Discussion
AJI said:
What is this 'twist'?
I was at CERN only a few weeks ago on a holiday trip. I was asking the tour guides various questions and they were adament they were close to confirmation. Well more an exlusion process rather than discovery process was the general theme I got. But as I'm not an expert in this field I could have misinterpreted it.
My guess... a new branch of science finally grasping the existence of a further dimension to account for the vast majority of mass that it is not accounted for by the Higgs.I was at CERN only a few weeks ago on a holiday trip. I was asking the tour guides various questions and they were adament they were close to confirmation. Well more an exlusion process rather than discovery process was the general theme I got. But as I'm not an expert in this field I could have misinterpreted it.
The Higgs as we now know it can't account for either 99% of mass nor any real account for gravity.
It is but a vague shadow of what it was hoped to be.
I hate it when the press gets hold of this as they always get it wrong.
Any Higgs presence will not solve mass, it 'may' solve rest mass of particles, but that is an insubstantial amount of overall mass.
It is nothing like any form whatsoever of a 'God' particle.
What it should do, with luck, is give us a number for a 'planckian type' of minimal rest-mass unit... effectively a further 'constant' and that is Physics is a big thing.
The thing is that particles should really have zero mass, but they don't... so our model falls apart rather disastrously, the Electron rest-mass may proven not to be fundamental and the Higgs mechanism causes such... this is good as the alternative is that each electron produces its own field giving itself a rest-mass through interaction of singular fields, this is a dreadful thought as in nature such profligate energy use is all wrong.
Any Higgs presence will not solve mass, it 'may' solve rest mass of particles, but that is an insubstantial amount of overall mass.
It is nothing like any form whatsoever of a 'God' particle.
What it should do, with luck, is give us a number for a 'planckian type' of minimal rest-mass unit... effectively a further 'constant' and that is Physics is a big thing.
The thing is that particles should really have zero mass, but they don't... so our model falls apart rather disastrously, the Electron rest-mass may proven not to be fundamental and the Higgs mechanism causes such... this is good as the alternative is that each electron produces its own field giving itself a rest-mass through interaction of singular fields, this is a dreadful thought as in nature such profligate energy use is all wrong.
Use Psychology said:
no way, it'd be ace. nothing better could happen to physics than discovering a great, gaping hole at the centre of it all. think of advances that we would make.
You misunderstand me, the Science of new horizons is fabulous, but that new horizon needs a Higgs mechanism, without it everything is wrong, the entire edifice of the Maths of Particle Physics would fall, carrers of 20 years and more would account for nothing.Thankfully, the mechanism is there, but the previous assumptions made are likely to be wrong, that is great for scientific endeavour.
But the complete absence would be catastrophic and actually impossible, the Cosmos can't exist without this mechanism.
The new field of science is based on this new Higgs Field phenomena and the micro-5th dimension it perhaps alludes to.
Bedazzled said:
Can someone explain the Higgs mechanism in plain English? I can't make head nor tail of it.
It can't, but I'll try to give a visualisation that might (or might possibly not) give a little clue...First we have to get a grip of field theory, this takes an accomplished Mathematician a couple of years, but we don't have the time, so here is Field Theory in 5 minutes.
Imagine a box, it's a foot long on all sides, it is transparent and inside that box a matrix exists, you have to imagine them as fine wires at 1" centres that go from one side of the box to the side opposite, so if we number the sides of the box like the numbers on a dice the wires would run first from '1' to '6', so in your minds eye (iyme) run 144 wires from 1 to 6 and now iyme along just one of those wires put a little ripple, anywhere you like, so loads of wire and one of them has a single bump along its length.
This is a field.
The little kink is not a particle, it is the probability of a particle, but isn't one yet.
So now for a phenomena to exist this probability (kink) has to be amplified, so we run another 'field' (wires) from side '2' to '5' and you do the same and by coincidence this new Field (of wires) also has a kink that is close enough to the first to make them combine, this by co-incidence is enough to create a phenomena, this phenomena we'll call a photon.
We know this works and fields generate photons perfectly but nothing else.
