Higgs...

[andy_s]

CommanderJameson said:

Don't you want reduced gravity, rather than antigravity?

Asimov did a story about that.

That's a blast from the past CJ, remember reading that under the quilt with a torch - great stuff.

[ewenm]

over_the_hill said:

Anti-gravity implies negative-g i.e. a repulsive rather than attractive force. What you would need is zero gravity. However, as the range of gravity is infinite (with diminishing strength over distance) to obtain total zero gravity you could not have mass anywhere at all, so everything would be zero mass and therefore capable of light speed.

You don't want total zero-gravity (gravity is useful after all), you want local reduced/zero/anti-gravity (dependent on the motion you need). Manipulate the Higgs field locally to artificially change the local gravitational conditions for your benefit.

Anyway, all BS obviously.

[mattnunn]

I've got an antigravity machine.

I call it "helicopter".

It only works in areas of gravity though.

What about the 96% of the universe that we know doesn't obey the standard model, higgs or not? What about the dark side?

[ewenm]

I think you'll find your helicopter only works in areas with a suitable atmosphere too. Take it to the moon and it won't work there despite the presence of gravity.

[Mr-B]

Yes but finding this particle will it help answer really important questions such as if you had an aeroplane on a conveyor belt....

[MiseryStreak]

The Higgs field is not responsible for gravity. It uses the weak interaction to 'give' particles mass.

They have not found the force boson for gravity experimentally yet, the 'Graviton'.

Saying that, it may be that experiments with the Higgs Field could enable a technology whereby matter has its mass reduced or zeroed, therefore appearing to defy gravity. I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen if you degenerated the Higgs field around an organic life form though. I think the notion of cheap air travel might be cancelled out by being disintegrated.

[annodomini2]

MiseryStreak said:

The Higgs field is not responsible for gravity. It uses the weak interaction to 'give' particles mass.

They have not found the force boson for gravity experimentally yet, the 'Graviton'.

Saying that, it may be that experiments with the Higgs Field could enable a technology whereby matter has it's mass reduced or zeroed, therefore appearing to defy gravity. I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen if you degenerated the Higgs field around an organic life form though. I think the notion of cheap air travel might be cancelled out by being disintegrated.

Flip it the other way around and you can use it for space travel.

Variable mass drive.

ETA: Actually that would be an interesting question, lets say an object is travelling with a velocity, and you can manipulate the Higgs field (assuming it exists) to reduce the mass of the object in half, would you double it's velocity?

Edited by annodomini2 on Wednesday 4th July 16:17

[mattnunn]

MiseryStreak said:

The Higgs field is not responsible for gravity. It uses the weak interaction to 'give' particles mass.

They have not found the force boson for gravity experimentally yet, the 'Graviton'.

Saying that, it may be that experiments with the Higgs Field could enable a technology whereby matter has its mass reduced or zeroed, therefore appearing to defy gravity. I wouldn't like to imagine what would happen if you degenerated the Higgs field around an organic life form though. I think the notion of cheap air travel might be cancelled out by being disintegrated.

And the award for slimmer of the year goes to...

Professor Higgs.

Unfortunately he can't be with us in person to accept the award as he apparently resides in another dimension of the universe where mass doesn't exist.

[Gene Vincent]

What an interesting day.

As I suspected, nearly but not quite 5 Sigma (4.6 to be precise, well, back of a fag packet precise by my calcs), but the US results may drop that to 3.6 Sigma, no matter, it is there, the US figures will be ignored.

Again, people are confusing things...

The Higgs only attributes rest-mass, not mass itself, that is another mechanism, the same applies to Gravity, different mechanism.

The real piece of information that matters though is the twin photon phenomenon that accompanies it's production, yesterday I tried to convey what a field is and mentioned that the Higgs field had a kink that looked like an S on its side, this geometry of the Higgs phenomenon means that the photons are produced at the crest of each part of the wave, hidden in there is something of real importance. It may also explain why it is so hard to capture... the new number that is the grail appears to be at 126.5(0.7071)GeV and 126.5(1.414)GeV.

[Derek Smith]

Am I right in saying that if there is no mass then acceleration is instant?

If we can't find the graviton then it doesn't exist then nor does gravity.

[andy_s]

Derek Smith said:

Am I right in saying that if there is no mass then acceleration is instant?

