs boson is literally the God particle because it constitutes the seed of the universe – i.e., the cosmic system’s input and output. We can predict with confidence that experimentalists at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, or at Fermilab’s Tevatron, are not going to detect the parent Higgs particle, only its reproductions, provided they look into the mirror and take a closer look at themselves or at each other.
Kazmer Ujvarosy
San Francisco
QUOTE
synthesizes them into the mass of the universe for the reproduction of itself
how does causing particles to have mass reproduce the higgs particle?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| synthesizes them into the mass of the universe for the reproduction of itself |
how does causing particles to have mass reproduce the higgs particle?
From the inference that life constitutes the perpetual seed of the universe
what is the basis for this inference?
and why does any of this mean that the higgs particle will not be seen at the LHC, if anything what you say would mean any production of matter from energy should produce Higgs particles....
QUOTE
As the Higgs particle interacts with chaos, its field of life or cosmic biofield, known as the quantum vacuum, acts upon the elementary particles of chaos, and synthesizes them into the mass of the universe for the reproduction of itself.
Remember that the "names" given sub-atomic particles are OURS! The "anti" may be the "real", and the "real" the "anti". All creation can be reversed in our awareness simply by swaping "names". "Higgs" may be the only "real" thing in our atoms and the rest mearly "expressions". 'Lost you yet?
E. L. Earnhardt
E. L. Earnhardt
Excellent points. Indeed, "Higgs" seems to be the only reality, and the rest only the expressions of Higgs.
OK Shemi, you would like to know how the higgs particle reproduces itself by generating from the elements of chaos the structure of the universe. The answer is this: the Higgs boson reproduces itself the same way as a seed reproduces itself by generating from the elements of its environment a tree system.
In a nutshell, just as a tree is the seed's way of making reproductions of itself, the universe is the Higgs boson's way of making reproductions of itself.
In a nutshell, just as a tree is the seed's way of making reproductions of itself, the universe is the Higgs boson's way of making reproductions of itself.
ok--all that talk is pretty fancy---I'm trying to understand it----the seed exists in super symmetry? Reproduces ? OK---sounds like fission vs fusion? which would win in a battle between fission and fusion? And what the heck is an electron anyway? Does anyone else ever doubt they exist as matter? And what is a charge? It's defined as the intrinsic property of all matter? What is it? Where do those tau electrons go when they "die"? where does the charge go? What is gravity? The "force" between two bodies? I don't get it? Like dust bunnies under the bed right? everything gathers? But that's cuz of the breeze right? This curiosity about the origin and meaning of life is so frustrating---and you "geeks" 
(don't get mad) do not make it any easier for the rest of us because you guys talk all geeky. Talk dumb OK? So I can talk to you 
I want to talk about the creation and afterlife, to an educated person. Anyone?
(don't get mad) do not make it any easier for the rest of us because you guys talk all geeky. Talk dumb OK? So I can talk to you I want to talk about the creation and afterlife, to an educated person. Anyone?
if energy stream could be tuned into freaquency of matter anti-matter change of rate. a cration of a EMPTY space between two points in space. the distance between this two points could be zero thously travel between this two points would be zero. An instantanious matter transporter.
fatster that speed of light could be achiver
the amount of energy required dipends on how long and how wide the portal needed.
if two send information between two points
the length could be great but the width would be small
to send a message from here for a light year. the width of the portal could be less that a nanometer thously requiring very little energy. but to send a ship through that is couple hundret of metters wide. the amount of energy would be greatly increased
The total energy required would be equal to how much matter there is. and matching the total matter and energy count between this two points.
well think about it. if matter is its own anti matter. then imagine two matter coexisting in the same point. but they flip now and then. they flip into coexisting space that is we and we. the flip time has its a point where no matter nor anti matter exist at the same point. thously another matter can pass through that point without coliding with the matter that is there if it travels there at the speed greater or equal to the flip. think about radiation and it can pass through skin and stuff.
now imagine that all matter came from the same stuff. meaning that all matter is the same. that flip time creates diferent forces which thne creates more heavy matter. if the flip is fast then the matter is heavier and has more energy. if it has faster flip time then it has more energy, if it has more energy more force is there . then same matter or particles can combine together to create heavy solid objects.
If two matters (anti and not anti) matter colide they create energy equal them self. thously the space that we live doesent get destroyed becouse matter and anti matter never mets in between. actually they do meet in between but imagine them spining at the center. but never in its diameter. thously each time in the between space becouse particles are + and - they atract to each other. then when they are in there own seperate space their circular force pushish them away of each other. then they are in between and all over again.
wow i need to do some calculations to prove.
its my theory,
Yuri Shnirman march 25 2006
fatster that speed of light could be achiver
the amount of energy required dipends on how long and how wide the portal needed.
if two send information between two points
the length could be great but the width would be small
to send a message from here for a light year. the width of the portal could be less that a nanometer thously requiring very little energy. but to send a ship through that is couple hundret of metters wide. the amount of energy would be greatly increased
The total energy required would be equal to how much matter there is. and matching the total matter and energy count between this two points.
well think about it. if matter is its own anti matter. then imagine two matter coexisting in the same point. but they flip now and then. they flip into coexisting space that is we and we. the flip time has its a point where no matter nor anti matter exist at the same point. thously another matter can pass through that point without coliding with the matter that is there if it travels there at the speed greater or equal to the flip. think about radiation and it can pass through skin and stuff.
now imagine that all matter came from the same stuff. meaning that all matter is the same. that flip time creates diferent forces which thne creates more heavy matter. if the flip is fast then the matter is heavier and has more energy. if it has faster flip time then it has more energy, if it has more energy more force is there . then same matter or particles can combine together to create heavy solid objects.
If two matters (anti and not anti) matter colide they create energy equal them self. thously the space that we live doesent get destroyed becouse matter and anti matter never mets in between. actually they do meet in between but imagine them spining at the center. but never in its diameter. thously each time in the between space becouse particles are + and - they atract to each other. then when they are in there own seperate space their circular force pushish them away of each other. then they are in between and all over again.
wow i need to do some calculations to prove.
its my theory,
Yuri Shnirman march 25 2006
Chicken or Egg....Both please, extra bacon
Ok, wonderful posts everyone.
I really am enthralled by this subject! (I am not a scientist yet, only have my High School Diploma) What if we could somehow take these mesons out of the matter-anti-matter particles as they switch between states? Lets say we could somehow stretch out the particle as it switched between matter and anti-matter. Would these mesons then have to travel a further distance? Could we then somehow restrict their movement between states thus causing energy loss on the system? We could then divert this energy into a resivouir and use it to power our space-ships!!
I really am enthralled by this subject! (I am not a scientist yet, only have my High School Diploma) What if we could somehow take these mesons out of the matter-anti-matter particles as they switch between states? Lets say we could somehow stretch out the particle as it switched between matter and anti-matter. Would these mesons then have to travel a further distance? Could we then somehow restrict their movement between states thus causing energy loss on the system? We could then divert this energy into a resivouir and use it to power our space-ships!!
Theory Of CPH
The greatest problem in theoretical physics is how quantum theory and general relativity are combinable? Scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories - the general relativity and quantum mechanics... The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hands, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales. These two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct. There are many ways to do combine these theories and many theories such as Loop Quantum Theory and String Theory had propounded.
But Theory of CPH (Theory of Creation Fundamental Particle Boson Higgs) takes a new way. CPH Theory has reconsidered 4 theories (Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Higg). In fact CPH Theory is a new looking and developing of Quantum Chromodynamic. So, CPH Theory is a Sub Quantum Chromodynamic theory.
Why CPH Theory have propounded?
CPH Stands of: Creation Particle Higgs, in CPH theory we will study how the fundamental particles were created. The second CPH Theory is based on a
D
efinition of CPH and a simply principle. Also, in discussion with my dear colleagues and other guys, I found understanding the properties of CPH and CPH principle needs a little assiduity. Please do attend that CPH properties come of theoretical physic’s ambiguities and experimental conceptions, that have explain in section two. In this section I will give you the logical reasons that had make the CPH theory foundation. In section three you will see definition and principle of CPH. Section four has a few analyses about CPH Theory. Others sections belong to explaining the modern physics ambiguities by CPH theory. In fact CPH theory is an empiric and sensibility theory. And it does different CPH Theory with other theories.