But the maths needs a further field to account for the 'left over' maths and other phenomena.
This is a field (of wires) that runs from sides '3' to '4' we'll call this Field 'Higgs' and again the wires run at the same scale, but the kink is like a 'S' laid on its side and this additional bounce we call zero spin and its effect is to amplify hugely the other two kinks but they are cancelled out as a result so it disappears as its energy is used and we get not a photon but a real live 'weighty' particle.
That's the best I can do, it's basic and flawed, the best way to describe it is like saying an F1 race is filled with things with 4 wheels and an engine... you need the Maths to get the subtlety and beauty of the manner in which Alonso won the Valencia GP last week-end.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Tuesday 3rd July 13:04
The Black Flash said:
Use Psychology said:
the cosmos does exist 
and careers would not be worthless. science doesn't work like that, being wrong is what you do on the way to being right.
I love that. Brilliant and careers would not be worthless. science doesn't work like that, being wrong is what you do on the way to being right.
Lose ten minutes of work and you'll see fists punching screens furiously, 20 years and all for a wild goose chase? f
king furious, trust me.But it's not going to happen thankfully, the mechanism is there, it's just not what we thought a few years ago, so this is exciting times.
I'm having trouble answering that little lot comprehensively without spending a lot of time on it. Your understanding appears sufficient to gain further entry into the subject without my help and would I fear going really deep would drag this thread into complexity, which I'm trying to avoid.
But will add the following as points to bear in mind as you delve into this deeper. I suspect you know a fair bit already.
It is sufficient to say that the sum total of existence, that is all there is, is a combination of overlaid 4D fields.
There are interactions and there are non-interactive elements.
Almost the quantities we relate to such as mass, energy and even distance are all just descriptions of the states of these fields.
Time isn't a field, it is a consequence of causality, hence not a field at all, although one can question that assertion by bending the remit of what is and isn't a field!
If we were at the start of discovering a 5 dimensional cosmos then time I think would properly occupy the title of the 5th dimension and (possibly) gravitation being the true fourth.
But will add the following as points to bear in mind as you delve into this deeper. I suspect you know a fair bit already.
It is sufficient to say that the sum total of existence, that is all there is, is a combination of overlaid 4D fields.
There are interactions and there are non-interactive elements.
Almost the quantities we relate to such as mass, energy and even distance are all just descriptions of the states of these fields.
Time isn't a field, it is a consequence of causality, hence not a field at all, although one can question that assertion by bending the remit of what is and isn't a field!
If we were at the start of discovering a 5 dimensional cosmos then time I think would properly occupy the title of the 5th dimension and (possibly) gravitation being the true fourth.
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.
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 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.If we can't find the graviton then it doesn't exist then nor does gravity.
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.
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?Just a layman's thoughts.
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 f
king 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 said:
No doesn't look good.
So you think that the 4% is all we will ever encounter ?
Why are you using miles ?
Hmmm.So you think that the 4% is all we will ever encounter ?
Why are you using miles ?
Yep, and good job too, as it is likely that DM and DE is a Higgs field with nothing to work on, if our galaxy was to encounter such an area in space then it is more than likely that we would literally disintegrate or dissolve.
You are right, I should have used kilometres and I should have got a pen out to check the numbers... the exact number is 4,200 megaparsecs or 130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometres
mattnunn said:
May the farce be with you Gene.
What is the nature of the 4% should be the question.
My desk can be described in many ways, it's physical, material reality is meaningless without knowing it's purpose and it's nature, it's place in the universe is mearly a result of how my conscience wishes it to be. Have you seen the M and M advert?
That appears to be a post outlining a Philosophy.What is the nature of the 4% should be the question.
My desk can be described in many ways, it's physical, material reality is meaningless without knowing it's purpose and it's nature, it's place in the universe is mearly a result of how my conscience wishes it to be. Have you seen the M and M advert?
This is the Science! area, Philosophies will need to be outlined clearly with as little flowery language as the Philosopher can muster, otherwise the ghost of your idea can never take shape and be either agreed with or tormented to death under scrutiny.