If we can't find the graviton then it doesn't exist then nor does gravity.

As Prof. Eminem once said - "Snap back to reality, Oops there goes gravity..."

Edited by andy_s on Wednesday 4th July 17:21

[Jinx]

Gene Vincent said:

126.5(1.414)GeV.

Is that supposed to be 126.5((2)^½) GeV or is that a coincidence? (as in is the curve of your S a quadratic function)

[mattnunn]

Derek Smith said:

Am I right in saying that if there is no mass then acceleration is instant?

Acceleration is a measure of time and distance, nothing to do with mass, although gravity plays a part as with all moving objects, and gravity and mass have a realtionship, in a euclidian world anyway, fk knows about what happens at quantum level.

Derek Smith said:

If we can't find the graviton then it doesn't exist then nor does gravity.

Gravity doesn't exists, it's all a big lie.

[Gene Vincent]

Derek Smith said:

Am I right in saying that if there is no mass then acceleration is instant?

If we can't find the graviton then it doesn't exist then nor does gravity.

Humans often become massless, or rather lose mass, when cremated for example, so if you want to go at near light speed then simply request your body is cremated, bits of you will become massless and produce a spectacular light show parts of you will disappear at the speed of light, it is not advisable to actually experience this in the living consciousness as it tends to hurt. The reaction could be instantaneous if the transition to masslessness is Nuclear, if it isn't it's rapid, but not instant.

Gravity, the phenomena exists, but that does not mean that a Graviton exists, the maths for a Graviton as a particle is incomplete and frankly a little shakey, well, imo hopeless.

So not finding a graviton doesn't mean 'gravity' doesn't exist, because it patently does, we simply don't float off with the puff of a breeze.

Another way to see gravity is perhaps as a 'conformity' dimension, time as a dimension has conformity, it goes in only one direction, so a further dimension that forces conformity to ever more mass-ive bodies is not as outlandish as it first appears, it is where attention has been focussed for a long time now.

[Oakey]

crofty1984 said:

I didn't say that. Though I do have a sense of humour - I watched Groundhog Day last night - If that's not the mark of a humourous guy then I don't know what is!

Funny you mention that film as Ramis apparently said Phil was in the time loop for about 10,000years which is as much as a mind fk as the rest of this thread!

[jbudgie]

To me it seems very strange that we have a theory that only covers 4% of all matter---this does not seem a good theory ?

Just a layman's thoughts.

[Gene Vincent]

jbudgie said:

To me it seems very strange that we have a theory that only covers 4% of all matter---this does not seem a good theory ?

Just a layman's thoughts.

Why?

That 4% is all that effects you, the fact that there is 30 times as much out there that is invisible, has no direct consequence on our lives and only 'does something' when Galaxies are 40,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles apart and that 4% is 100% of all a human will ever encounter seems pretty fking good to me.

Additionally, it may well be that Dark/matter and Dark Energy are a Higgs Field all on its own?

That is also a distinct possibility...

Looks pretty good now eh?

Edited by Gene Vincent on Wednesday 4th July 19:50

[jbudgie]

No doesn't look good.

So you think that the 4% is all we will ever encounter ?

Why are you using miles ?

[NorthernBoy]

jbudgie said:

To me it seems very strange that we have a theory that only covers 4% of all matter---this does not seem a good theory ?

Just a layman's thoughts.

This reads like a jobbing builder looking up at Durham Cathedral, and saying "this building doesn't have anywhere to put a tractor, doesn't seem like a very good building".

[over_the_hill]

ewenm said:

over_the_hill said:

Anti-gravity implies negative-g i.e. a repulsive rather than attractive force. What you would need is zero gravity. However, as the range of gravity is infinite (with diminishing strength over distance) to obtain total zero gravity you could not have mass anywhere at all, so everything would be zero mass and therefore capable of light speed.

You don't want total zero-gravity (gravity is useful after all), you want local reduced/zero/anti-gravity (dependent on the motion you need). Manipulate the Higgs field locally to artificially change the local gravitational conditions for your benefit.

Anyway, all BS obviously.

I probably didn't write that very well. My response was to the Asimov bit

"The story in question posited that if an object were to be freed from all gravitational influence (i.e. anti-gravity), it would bimble off in a random direction."

If you only locally removed gravity it wouldn't bimble randomly for very long - just until it started to feel the effects of the next local gravitational field.