Experimental Foundation of CPH Theory
Many physicists, such as Faraday and Planck noted the great similarities between electric fields and gravity. If a unified field theory can be found, someone must resolve whether or not it is based on particles and gravity fields or electromagnetic fields. But CPH theory is some in between these two concepts.
CPH Theory started of relationship between force and energy. Photon appears to have no further internal substructure. But many phenomenon's as Compton Effect, pair production, red-shift and blue-shift… show photon has a structure.
We know there is a unit informer in universe that is photon, and all of our information’s of universe transfer by photon. Until we do not know everything about photon and its structure, our information’s about universe is questionable.
Theory of CPH have proclaimed by a simply definition of CPH and a principle that calls CPH Principle. By a looking, seems Definition and principle of CPH are understandable easy, but in discussion with other physicist I found for understanding CPH Theory, it needs to time and precision. Because traveling our mind of quantum mechanics and relativity word to sub-quantum area has combined with its difficulties.
Color charge and magnet color
A photon becomes energy-laden by revolving. We know this because the electromagnetic fields around a "ray of electromagnetic" are electromagnetic waves not static fields.
According TO CPH Theory, gravity is a currency among objects. For example consider the interaction between the earth and the moon:
Earth has a gravitational field. The gravitational field is formed by gravitons that are moving toward the earth and they are interacting with each other. Suppose the earth is alone and there are no interactions between earth and other bodies in universe. When gravitons (in fact color charge) reach the earth, the earth absorbs them. Look at a positive color-charge that reaches to an atom on the earth. Its effect is positive charge, so absorb with an electron. This positive color charge is not able annihilates the electron’s charge, and does disarrange the conserving of electron’s charge. So, electron excretes positive color-charge. But positive color charge has positive effect charge and pulls the electron behind of it Analyses of CPH Theory.) toward the moon. Also when a graviton reaches the moon, the same projection happens on the moon. So, every thing is bombarded by gravitons continuously.
Maxwell Equations in Gravitational Field
As explain before, when photon is falling in a gravitational field, gravitons behave like charge field and magnet field, and they are called color-charge magnet-color. So, there is an especial relationship between electromagnetic waves and gravity. As we know electromagnetic waves subordinate of Maxwell equations. So, depending gravity and electromagnetic waves should subordinate of equations like Maxwell equations. Question is that how we can find these equations? We can do according Color-charge and magnetic-color.
CPH bends space
Now suppose light is moving in gravitational field of a massive body. Gravity works on it. When distance between photon and massive body goes to short, light shifts to blue like photon is falling. But when distance between photon and massive body goes to long, light shifts to red like photon escapes
Absolute Black holes
A massive body first eats matter, then eats light (it is a block hole), and the end eats gravity. It is an absolute black hole. According to CPH Theory every thing is formed by CPH and nucleus is formed by CPH too. CPHs are moving with a spin near each other in structure of nucleus. CPH has Spin and transferring movement so its amount speed is constant and equals
For all CPH Theory articles with formats PDF DOC and HTM see:
The General Science Journal
http://www.wbabin.net/
CPH Theory site;
http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/C1122-gsj.htm
http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/eCPH-Theory.pdf
http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/C1090-ebookcph.htm
The greatest problem in theoretical physics is how quantum theory and general relativity are combinable? Scientists describe the universe in terms of two basic partial theories - the general relativity and quantum mechanics... The general theory of relativity describes the force of gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. Quantum mechanics, on the other hands, deals with phenomena on extremely small scales. These two theories are known to be inconsistent with each other - they cannot both be correct. There are many ways to do combine these theories and many theories such as Loop Quantum Theory and String Theory had propounded.
But Theory of CPH (Theory of Creation Fundamental Particle Boson Higgs) takes a new way. CPH Theory has reconsidered 4 theories (Classical Mechanics, Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and Higg). In fact CPH Theory is a new looking and developing of Quantum Chromodynamic. So, CPH Theory is a Sub Quantum Chromodynamic theory.
Why CPH Theory have propounded?
CPH Stands of: Creation Particle Higgs, in CPH theory we will study how the fundamental particles were created. The second CPH Theory is based on a
D
efinition of CPH and a simply principle. Also, in discussion with my dear colleagues and other guys, I found understanding the properties of CPH and CPH principle needs a little assiduity. Please do attend that CPH properties come of theoretical physic’s ambiguities and experimental conceptions, that have explain in section two. In this section I will give you the logical reasons that had make the CPH theory foundation. In section three you will see definition and principle of CPH. Section four has a few analyses about CPH Theory. Others sections belong to explaining the modern physics ambiguities by CPH theory. In fact CPH theory is an empiric and sensibility theory. And it does different CPH Theory with other theories.
Experimental Foundation of CPH Theory
Many physicists, such as Faraday and Planck noted the great similarities between electric fields and gravity. If a unified field theory can be found, someone must resolve whether or not it is based on particles and gravity fields or electromagnetic fields. But CPH theory is some in between these two concepts.
CPH Theory started of relationship between force and energy. Photon appears to have no further internal substructure. But many phenomenon's as Compton Effect, pair production, red-shift and blue-shift… show photon has a structure.
We know there is a unit informer in universe that is photon, and all of our information’s of universe transfer by photon. Until we do not know everything about photon and its structure, our information’s about universe is questionable.
Theory of CPH have proclaimed by a simply definition of CPH and a principle that calls CPH Principle. By a looking, seems Definition and principle of CPH are understandable easy, but in discussion with other physicist I found for understanding CPH Theory, it needs to time and precision. Because traveling our mind of quantum mechanics and relativity word to sub-quantum area has combined with its difficulties.
Color charge and magnet color
A photon becomes energy-laden by revolving. We know this because the electromagnetic fields around a "ray of electromagnetic" are electromagnetic waves not static fields.
According TO CPH Theory, gravity is a currency among objects. For example consider the interaction between the earth and the moon:
Earth has a gravitational field. The gravitational field is formed by gravitons that are moving toward the earth and they are interacting with each other. Suppose the earth is alone and there are no interactions between earth and other bodies in universe. When gravitons (in fact color charge) reach the earth, the earth absorbs them. Look at a positive color-charge that reaches to an atom on the earth. Its effect is positive charge, so absorb with an electron. This positive color charge is not able annihilates the electron’s charge, and does disarrange the conserving of electron’s charge. So, electron excretes positive color-charge. But positive color charge has positive effect charge and pulls the electron behind of it Analyses of CPH Theory.) toward the moon. Also when a graviton reaches the moon, the same projection happens on the moon. So, every thing is bombarded by gravitons continuously.
Maxwell Equations in Gravitational Field
As explain before, when photon is falling in a gravitational field, gravitons behave like charge field and magnet field, and they are called color-charge magnet-color. So, there is an especial relationship between electromagnetic waves and gravity. As we know electromagnetic waves subordinate of Maxwell equations. So, depending gravity and electromagnetic waves should subordinate of equations like Maxwell equations. Question is that how we can find these equations? We can do according Color-charge and magnetic-color.
CPH bends space
Now suppose light is moving in gravitational field of a massive body. Gravity works on it. When distance between photon and massive body goes to short, light shifts to blue like photon is falling. But when distance between photon and massive body goes to long, light shifts to red like photon escapes
Absolute Black holes
A massive body first eats matter, then eats light (it is a block hole), and the end eats gravity. It is an absolute black hole. According to CPH Theory every thing is formed by CPH and nucleus is formed by CPH too. CPHs are moving with a spin near each other in structure of nucleus. CPH has Spin and transferring movement so its amount speed is constant and equals
For all CPH Theory articles with formats PDF DOC and HTM see:
The General Science Journal
http://www.wbabin.net/
CPH Theory site;
http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/C1122-gsj.htm
http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/eCPH-Theory.pdf
http://cph-theory.persiangig.com/C1090-ebookcph.htm
yeah, trees get the bulk of their mass from the atmosphere. you have to start over.
Read it it's pretty intersting.