Post again and remove the ambiguities it contains, it might make more sense and may even be a gem of insight.
jbudgie said:
So you think that DM is not matter as such ?
That's where i was going the wrong way then .
I meant light years instead of miles as that is more commonly used I thought ?
Sarky.
Take a deep breath this is going to hard to follow...That's where i was going the wrong way then .
I meant light years instead of miles as that is more commonly used I thought ?
Sarky.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy (DE and DM) are for the moment just names and they mean nothing.
Think of them as file names on a computer and when you open a file it's empty.
If anyone tells you different to this they are making it up as they go along.
Now, just like a computer we can trace our way to a file by typing mycomputer/gene/ph/science/dm and we're at the file, DM and DE is 'there' because it has to be, so the file was made and it will eventually be populated.
This doesn't mean we haven't a clue, because there is a path and that path is strewn with clues.
Everything that causes something to happen leaves evidence and something is happening in the Cosmos that has a cause and the clues lead to areas that simply defy adequate description at this time.
There are a number of hypotheses... I'll list some, but nowhere near all.
- An unstructured field that could be a Higgs that pushed away other fields, due to structure or strange unresolved probabilities leading to non-interaction with other fields.
- A dimensional anomaly indicating a further Gravitational Dimension to the Cosmos.
- A new deviation from standard model yet part of it.
- An area of failed interaction of a Supra-light Cosmos with our sub-light Cosmos.
- Vacuum Energy (DE only)
- Simply the manifestation of an alternate Cosmological Constant, a place to 'bank' all the Infinities that we have.
jbudgie said:
Gene Vincent said:
jbudgie said:
So you think that DM is not matter as such ?
That's where i was going the wrong way then .
I meant light years instead of miles as that is more commonly used I thought ?
Sarky.
Take a deep breath this is going to hard to follow...That's where i was going the wrong way then .
I meant light years instead of miles as that is more commonly used I thought ?
Sarky.
"Dark Matter and Dark Energy (DE and DM) are for the moment just names and they mean nothing."
Think of them as file names on a computer and when you open a file it's empty.
If anyone tells you different to this they are making it up as they go along.
Now, just like a computer we can trace our way to a file by typing mycomputer/gene/ph/science/dm and we're at the file, DM and DE is 'there' because it has to be, so the file was made and it will eventually be populated.
This doesn't mean we haven't a clue, because there is a path and that path is strewn with clues.
Everything that causes something to happen leaves evidence and something is happening in the Cosmos that has a cause and the clues lead to areas that simply defy adequate description at this time.
There are a number of hypotheses... I'll list some, but nowhere near all.
- An unstructured field that could be a Higgs that pushed away other fields, due to structure or strange unresolved probabilities leading to non-interaction with other fields.
- A dimensional anomaly indicating a further Gravitational Dimension to the Cosmos.
- A new deviation from standard model yet part of it.
- An area of failed interaction of a Supra-light Cosmos with our sub-light Cosmos.
- Vacuum Energy (DE only)
- Simply the manifestation of an alternate Cosmological Constant, a place to 'bank' all the Infinities that we have.
Sorry, further explanation needed for that.
- A dimensional anomaly indicating a further Gravitational Dimension to the Cosmos*.
Gravity is 'thought' to be an attribute of mass, something that mass does to anything that it can influence, we will often say that gravity is the effect of warped 'spacetime' which is a bit of sophistry to mask the simple fact that we know very little about at all, we can accurately forecast what happens when it is present, but exactly why the mechanism behaves in this way we simply don't have a clue.
Parallel Universes don't exist, please try to remove from your mind all thoughts about parallel Universes, they are a fantastical fantasy.
A Theoretician may use the idea of such to throw an idea into the arena, but it won't be the parallel Universe that is the idea, it will just be a 'vehicle' to envision a rather toothy or knotty concept.
It started life as a psychological description and that is roughly how science uses the concept of parallel Universe today.
Edited by Gene Vincent on Thursday 5th July 21:17
Bedazzled said:
Just playing devil's advocate but the alternative, the Copenhagen interpretation, is pretty unpalatable and why would our universe be the only one anyhow? What's special about it? It's quite a coincidence for a single universe to have all the right physical laws and constants to enable galaxies, stars, life, etc to develop; a multiverse theory would enable it to be what it is purely by chance.
The idea of multiple universes does seem a bit 'sci-fi' but it's a bit unreasonable to be so definitive about the unknown, imo.
Good post.The idea of multiple universes does seem a bit 'sci-fi' but it's a bit unreasonable to be so definitive about the unknown, imo.
In reverse order.
Mathematicians, as a breed, are more definitive in our minds than either Scientists or Physicists, the maths of the singularity tells me that there were very likely a number of attempts at forming this Cosmos, all of which collapsed until the fluid assembled itself into something that worked, mathematically that is pretty certain if you accept that everything was in flux/fluid state. Bake a cake and you'll see just how hard it is without doing everything right and this becomes instantly obvious.
Mathematicians use the term 'multiverses model' (usually) in this context... or at least should do.
Mathematically that's right, but there is no evidence left by such as that happening and so for a while yet, there will be the fantasy world of 'science fiction' based on the utter clap-trap of 'parallel universes' all over the media, the net and in peoples minds for a few more years yet.
Much correctness in your post.
The rest mass of particles seems to be based solely on the level of interaction with the Higgs field, this likely stems from the singularity in that in this Cosmos a level of individual interaction levels was found to be fairly stable.
I hold the view that this Cosmos is only 'fairly stable' as the missing anti-matter in it allowed the inflationary period to happen and who knows what the future holds if we find DM and DE is anti-matter!!!
In short the higgs mechanism affects a higgs field which has a potential energy that is only at its minimum when the field is not at its equilibrium value that minimum which breaks symmetry.
The Higgs Field is in a manner of speaking 'sacrifical', depleting itself to give various r-masses to its progeny.
Mathematically there should be 5 editions of Higgs particles (editions are the same as 'flavours, colours etc) but no evidence... yet.
If we find the 5 then the nugget in string/branes might be unlocked and the answers found to your last paragraphs answers might be found, but as yet we are usually left with the 'because that's what they do' sort of answer unless you go deep into some very (very) complex maths.
The rest mass of particles seems to be based solely on the level of interaction with the Higgs field, this likely stems from the singularity in that in this Cosmos a level of individual interaction levels was found to be fairly stable.
I hold the view that this Cosmos is only 'fairly stable' as the missing anti-matter in it allowed the inflationary period to happen and who knows what the future holds if we find DM and DE is anti-matter!!!
In short the higgs mechanism affects a higgs field which has a potential energy that is only at its minimum when the field is not at its equilibrium value that minimum which breaks symmetry.
The Higgs Field is in a manner of speaking 'sacrifical', depleting itself to give various r-masses to its progeny.
Mathematically there should be 5 editions of Higgs particles (editions are the same as 'flavours, colours etc) but no evidence... yet.
If we find the 5 then the nugget in string/branes might be unlocked and the answers found to your last paragraphs answers might be found, but as yet we are usually left with the 'because that's what they do' sort of answer unless you go deep into some very (very) complex maths.
mattnunn said:
One thing is for sure, the closer you get to figuring it out, the closer the architects finger is getting to the reset button and i suspect Universe 2.0 will be significantly harder to crack!
That is not a phylosophy, that is simply natural paranoia borne of our humble beginnings, you can over-ride paranoia, but you have to be a willing patient.mattnunn said:
But there's nothing more enjoyable than a puzzle is there?
Nothing comes close.mattnunn said:
Perhaps if you pulled from the other end of the string you'd find the answers came to you.
We are where we are... the other end of the string has been lost a long time.mattnunn said:
Ask not what you're universe does do for you but what you do for your universe?
mattnunn said:
Maths as a language is fundementally flawed, as it, unfortunately, has no innate human experience linked to it - much like Esperanto, it may seem a good idea to those that have bothered to learn it, but democracy rules, our universe can only be existent in human experience, not in mathematics.