I am actually very interested in this matter-antimatter particle accelerator, but it has to wait because I'm only 12 years old. First time i heard aobut this event is when i was reading "Angels and Demons", By Dan Brown, excellent book by the way, and then there was this guy and he used a particle beam accelereater to make like a mini big bang to create a mini universe, this all happend At CERN in switzerland. I've Heard that at Cern they actually are making like 1-10 nanograms (millionth of a gram) of animatter a year and if a sapce craft (manned) would use matter-antimatter annihaltion for perpulsion it would take 140 nanograms, 30-day voyage to mars! Using 30-130 micrograms of antimatter, an unmanned AIM-powered probe – AIMStar( – would be able travel to the Oort Cloud in 50 years, while a greater supply of antiprotons might bring Alpha Centauri within reach. A spacecraft propulsion system that works by expelling the products of direct one-to-one annihilation of protons and antiprotons – a
so-called beamed core engine – would need 1-1,000 grams of antimatter for an interplanetary or interstellar journey.
If any questions or comments email me at soccer_kid199@hotmail.com
Dear "Soccer-Kidd",
I also began my interest in science at an early age. (I built my first radio at the age of seven). You are in for "Quite a ride"! Do follow the standard procedure of getting all the conventional education you can. No one will pay any attention to your theories if you don't have "letters" behind your name from a respected school!
E.L.Earnhardt
I also began my interest in science at an early age. (I built my first radio at the age of seven). You are in for "Quite a ride"! Do follow the standard procedure of getting all the conventional education you can. No one will pay any attention to your theories if you don't have "letters" behind your name from a respected school!
E.L.Earnhardt
QUOTE
...The greatest problem in theoretical physics is how quantum theory and general relativity are combinable?...
Obviously below Plank's limit or wherever Schrodinger's cat has a real chance to survive to radiation exposure! Every time the insight perspection of the explorer might change the final result of the living experiment, the quantum theory works perfectly. By this way there is a further easier explanation about the apparent violation of simmetry produced by Higgs' bosons not involving directly the matter vs. anti-matter balanced structure of this side of the "pluriverse". Time could be not a linear continuous dimension for such Bose-Higgs particles and randomly they disappear in the present tense because they can move suddenly and freely in the past tense and vice-versa but not in the not yet burned future: our present tense (now) is the upper forward limit in forward moving from past tense. This phoenomenon could explain the only apparent violation of parity revealed in the present tense: the violation could be balanced in the past! A lot of time before quantum theory Hertz, without knowing the existence of any quantistic particle, just approching firstly the properties of the high frequencies radiation I/O balance in the black body. So time is not only not-linear and it is not a continuous function but fractal-fragmented and Bose-Higgs particles could trespass freely its own stretched stuff. Only condition required, there must be a real stuff. (...past and present have stuff, future not yet...)
The Higg's boson is a fantasy particle needed to make a certain idea work. It's mass and energy has to be continually adjusted upwards as it never turns up in any colliders where predicted.
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 26 2006, 10:48 AM)
The Higg's boson is a fantasy particle needed to make a certain idea work. It's mass and energy has to be continually adjusted upwards as it never turns up in any colliders where predicted.
Excellent observation.
Excellent observation.
QUOTE
The Higg's boson is a fantasy particle needed to make a certain idea work. It's mass and energy has to be continually adjusted upwards as it never turns up in any colliders where predicted.
But till the life time of Bose the right statement about quanta is "...only an "impossible to reply" quantistic object must be considered as "impossible being" in our universe as "really existing things". On the contrary if a quantistic object is possible even if not yet found somewhere (f.e. a lack in technology) , it must be considered as "existing being" even if I am not yet able to show it..."
You cannot show us that Higg-Bose particles exist but you must eplain us why they must be really existing. No Higgs-Bose particles if you show us they are impossible. No show? They are!
Nobel prize Rubbia used exactly this kind of aknowledgement when looking for Z-W Fermi's particles. Such Fermi particles (fermions) were higly improbable not not-existing because their statistical occurrencies were 3 spots only versus 10EE21 collisions in CERN collider.
No fantasy allowed about quanta:only " to be or not to be". Shakespeare was the very 1st in quantum theory!
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 26 2006, 11:48 AM)
The Higg's boson is a fantasy particle needed to make a certain idea work. It's mass and energy has to be continually adjusted upwards as it never turns up in any colliders where predicted.
The upper bound for the Higgs is about 200GeV. If it's not found by the LHC, it doesn't exist. They haven't been altering that prediction, it's just previous experiments have been moving the lower bound for it's mass. That is currently at about 114GeV.
The upper bound for the Higgs is about 200GeV. If it's not found by the LHC, it doesn't exist. They haven't been altering that prediction, it's just previous experiments have been moving the lower bound for it's mass. That is currently at about 114GeV.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 30 2006, 11:40 AM)
The upper bound for the Higgs is about 200GeV. If it's not found by the LHC, it doesn't exist. They haven't been altering that prediction, it's just previous experiments have been moving the lower bound for it's mass. That is currently at about 114GeV.
200Gev are 114+86GeV. Where are the extra 84 GeV necessary to say that Higgs' Bose particles aren't? No 84 extras = no party! But I add that those particles could be not detected even if the large expensive collider will work at 200GeV plus 200GeV overboost! I can say this sillogism because a blind sensor could not watch the fire even fitted in the combustion chamber of a jet engine!
So your statement is not allowable because there is a gap in energy but because thre is no chance to show a particle moving backward in time and you have no accomplished proof of its own no-existence or "impossibility to be". The same thing happened for W and Z Fermi particles during '50s: someone said " I can watch them, therefore they aren't". He was wrong and Rubbia solved his trouble 30 years later.
Higgs Bose particles' own no-existence is due to the apparent not allowed violation of simmetrical parity (right-chiral object/ mirror/left-chiral image and viceversa) This violation can be explained only by changing the quality of the mirror: imaging not only in current present tense but also in the past. This kind of "mirror" now there is not but what about in a remote future?
So the problem is not in the just achieved large collider but in the imaginary and not yet developed and decisively up-to-date "time-receiver". Absolutely a not ordinary bubble-chamber!
So if you say that the existence of Higgs Bose particles (there are a whole family of those, not only 1!) is "not yet achieved" you are totally right but if you say they are "impossible" you have assumed the charge to show why. I am not telling you that Higgs-bose particles are really existing; I am telling you that the only violation of simmetrical parity allowable for those particles is in a sort of backward time-line moving because it is the only dimension of the continuum not yet relativistically considered.
200Gev are 114+86GeV. Where are the extra 84 GeV necessary to say that Higgs' Bose particles aren't? No 84 extras = no party! But I add that those particles could be not detected even if the large expensive collider will work at 200GeV plus 200GeV overboost! I can say this sillogism because a blind sensor could not watch the fire even fitted in the combustion chamber of a jet engine!
So your statement is not allowable because there is a gap in energy but because thre is no chance to show a particle moving backward in time and you have no accomplished proof of its own no-existence or "impossibility to be". The same thing happened for W and Z Fermi particles during '50s: someone said " I can watch them, therefore they aren't". He was wrong and Rubbia solved his trouble 30 years later.
Higgs Bose particles' own no-existence is due to the apparent not allowed violation of simmetrical parity (right-chiral object/ mirror/left-chiral image and viceversa) This violation can be explained only by changing the quality of the mirror: imaging not only in current present tense but also in the past. This kind of "mirror" now there is not but what about in a remote future?
So the problem is not in the just achieved large collider but in the imaginary and not yet developed and decisively up-to-date "time-receiver". Absolutely a not ordinary bubble-chamber!
So if you say that the existence of Higgs Bose particles (there are a whole family of those, not only 1!) is "not yet achieved" you are totally right but if you say they are "impossible" you have assumed the charge to show why. I am not telling you that Higgs-bose particles are really existing; I am telling you that the only violation of simmetrical parity allowable for those particles is in a sort of backward time-line moving because it is the only dimension of the continuum not yet relativistically considered.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 30 2006, 02:40 PM)
The upper bound for the Higgs is about 200GeV. If it's not found by the LHC, it doesn't exist.
By the theorists we should reveal at least a five different Higgs bosons of different mass, even it TeV scale... The main conceptual problem of Higgs boson is, it doesn't explain the origin of mass, it just transfers the explanation to the hypothetical Higgs fields concept. The Higgs model of classical physic always requires the presence of inertial Higgs lattice.
S I really don't know, why the Higgs Boson is called the God Particle, if we don't know, who created the Higgs lattice.
By the theorists we should reveal at least a five different Higgs bosons of different mass, even it TeV scale...
The main conceptual problem of Higgs boson is, it doesn't explain the origin of mass, it just transfers the explanation to the hypothetical Higgs fields concept. The Higgs model of classical physic always requires the presence of inertial Higgs lattice.S I really don't know, why the Higgs Boson is called the God Particle, if we don't know, who created the Higgs lattice.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 30 2006, 02:40 PM)
But I add that those particles could be not detected even if the large expensive collider will work at 200GeV plus 200GeV overboost!.
The true is, the Heim's theory doesn't require the Higgs boson concept for computation of exact mass/charge of whole spectrum of particles at all. So we can say, even at the case, we'll found some evidence of Higgs boson nu using of expensive & dangerous LHC experiments, we will not be able to predict the mass of vacuum at better precision, then the Heim's theory has enabled before twenty years.
The true is, the Heim's theory doesn't require the Higgs boson concept for computation of exact mass/charge of whole spectrum of particles at all. So we can say, even at the case, we'll found some evidence of Higgs boson nu using of expensive & dangerous LHC experiments, we will not be able to predict the mass of vacuum at better precision, then the Heim's theory has enabled before twenty years.
I will not join those who attempt to "prove a negative", or a positive! I simply am interested in the indications that the "Higgs Boson", sponsor of all we DO detect, so eludes the "wise and prudent". We grant a form of inteligence to even virus and "gene" operations and deny it to the vastness and complexity of creation! I DON'T!
E.L.Earnhardt
E.L.Earnhardt
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 30 2006, 06:08 PM)
By the theorists we should reveal at least a five different Higgs bosons of different mass, even it TeV scale...
Perhaps I should have said 'the lightest Higgs'.
Perhaps I should have said 'the lightest Higgs'.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 30 2006, 06:08 PM)
The main conceptual problem of Higgs boson is, it doesn't explain the origin of mass, it just transfers the explanation to the hypothetical Higgs fields concept. The Higgs model of classical physic always requires the presence of inertial Higgs lattice.
If the Higgs was found, the field would no longer be hypothetical. The reason it has mass is because it's got a vacuum expectation value.
erKa, what the hell are you talking about?
erKa, what the hell are you talking about?
What regime are we trying to discuss? Cosmologic cooling is one scenario. We are another. What is the "vacuum field" background? Don't give me the usual references, rather explain the overview to me. I do not yet understand what is said in "QM cannot predict mass without symmetry breaking" as I see us writing Schroedinger eqs. with m, e in terms of mass and charge of the particle.
Good analysis of vacuum and zero point energy.
By this reasoning, evidence has been found of Higgs particle existence in Bose-Einstein Condensates.
By this reasoning, evidence has been found of Higgs particle existence in Bose-Einstein Condensates.
QUOTE (Albers+Dec 31 2006, 05:11 AM)
What is the "vacuum field" background?
In quantum field theory the fields associated with each particle are everywhere. Typically they have zero expectation value, you don't expect them to be noticable unless they have particles within them. In the case of the Higgs field, it has a non-zero expectation value, this is what 'symmetry breaking' partly relates to, you have to be at a high enough energy before a symmetry of the system becomes apparent. Below it and you have an asymmetry (similar to how the weak bosons are different from the photon until you get to more than 90GeV).
In quantum field theory the fields associated with each particle are everywhere. Typically they have zero expectation value, you don't expect them to be noticable unless they have particles within them. In the case of the Higgs field, it has a non-zero expectation value, this is what 'symmetry breaking' partly relates to, you have to be at a high enough energy before a symmetry of the system becomes apparent. Below it and you have an asymmetry (similar to how the weak bosons are different from the photon until you get to more than 90GeV).
QUOTE (Albers+Dec 31 2006, 05:11 AM)
I do not yet understand what is said in "QM cannot predict mass without symmetry breaking" as I see us writing Schroedinger eqs. with m, e in terms of mass and charge of the particle.
Quantum mechanics (ie the schrodinger wave equation) doesn't explain most of what we're talking about here. It doesn't talk about fields and it doesn't take into account special relativity. Quantum field theory was it's evolution to include special relativity and includes a more enriched structure, talking about vacuum expectations, antimatter, symmetry breaking, the whole 9 yards. Even the traditional notions of m and e are altered when you go from QM to QED, you have to take into account 'quantum corrections'.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 31 2006, 07:59 AM)
Good analysis of vacuum and zero point energy.
No, it's a poor, heavily biased, incomplete description of an interpretation of the first few years of quantum field theory in the late 20s. Particle physics has moved on a lot in the last 75 years. The majority of the problems the author there raises are symptomatic of not learning much about the theory, just it's history. His qualms about renormalisation for instance can be resolved with a bit of learning of quantum theory and a passing understanding of some pure maths (analysis) which would explain to him why a function of a limit is not a limit of a function for certain functions. There's a lot of mathematical results which seem strange if you never bothered to learn their derivations.
For instance, consider S = 1-1+1-1+1-1+..... What is S equal to? Well, let's group some terms. S = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+... = 0+0+0+0... = 0. But also S = 1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+... = 1 + 0 + 0... = 1. Problem? Yep, the problem is you can't just regroup the terms of a nonuniformly convergent series. Similar things happen when you 'naively' try to compute results in quantum field theory (but with integrals, not summations). You end up doing an undefined mathematical proceedure because the integrands don't satisfy the requirements to be directly integrable (this is where all that maths in uni comes in handy). So you have to be more careful and in doing so, you end up renormalising the results.
The problem is too many people just charge headlong into things, don't realise subtley is required and then denounce something as wrong when it's just they weren't paying attention. This is why being familiar with previous people's work (you know, learning) is important. You can avoid their mistakes or use their methods to get around common problems.
For instance, consider S = 1-1+1-1+1-1+..... What is S equal to? Well, let's group some terms. S = (1-1)+(1-1)+(1-1)+... = 0+0+0+0... = 0. But also S = 1+(-1+1)+(-1+1)+... = 1 + 0 + 0... = 1. Problem? Yep, the problem is you can't just regroup the terms of a nonuniformly convergent series. Similar things happen when you 'naively' try to compute results in quantum field theory (but with integrals, not summations). You end up doing an undefined mathematical proceedure because the integrands don't satisfy the requirements to be directly integrable (this is where all that maths in uni comes in handy
). So you have to be more careful and in doing so, you end up renormalising the results. The problem is too many people just charge headlong into things, don't realise subtley is required and then denounce something as wrong when it's just they weren't paying attention. This is why being familiar with previous people's work (you know, learning) is important. You can avoid their mistakes or use their methods to get around common problems.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 31 2006, 01:51 PM)
it's a poor, heavily biased, incomplete description of an interpretation of the first few years of quantum field theory in the late 20s
Nope, on the contrary, the Dirac's formalism has finished the evolution of quantum mechanic, instead. Till now we have no more exact description of reality, then the Dirac's equation. And such approach comes from the beginning of 50s.
Nope, on the contrary, the Dirac's formalism has finished the evolution of quantum mechanic, instead. Till now we have no more exact description of reality, then the Dirac's equation. And such approach comes from the beginning of 50s.
THANKS ALPHA, Such overview is very helpful as I seek to learn further. You help me put the large pieces together. ZEPHIR, it is a tweak to hear this from Dirac!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 30 2006, 08:33 PM)
erKa, what the hell are you talking about?
The alleged animated *.gif is totally incorrect because there is still depicted a sort of mirror-alike simmetry between standard continuum (sky colored one) and reversed pinky colored Higg's lattice. But it is only a fictionary adjustement (..the lattice, not the particle!) and it is not real. Remember the Hertz's wavy photon theory about propagation in vacuum ? Because in vacuum there is no wavy propagation Hertz fulfilled the outer space with a suitable medium naturally "fictionary as much necessary" exactly as Higgs' lattice is. Imagine at the contrary only the upper blu section of the *.gif and consider at t= 0 a couple of Higgs particles one over the other. At T=0 +1 sec the Higg' s Boson moves in our conventional timeline, the other one moves in the t= -1 sec reversed timeline. There is a sort of parity restoring the simmetry of the whole universe but we cannot check more than the positive branch of it! Not Higg's lattice but a reversed timeline, just accomplishing relativity rules. And your simmetry rules about sums are not so obvious even if correct if you don't split previously the continuum in 2 branches (topological wholes): a forward timed one in which we live and a unexplored rewinded timed one. Unexplored not impossible!
Nice the link between "deep vacuum expected" and "less deep vacuum really aquired" by cause of spot randomly & apparently self-generated Higg's bosons. Zephir, try to explicit this unespected nexus you are suggesting us. Probably I am in error but there must be more than a logical link.
The alleged animated *.gif is totally incorrect because there is still depicted a sort of mirror-alike simmetry between standard continuum (sky colored one) and reversed pinky colored Higg's lattice. But it is only a fictionary adjustement (..the lattice, not the particle!) and it is not real. Remember the Hertz's wavy photon theory about propagation in vacuum ? Because in vacuum there is no wavy propagation Hertz fulfilled the outer space with a suitable medium naturally "fictionary as much necessary" exactly as Higgs' lattice is. Imagine at the contrary only the upper blu section of the *.gif and consider at t= 0 a couple of Higgs particles one over the other. At T=0 +1 sec the Higg' s Boson moves in our conventional timeline, the other one moves in the t= -1 sec reversed timeline. There is a sort of parity restoring the simmetry of the whole universe but we cannot check more than the positive branch of it! Not Higg's lattice but a reversed timeline, just accomplishing relativity rules. And your simmetry rules about sums are not so obvious even if correct if you don't split previously the continuum in 2 branches (topological wholes): a forward timed one in which we live and a unexplored rewinded timed one. Unexplored not impossible!
Nice the link between "deep vacuum expected" and "less deep vacuum really aquired" by cause of spot randomly & apparently self-generated Higg's bosons. Zephir, try to explicit this unespected nexus you are suggesting us. Probably I am in error but there must be more than a logical link.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 02:56 PM)
Nope, on the contrary, the Dirac's formalism has finished the evolution of quantum mechanic, instead. Till now we have no more exact description of reality, then the Dirac's equation. And such approach comes from the beginning of 50s.
Zephir, rather than just jumping headfirst into the wrong understanding in an effort to justify posting a new picture, why not actually try reading my reply. I said interpretation, not model. As people developed QFT and began to understand it more, the initial interpretations Dirac came up with were dropped and new physical meaning attatched to the concepts within the theory.
For someone who so adamently places conceptual understanding over blind trusting of equations, it's funny you utterly missed that meaning of my post.
Quantum field theory wouldn't be the first theory to experience that. Relativity was initially interpreted as somewhat of an aether theory, then it was reinterpreted as an aetherless theory as understanding grew and the realisation the hypothesis of such a medium wasn't required to explain physical phenomena.
Zephir, rather than just jumping headfirst into the wrong understanding in an effort to justify posting a new picture, why not actually try reading my reply. I said interpretation, not model. As people developed QFT and began to understand it more, the initial interpretations Dirac came up with were dropped and new physical meaning attatched to the concepts within the theory.
For someone who so adamently places conceptual understanding over blind trusting of equations, it's funny you utterly missed that meaning of my post.
Quantum field theory wouldn't be the first theory to experience that. Relativity was initially interpreted as somewhat of an aether theory, then it was reinterpreted as an aetherless theory as understanding grew and the realisation the hypothesis of such a medium wasn't required to explain physical phenomena.
Just what are the differences between "aether" and the quantum vacuum? I figure space must respond as if it is a massless plasma which is Lorentz-transformable.
Aethers have physical meaning, they are literally a thing which has physical properties like that of a fluid. They have a prefered rest frame, while a quantum vacuum does not. They should have things like viscosity and compressibility while a quantum vacuum doesn't.
At ground state, the vacuum, the aether still have something there, it's an entity. At a zero ground state, there's nothing there in a quantum field.
A field is just an assigned quantity or quantities to every point in a space-time region. Temperature is a field because you can assign a value of temperature to points in space-time. Is temperature a thing? Ignoring quantum effects, if the temperature of empty space was absolute zero, would there still be something there of the field? Nope. An aether says there is something there, even in a static, utterly empty system.
It gets muddled a bit when you start throwing in quantum fluctuations and the like, but the basic premise is still the same. You can work perfectly well without having to call forth the existence of an aether and if you do use an aether, inherent problems crop up. Many people have tried (and some still do) to get a working aether theory of gravity and quantum mechanics but noone has managed it yet. And no Zephir, you haven't demonstrated anything other than the ability to make or find pictures.
At ground state, the vacuum, the aether still have something there, it's an entity. At a zero ground state, there's nothing there in a quantum field.
A field is just an assigned quantity or quantities to every point in a space-time region. Temperature is a field because you can assign a value of temperature to points in space-time. Is temperature a thing? Ignoring quantum effects, if the temperature of empty space was absolute zero, would there still be something there of the field? Nope. An aether says there is something there, even in a static, utterly empty system.
It gets muddled a bit when you start throwing in quantum fluctuations and the like, but the basic premise is still the same. You can work perfectly well without having to call forth the existence of an aether and if you do use an aether, inherent problems crop up. Many people have tried (and some still do) to get a working aether theory of gravity and quantum mechanics but noone has managed it yet. And no Zephir, you haven't demonstrated anything other than the ability to make or find pictures.
The aether works well in reflection-based physics models.
The Higgs Boson only exists in the aether. It's not detectable as a seperate entity in the quantum vacuum.
Alpha -- I bet after all this you still can't point to the Sea.
The Higgs Boson only exists in the aether. It's not detectable as a seperate entity in the quantum vacuum.
Alpha -- I bet after all this you still can't point to the Sea.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 31 2006, 05:45 PM)
Aethers have physical meaning, they are literally a thing which has physical properties like that of a fluid. They have a prefered rest frame, while a quantum vacuum does not. They should have things like viscosity and compressibility while a quantum vacuum doesn't.
At ground state, the vacuum, the aether still have something there, it's an entity. At a zero ground state, there's nothing there in a quantum field.
A field is just an assigned quantity or quantities to every point in a space-time region. Temperature is a field because you can assign a value of temperature to points in space-time. Is temperature a thing? Ignoring quantum effects, if the temperature of empty space was absolute zero, would there still be something there of the field? Nope. An aether says there is something there, even in a static, utterly empty system.
It gets muddled a bit when you start throwing in quantum fluctuations and the like, but the basic premise is still the same. You can work perfectly well without having to call forth the existence of an aether and if you do use an aether, inherent problems crop up. Many people have tried (and some still do) to get a working aether theory of gravity and quantum mechanics but noone has managed it yet. And no Zephir, you haven't demonstrated anything other than the ability to make or find pictures.
Myself and H Puthoff say there is compressibility. I don't know why you say the quantum field can have nothing there. I may have issue with quantum radiation fluctuations but I agree something percolates away. I don't know QFT; is this where you speak?
At ground state, the vacuum, the aether still have something there, it's an entity. At a zero ground state, there's nothing there in a quantum field.
A field is just an assigned quantity or quantities to every point in a space-time region. Temperature is a field because you can assign a value of temperature to points in space-time. Is temperature a thing? Ignoring quantum effects, if the temperature of empty space was absolute zero, would there still be something there of the field? Nope. An aether says there is something there, even in a static, utterly empty system.
It gets muddled a bit when you start throwing in quantum fluctuations and the like, but the basic premise is still the same. You can work perfectly well without having to call forth the existence of an aether and if you do use an aether, inherent problems crop up. Many people have tried (and some still do) to get a working aether theory of gravity and quantum mechanics but noone has managed it yet. And no Zephir, you haven't demonstrated anything other than the ability to make or find pictures.
Myself and H Puthoff say there is compressibility. I don't know why you say the quantum field can have nothing there. I may have issue with quantum radiation fluctuations but I agree something percolates away. I don't know QFT; is this where you speak?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 31 2006, 08:11 PM)
...relativity was initially interpreted as somewhat of an aether theory, then it was reinterpreted as an aether-less theory as understanding grew...
Nope, on the contrary: the Aether concept was refuted as the result of misunderstanding, because the people have believed, the Aether must exhibit the absolute reference frame and longitudinal waves to be working. Whereas the Maxwell has considered the transversal wave spreading model from it's very beginning.
Just because the people didn't realized, the Aether can be formed by foamy environment (where the transversal waves are predominant), they have refuted the aether concept due the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment (and simmilar ones). Of course, such refusal is the result of even deeper misunderstanding of Aether concept, then in Maxwell's times. Now we know, each particle environement prefers the transversal waves under high pressure, therefore the apparent non-existence of absolute reference frame can be considere as the confirmation of the Aether concept, instead.
Nope, on the contrary: the Aether concept was refuted as the result of misunderstanding, because the people have believed, the Aether must exhibit the absolute reference frame and longitudinal waves to be working. Whereas the Maxwell has considered the transversal wave spreading model from it's very beginning.
Just because the people didn't realized, the Aether can be formed by foamy environment (where the transversal waves are predominant), they have refuted the aether concept due the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment (and simmilar ones). Of course, such refusal is the result of even deeper misunderstanding of Aether concept, then in Maxwell's times. Now we know, each particle environement prefers the transversal waves under high pressure, therefore the apparent non-existence of absolute reference frame can be considere as the confirmation of the Aether concept, instead.
But the Aether exists as seperate from the quantum void.
One floats in the other floats in the other floats in the other, etc...
Energy states float above the sea of Dirac, but on the other side of the mirror, there are voids in the Sea.
Two Universes share the same space and time and we exist in both.
One floats in the other floats in the other floats in the other, etc...
Energy states float above the sea of Dirac, but on the other side of the mirror, there are voids in the Sea.
Two Universes share the same space and time and we exist in both.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jan 1 2007, 12:34 AM)
But the Aether exists as separate from the quantum void. One floats in the other floats in the other floats in the other, etc...
For tiny surface water waves the absolute motion of underwater cannot be detected by the same way, like for light waves of Aether. Therefore we can say, the underwater doesn't exist for such waves as well. Of course we know, it's not the true, because the underwater environment manifests itself by another subtle effect, for example by the subtle density fluctuations, so called the Brownian motion (virtual particle) and so called zero point energy.
The Aether cannot exist separated from quantum world. On the contrary, the Newtonian dynamic of Aether foam can explain the quantum phenomena easily. The quantum wave describes the energy spreading in the environment, whose density is proportional to energy density, i.e. the classical foam behavior (the soap foam makes dense during passing of additional energy).
For tiny surface water waves the absolute motion of underwater cannot be detected by the same way, like for light waves of Aether. Therefore we can say, the underwater doesn't exist for such waves as well. Of course we know, it's not the true, because the underwater environment manifests itself by another subtle effect, for example by the subtle density fluctuations, so called the Brownian motion (virtual particle) and so called zero point energy.
The Aether cannot exist separated from quantum world. On the contrary, the Newtonian dynamic of Aether foam can explain the quantum phenomena easily. The quantum wave describes the energy spreading in the environment, whose density is proportional to energy density, i.e. the classical foam behavior (the soap foam makes dense during passing of additional energy).
I don't mean seperated in that way... there's a very thin line drawn between the two.
So thin you'd almost miss it.
Point to the Sea and you'll know what I mean.
So thin you'd almost miss it.
Point to the Sea and you'll know what I mean.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jan 1 2007, 12:44 AM)
Point to the Sea and you'll know what I mean...
The AWT explains exactly, what the sea of negative energy means from Aether theory perspective.
Albeit I don't fully understand the Dirac's concept of antiparticles as the holes in energy sea, and I consider it as a somewhat misleading. From AWT perspective, each the observable particle appears as the dense blob of aether foam and it looks exactly by the same way, like the antiparticle. With the exception of helicity of the internal undulations of foam membranes.
The AWT explains exactly, what the sea of negative energy means from Aether theory perspective.
Albeit I don't fully understand the Dirac's concept of antiparticles as the holes in energy sea, and I consider it as a somewhat misleading. From AWT perspective, each the observable particle appears as the dense blob of aether foam and it looks exactly by the same way, like the antiparticle. With the exception of helicity of the internal undulations of foam membranes.
QUOTE (Albers+Dec 31 2006, 08:23 PM)
I don't know why you say the quantum field can have nothing there.
If there's something there, a particle, then it can't be in it's ground state. Aether, even when in it's ground state, has something there, the aether itself which is supposed to have some kind of physical property.
If there's something there, a particle, then it can't be in it's ground state. Aether, even when in it's ground state, has something there, the aether itself which is supposed to have some kind of physical property.
QUOTE (Albers+Dec 31 2006, 08:23 PM)
I don't know QFT; is this where you speak?
Yep. You can't really do much about a field theory without knowing some QFT I'm afraid.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 10:29 PM)
the Aether concept was refuted as the result of misunderstanding, because the people have believed, the Aether must exhibit the absolute reference frame and longitudinal waves to be working. Whereas the Maxwell has considered the transversal wave spreading model from it's very beginning.
Yes, I know that, but those aether theories which don't exhibit an absolute reference frame still struggle to explain observed phenomena. Just because one type of aether theory was killed doesn't mean other forms must be automatically correct.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 10:29 PM)
Now we know, each particle environement prefers the transversal waves under high pressure, therefore the apparent non-existence of absolute reference frame can be considere as the confirmation of the Aether concept, instead.
Nope, that isn't implied at all. Non-aether theories can explain a lack of absolute reference frame too, along with observed phenomena. Therefore saying "There's no absolute reference frame" obviously doens't imply an aether based theory.
Come now Zeph, this is simple logic Conceptually easy, no equations. Even you should manage it. 
Come now Zeph, this is simple logic
Conceptually easy, no equations. Even you should manage it.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jan 1 2007, 12:58 AM)
...Non-aether theories can explain a lack of absolute reference frame too, along with observed phenomena...
LOL, the ad-hoc postulate "speed of light is constant" is not explanation at all, just a statement of fact, following from the result of Michelson=Morley experiment.
It's evident, you even don't know, what the postulate means. I'm repeating this again and again. The postulate is the fundamental assumption, that is accepted without proof. The "constant of speed" assumption is the postulate in relativity theory, therefore it cannot be considered as the explanation by its very definition.
This is why I'm considering you as a troll, sorry. Simply because I'm repeating this explanation here at least by third time, especially just for you. How do you want to understand the more complex concepts of Aether theory, if you never understood the basic Aether theory motivation? It evident, for the people like you the light speed invariance is solved problem, simply because it appears in some theory between the formal assumptions...
Whereas by introducing of some postulate into theory the real problems in understanding just begins, in fact. Please consider, no other theory explains the constant speed of light, with exception of Aether Wave theory (AWT).
LOL, the ad-hoc postulate "speed of light is constant" is not explanation at all, just a statement of fact, following from the result of Michelson=Morley experiment.
It's evident, you even don't know, what the postulate means. I'm repeating this again and again. The postulate is the fundamental assumption, that is accepted without proof. The "constant of speed" assumption is the postulate in relativity theory, therefore it cannot be considered as the explanation by its very definition.
This is why I'm considering you as a troll, sorry. Simply because I'm repeating this explanation here at least by third time, especially just for you. How do you want to understand the more complex concepts of Aether theory, if you never understood the basic Aether theory motivation? It evident, for the people like you the light speed invariance is solved problem, simply because it appears in some theory between the formal assumptions...
Whereas by introducing of some postulate into theory the real problems in understanding just begins, in fact. Please consider, no other theory explains the constant speed of light, with exception of Aether Wave theory (AWT).
Come on...
Someone's gotta be able to see it.
The Sea of Dirac has a physical representation in our world, but only as a boundary condition.
One you can point to.
Someone's gotta be able to see it.
The Sea of Dirac has a physical representation in our world, but only as a boundary condition.
One you can point to.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jan 1 2007, 01:14 AM)
The Sea of Dirac has a physical representation in our world, but only as a boundary condition...
The Dirac's sea has it's counterpart in semiconductor models, where the antiparticle are playing a role of holes.
But I don't believe, the real antiparticles are forming a holes in the Aether foam. They're more dense by the same way, like normal particles.
The Dirac's sea has it's counterpart in semiconductor models, where the antiparticle are playing a role of holes.
But I don't believe, the real antiparticles are forming a holes in the Aether foam. They're more dense by the same way, like normal particles.
Damn it.
It's something you can see.
It extends off into infinity.
It's infinitely large, but at the same time we view it as something infinitely small.
It has a definite boundary condition that can be described as the Edge of the Sea.
I'm not going to drop many more hints here.
It's something you can see.
It extends off into infinity.
It's infinitely large, but at the same time we view it as something infinitely small.
It has a definite boundary condition that can be described as the Edge of the Sea.
I'm not going to drop many more hints here.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Jan 1 2007, 01:26 AM)
I'm not going to drop many more hints here.
I can see it... What I'm saying is, the concept of Dirac sea should be treated cautiously. It's formal model, not the physical one.
I can see it...
What I'm saying is, the concept of Dirac sea should be treated cautiously. It's formal model, not the physical one.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 31 2006, 10:26 PM)
Damn it.
It's something you can see.
It extends off into infinity.
It's infinitely large, but at the same time we view it as something infinitely small.
It has a definite boundary condition that can be described as the Edge of the Sea.
I'm not going to drop many more hints here.
the horizon?
It's something you can see.
It extends off into infinity.
It's infinitely large, but at the same time we view it as something infinitely small.
It has a definite boundary condition that can be described as the Edge of the Sea.
I'm not going to drop many more hints here.
the horizon?
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 11:10 PM)
LOL, the ad-hoc postulate "speed of light is constant" is not explanation at all, just a statement of fact, following from the result of Michelson=Morley experiment.
It was not ad hoc in the sense Einstein added it to prevent falsification by an experiment (much as you like to do with AWT's so called 'results'). It was one of the founding postulates and it was based on considerable experimental evidence.
That isn't any more adhoc than Newton looking at object's motion and coming up with his 3 laws of motion based on observations.
It was not ad hoc in the sense Einstein added it to prevent falsification by an experiment (much as you like to do with AWT's so called 'results'). It was one of the founding postulates and it was based on considerable experimental evidence.
That isn't any more adhoc than Newton looking at object's motion and coming up with his 3 laws of motion based on observations.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 11:10 PM)
It's evident, you even don't know, what the postulate means. I'm repeating this again and again. The postulate is the fundamental assumption, that is accepted without proof. The "constant of speed" assumption is the postulate in relativity theory, therefore it cannot be considered as the explanation by its very definition.
Why did you link to a post where I actually correct you on the difference between it being a postulate and a theorem? Are you deliberately trying to make yourself appear silly?
I specifically said it's a postulate which is not derived from the theory itself. It wouldn't be a postulate if it could be.
You appear to be just matching words, not explainations. You find a post I've said 'postulate' in and you then claim something irrelevent about my usage of the word. Engage your brain, then post.
I specifically said it's a postulate which is not derived from the theory itself. It wouldn't be a postulate if it could be.
You appear to be just matching words, not explainations. You find a post I've said 'postulate' in and you then claim something irrelevent about my usage of the word. Engage your brain, then post.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 11:10 PM)
This is why I'm considering you as a troll, sorry.
You think supposed misuse of the word 'postulate' is signed of trolling?
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 11:10 PM)
Simply because I'm repeating this explanation here at least by third time, especially just for you.
Woah woah woah, irony flippin' overload. You complain because you misunderstood me and then repeated yourself?!
How many times have I had to explain the same things to you Zephir? That string theory predicts GR. That just because a theory contains SR doesn't mean it is compatible with GR. Listing string theory postulates. Explaining why the CMB data doesn't imply an aether absolute reference frame. Why the geocentric view of the universe was science.
You accuse me of having to have things repeated to him when you are king of 'short term memory lose'. You have to have the same things explained to you again and again and again. You even did it today here.
Hypocrisy at it's finest from you there Zeph.
How many times have I had to explain the same things to you Zephir? That string theory predicts GR. That just because a theory contains SR doesn't mean it is compatible with GR. Listing string theory postulates. Explaining why the CMB data doesn't imply an aether absolute reference frame. Why the geocentric view of the universe was science.
You accuse me of having to have things repeated to him when you are king of 'short term memory lose'. You have to have the same things explained to you again and again and again. You even did it today here.
Hypocrisy at it's finest from you there Zeph.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 11:10 PM)
It evident, for the people like you the light speed invariance is solved problem, simply because it appears in some theory between the formal assumptions...
No, I don't think that. You just seem happy to not bother reading and thinking about people's replies to you so you don't understand their comments as a result.
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 31 2006, 11:10 PM)
Please consider, no other theory explains the constant speed of light, with exception of Aether Wave theory (AWT).
Of course I could point out that by using the wave equation as your postulate, you too assume a constant speed of propogation within your aether. I could also point out you've never proved AWT is a viable model for any physical process. I constantly ask for examples of specific systems rather than vague animations you could have got elsewhere, but you never provide.
I could point out those things, but they'd fall on deaf ears when it comes to you actually putting your theory where your mouth is and showing it's actually more than fairytales and pictures.
I could point out those things, but they'd fall on deaf ears when it comes to you actually putting your theory where your mouth is and showing it's actually more than fairytales and pictures.
When you realize matter is ultimately loops of light, much becomes clear in Lorentz transforms.
Lorentz was a big fan of the Aether.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 31 2006, 05:11 PM)
...Relativity was initially interpreted as somewhat of an aether theory, then it was reinterpreted as an aetherless theory as understanding grew and the realisation the hypothesis of such a medium wasn't required to explain physical phenomena.
You have centered the core of the problem! Aether was made of the same stuff Higg's lattice is made too: only a suitable conceptual arrangement in order to avoid an evident real impossiblity. But 2 not existing extra media to be added!
A wave cannot be trasmitted in vacuum and aether is necessary as much as the simmetrical dual parity counterpart of the Higg's boson must be hosted in a "special" continuum called lattice. Lattice and aether are extra media not required in order to attempt a logical restoration. Much easier to think at a time-reversed side of our standard continuum...we can experience only the "greek" side of Higg's boson couple in the while we cannot experience the "trojan" side of the same couple shifting backward in time for a while. Tensile relavistic time allows it!
You have centered the core of the problem! Aether was made of the same stuff Higg's lattice is made too: only a suitable conceptual arrangement in order to avoid an evident real impossiblity. But 2 not existing extra media to be added!
A wave cannot be trasmitted in vacuum and aether is necessary as much as the simmetrical dual parity counterpart of the Higg's boson must be hosted in a "special" continuum called lattice. Lattice and aether are extra media not required in order to attempt a logical restoration. Much easier to think at a time-reversed side of our standard continuum...we can experience only the "greek" side of Higg's boson couple in the while we cannot experience the "trojan" side of the same couple shifting backward in time for a while. Tensile relavistic time allows it!
QUOTE (erKa+Jan 1 2007, 05:00 PM)
...much easier to think at a time-reversed side of our standard continuum...
Just for you, probably. Try to explain your idea in more detail (if you really understand it).
Just for you, probably. Try to explain your idea in more detail (if you really understand it).
QUOTE (Zephir+Jan 1 2007, 02:37 PM)
Just for you, probably. Try to explain your idea in more detail (if you really understand it).
It is easier in your mind also. Relativistic continuum is extending in space and time from Big Bang till now. The curved lattice called continuum in which mass-energy must be displaced has a versus only, but 2 different opposed directions for all known dimensions.
Any known dimension of the continuum could be defined as mathematical vectors and vectors (ALL) have a numeric module, 2 directions and a versus. By definition itself!
We can watch only the direction linked to the versus but there is a possible reversed direction mathematically defined. We live in our side of the continuum like a train running from our source toward a remote town, but the same rail could host at least another train running backward to our source. In other words is perfectly possible for a small object to move back in time: there is no violation of existing laws in our continuum. Galilei said...any action requires a reaction..alike and reversed!! At the contrary the violation of chiral parity in simmetry is not possible at all.
It is easier in your mind also. Relativistic continuum is extending in space and time from Big Bang till now. The curved lattice called continuum in which mass-energy must be displaced has a versus only, but 2 different opposed directions for all known dimensions.
Any known dimension of the continuum could be defined as mathematical vectors and vectors (ALL) have a numeric module, 2 directions and a versus. By definition itself!
We can watch only the direction linked to the versus but there is a possible reversed direction mathematically defined. We live in our side of the continuum like a train running from our source toward a remote town, but the same rail could host at least another train running backward to our source. In other words is perfectly possible for a small object to move back in time: there is no violation of existing laws in our continuum. Galilei said...any action requires a reaction..alike and reversed!! At the contrary the violation of chiral parity in simmetry is not possible at all.
QUOTE (Albers+Jan 1 2007, 04:55 AM)
When you realize matter is ultimately loops of light, much becomes clear in Lorentz transforms.
Thanks. I needed a laugh this morning.
Thanks. I needed a laugh this morning.
Err.., Doesn't the tree get its mass from the minerals and other stuff it absorbs from wherever its growing?
QUOTE (OldWoman1904+Mar 25 2006, 08:46 PM)
ok--all that talk is pretty fancy---I'm trying to understand it----the seed exists in super symmetry? Reproduces ? OK---sounds like fission vs fusion? which would win in a battle between fission and fusion? And what the heck is an electron anyway? Does anyone else ever doubt they exist as matter? And what is a charge? It's defined as the intrinsic property of all matter? What is it? Where do those tau electrons go when they "die"? where does the charge go? What is gravity? The "force" between two bodies? I don't get it? Like dust bunnies under the bed right? everything gathers? But that's cuz of the breeze right? This curiosity about the origin and meaning of life is so frustrating---and you "geeks" (don't get mad) do not make it any easier for the rest of us because you guys talk all geeky. Talk dumb OK? So I can talk to you I want to talk about the creation and afterlife, to an educated person. Anyone?
That's easy. There was no creation, and the afterlife is death. Don't be afraid. You've been dead through all of eternity except the last few years. It's no biggie.
(don't get mad) do not make it any easier for the rest of us because you guys talk all geeky. Talk dumb OK? So I can talk to you I want to talk about the creation and afterlife, to an educated person. Anyone? That's easy. There was no creation, and the afterlife is death. Don't be afraid. You've been dead through all of eternity except the last few years. It's no biggie.
QUOTE (Forefront Research+Mar 23 2006, 03:12 PM)
let me propose that if a tree gets the mass it has from its parent seed, then the postulate is rational that the universe gets the mass it has from the parent seed of the universe
A tree does not get its mass from its seed.
A seed can way a few milligrams. A tree can weigh a few tons.
A tree does not get its mass from its seed.
A seed can way a few milligrams. A tree can weigh a few tons.
The Higgs Boson is a pretty fundamental topic, however the thrust of the findings of Fermi that a certain particle occillates matter and antimatter oscillate 2.8 trillion times per second, confirmed as a discovery last December (06) is more basic even than the existence of the Higgs itself. Since this discovery, the same occillation behavior has been detected in other particles and the implication is that every quark in the universe may be subject to this occillation phenomenon. Fermi has suspected this all along. Note the title of the article: "What Happened to the Antimatter"? It is clear from the way the title is worded that the folks at Fermi suspect that what they may have really found is a proper time pulse or occillation of the entire universe 2.8 trillion cycles per second. This implies a dual, bifid universe...not a new idea by any means, but if shown to be true- a discovery with far-reaching implications. A description of such a universe is archived and up on the web at: www.geocities.com/aletawcox
Sam Cox
Sam Cox
QUOTE (Aaron Skaley+Mar 28 2006, 08:03 PM)
Ok, wonderful posts everyone.
I really am enthralled by this subject! (I am not a scientist yet, only have my High School Diploma) What if we could somehow take these mesons out of the matter-anti-matter particles as they switch between states? Lets say we could somehow stretch out the particle as it switched between matter and anti-matter. Would these mesons then have to travel a further distance? Could we then somehow restrict their movement between states thus causing energy loss on the system? We could then divert this energy into a reservoir and use it to power our space-ships!!
I'm kinda curious why " antimatter "is considered as the opposite of matter.It's as if energy can be shared as long as you do it evenly and oppositely.
Why not see antimatter as a position previously occupied by matter and unavailable to matter from then on . otherwise antimatter is created energy on the smallest scale, despite it's opposing effect, because the matter still exists.
Cheers
Iseason
I really am enthralled by this subject! (I am not a scientist yet, only have my High School Diploma) What if we could somehow take these mesons out of the matter-anti-matter particles as they switch between states? Lets say we could somehow stretch out the particle as it switched between matter and anti-matter. Would these mesons then have to travel a further distance? Could we then somehow restrict their movement between states thus causing energy loss on the system? We could then divert this energy into a reservoir and use it to power our space-ships!!
I'm kinda curious why " antimatter "is considered as the opposite of matter.It's as if energy can be shared as long as you do it evenly and oppositely.
Why not see antimatter as a position previously occupied by matter and unavailable to matter from then on . otherwise antimatter is created energy on the smallest scale, despite it's opposing effect, because the matter still exists.
Cheers
Iseason
QUOTE (Forefront Research+Mar 23 2006, 08:12 PM)
http://www.physorg.com/news12049.html
With a confidence level of 99.99 percent let me propose that if a tree gets the mass it has from its parent seed, then the postulate is rational that the universe gets the mass it has from the parent seed of the universe – i.e., what is dubbed the Higgs particle. As the Higgs particle interacts with chaos, its field of life or cosmic biofield, known as the quantum vacuum, acts upon the elementary particles of chaos, and synthesizes them into the mass of the universe for the reproduction of itself.
From the inference that life constitutes the perpetual seed of the universe follows that the Higgs mechanism is the cosmic seed’s mechanism, and consequently mass-giving is life-giving. The perpetual cosmic seed or Higgs boson – prophetically dubbed the God particle – exists in a state of supersymmetry, consisting of two opposite but complementary superpartners or cosmic common ancestors, whom we’ll call Y and X (or, if you will, male and female). When the seed of the universe feels an inner urge to have progeny, the superpartners break their supersymmetry by the act of self-division. Their subsequent recombination into the zygote of the next universe, and the generation of a cosmic biofield by that zygote, results the birth of the universe, and the synthesis of the elementary particles of chaos into the cosmic system’s structure. Most importantly, when the universe reaches maturity, it yields XY progeny in the XY cosmic seed’s image, similarly as a tree yields seeds in the parent seed’s image. The XY progeny’s division into X and Y partners, and their sexual reunion, led to the proliferation of human beings in the universe.
Thus from systems cosmology’s point of view the Higgs boson is literally the God particle because it constitutes the seed of the universe – i.e., the cosmic system’s input and output. We can predict with confidence that experimentalists at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, or at Fermilab’s Tevatron, are not going to detect the parent Higgs particle, only its reproductions, provided they look into the mirror and take a closer look at themselves or at each other.
Kazmer Ujvarosy
San Francisco
I'm not sure about the Higgs, but your brain certainly has no mass.
With a confidence level of 99.99 percent let me propose that if a tree gets the mass it has from its parent seed, then the postulate is rational that the universe gets the mass it has from the parent seed of the universe – i.e., what is dubbed the Higgs particle. As the Higgs particle interacts with chaos, its field of life or cosmic biofield, known as the quantum vacuum, acts upon the elementary particles of chaos, and synthesizes them into the mass of the universe for the reproduction of itself.
From the inference that life constitutes the perpetual seed of the universe follows that the Higgs mechanism is the cosmic seed’s mechanism, and consequently mass-giving is life-giving. The perpetual cosmic seed or Higgs boson – prophetically dubbed the God particle – exists in a state of supersymmetry, consisting of two opposite but complementary superpartners or cosmic common ancestors, whom we’ll call Y and X (or, if you will, male and female). When the seed of the universe feels an inner urge to have progeny, the superpartners break their supersymmetry by the act of self-division. Their subsequent recombination into the zygote of the next universe, and the generation of a cosmic biofield by that zygote, results the birth of the universe, and the synthesis of the elementary particles of chaos into the cosmic system’s structure. Most importantly, when the universe reaches maturity, it yields XY progeny in the XY cosmic seed’s image, similarly as a tree yields seeds in the parent seed’s image. The XY progeny’s division into X and Y partners, and their sexual reunion, led to the proliferation of human beings in the universe.
Thus from systems cosmology’s point of view the Higgs boson is literally the God particle because it constitutes the seed of the universe – i.e., the cosmic system’s input and output. We can predict with confidence that experimentalists at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, or at Fermilab’s Tevatron, are not going to detect the parent Higgs particle, only its reproductions, provided they look into the mirror and take a closer look at themselves or at each other.
Kazmer Ujvarosy
San Francisco
I'm not sure about the Higgs, but your brain certainly has no mass.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.