Maths is a language just like the one you have used and I am using now to answer you, it is flawed but not fundamentally, it is up to the individual to remove as many of those flaws and that is what maths tries to do continually. Maths just gives a number for what we see everyday, with a set of numbers, we can manipulate things to work for us, you type and it becomes numbers, they may only be 0s and 1s but as a result of using those numbers, you can convey to many people your thoughts, emotions, psychological condition, we get to 'experience' part of your life and thoughts... that's pretty fking astonishing in my mind. Don't knock, rejoice.mattnunn said:
Gene, maths as you describe is not a language, it's a media, a means of transport, 1 and 0's, morse code, trigonometry or any other means only convey human ideas and experience. The problem with what you're doing is we (by we I mean the rest of us who don't have cosmology doctorates) have no experience of what you're talking about, I don't think that makes us stupid though, does it?
And the simulation argument is a well trodden and fairly stable and logical philisophical argument, as old as humanity and the search for ontology and in Bostrom's argument, one could say, entirley rational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromRe...
That's how maths effects you, it has given us all a medium to broadcast.And the simulation argument is a well trodden and fairly stable and logical philisophical argument, as old as humanity and the search for ontology and in Bostrom's argument, one could say, entirley rational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_argument
http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/BostromRe...
If you can't communicate then all the human ideas and experiences are lost.
I try hard not to speak only in the language of maths, I try to convey something of what I see to anyone who wishes to listen or read, I can speak a few languages, I can't speak Swahili but I know I'm not stupid, not being able to speak a language is not confirmation of stupidity, it is confirmation that you don't need it to survive. You don't need maths to live a perfectly good life, you possibly work in an industry that has its own 'workspeak' terms that would be meaningless to me no doubt, so if you wanted to explain your work, you'd endeavour to talk to me in a manner that I understood, that is neither demeaning to me or a sign of superiority for you. Talk to your workmates and you slip back into the language of your industry, you use 'shortcuts' and maths is as much about shortcuts as it about pure math foundation.
Philosophy is not my forte and perhaps I'm not conveying my position clearly enough.
You should start a thread about the Philosophy you follow and how it moderates your view of science and maths, we'd all benefit from one as it is likely that others on this forum might add their point of view.
thehawk said:
es, well the origins of the universe are one thing, to me I'm almost most interested in the origins of life. I mean we hear that the probability is that there is life elsewhere in the universe but that still doesn't stop me thinking about the chain of events that would have happened to get us to where we are today. The formation from a bunch of molecules into something that was 'alive' , that could self-reproduce is mind-boggling. And then to evolve into the complex specimens we see today. At any point that could have been wiped out, or taken a totally different course and then there would have been no humans, or even life on earth. The probability of you existing must be some enormous number. (which I just googled)
http://visual.ly/what-are-odds
Bringing this back to the reality of the maths, my view is very different.http://visual.ly/what-are-odds
Time dilutes all odds and time is what the Cosmos has plenty of.
The odds of you being here are not what you might think or have been led to believe, they are inevitable so are a dead cert.
Your personality though is the product of circumstance.
The problem is we find it hard to dissociate 'you' from purpose, the purpose of procreation is continuance and that continuance is certain provided there is fertility and that is simple selection, your father was fertile, your mother sensed this and it became inevitable that their genes were given continuance.
So far all still odds on.
Fertility... it too is an odds on certainty, the genes are so robust and huge sections designed to ensure fertility, you have huge back-up systems to ensure your father and mother was fertile.
You can go right back doing this... all certainties.
But there is a point when there is a bit of pure luck... and that was 65 million years ago, when mammals were given a chance to prosper, it's taken 65 million years to go from a ground hugging rodent like mammal to the fine upstanding humans that we all are... this is our chance, the Dinosaurs squandered their chance and just became bigger and bigger with smaller and smaller proportionally sized brains, they were a dead end.
We're not.
So, if you think 'individuality' then every person is a super-stroke of good luck, but if you look at it as simply continuance, which is what your genes are constructed to do, it's a dead cert with the odds-on being billions to one in favour of yours and my own existence.
I see certainty, because I understand probability, others see something totally different because they don't.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff