Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Jason Carrillo: on 9/15/16 at 10:59am UTC, wrote Good discussion going on.

Paul Reed: on 3/9/12 at 12:18pm UTC, wrote James “What do you imagine a physical substance to be?” I do not know...

Paul Reed: on 3/9/12 at 11:43am UTC, wrote Tommy Tee Hee, only the best quality roasted nuts used here! Your lengthy...

Anonymous: on 3/8/12 at 23:22pm UTC, wrote Paul, Repeating: You: "? We are trapped in an existence where, what is...

Steve Dufourny: on 3/8/12 at 12:39pm UTC, wrote Hello Georgina, Hope you are well. You know Georgina, I agree indeed. But...

Paul Reed: on 3/8/12 at 9:37am UTC, wrote James “Weak excuse for your adoption of this ideological conclusion” ...

Georgina Parry: on 3/7/12 at 21:10pm UTC, wrote Dear Steve, it is a real problem. Reading and interfering with the data...

James Putnam: on 3/7/12 at 20:22pm UTC, wrote Tommy Gilbertson, I see that your essay 'A Method to Measure...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Jorma Seppaenen: "Dear Georgina, I think you are perfectly right about the estimate of age..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Georgina Woodward: "Yes. The estimate of age of the visible universe, and age of stars, other..." in Why Time Might Not Be an...

akash hasan: "Some students have an interest in researching and space exploration. I..." in Announcing Physics of the...

Michael Jordan: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Anonymous: "Excellent site. Plenty of helpful information here. I am sending it to some..." in Constructing a Theory of...

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 25, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: The Secret History of that Infamous Boson [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Blogger Gerald Guralnik wrote on Dec. 12, 2011 @ 22:26 GMT
- Comments on the much anticipated December 13 CERN seminar on the status of the ATLAS and CMS searches for THE BOSON.

Headlines have been buzzing for the past week or so about a possible glimpse of a certain long-sought particle at the LHC--with phrases such as “the biggest scientific breakthrough of the century so far” being bandied about. As Tuesday’s announcement approaches, I am reminded of the role that I played in predicting that now notorious particle’s existence.

I have been thinking about the solutions to quantum field theory and particularly spontaneous symmetry breaking for fifty years starting with the build up to my PhD thesis at Harvard. At that time, the concept that there could be solutions to field equations that have lesser symmetry than the actions that generated them was very surprising if not heretical. Now the idea is so accepted that last week I ended my lectures in my advanced quantum mechanics course at Brown with the Goldstone solution of spontaneous broken quartic scalar field theory. The ideas I explained in that course are an important part of the subsequent quantum field theory, string theory and phenomenology courses that these students will take on the way to their degrees.

Initially, what impressed me most about these new solutions was that the price paid for breaking a continuous symmetry was the necessity of a zero mass excitation demonstrated clearly in the leading order approximations that existed at the time and eventually confirmed generally by Goldstone, Salam and Weinberg. My thesis advisor, Walter Gilbert, suggested that I study a model proposed by Bjorken which was very interesting because it started with a four fermion vector-vector interaction, a theory that is not renormalizable in coupling constant perturbation theory. If the current is forced to have a non-vanishing vacuum value, Bjorken claimed that the result, at least in lowest order, is a theory identical to ordinary quantized electrodynamics (QED). This was a highly suspect result because the symmetry that is broken is Lorentz invariance. It turns out that this breaking is innocuous to all orders and that one sector of the solution space of this theory does yield normal electrodynamics complete with a massless unit spin photon. This intrigued me and I could not help but wonder if there was not a similar way to argue that the photon of normal QED is required to be massless. Indeed, I produced a proof which Sidney Coleman showed to be wrong (to my great embarrassment) in my thesis exam. This was, in retrospect, an obviously reckless thing to claim since Schwinger had recently argued that there was no dynamical reason for the photon to be massless and had illustrated his point by a toy model of QED in two space time dimensions. Indeed, it is now very clear that the structure of coupling constant perturbation theory, not a general dynamics argument, imposes the massless condition order by order on the photon.

Fortunately, despite the error, I still passed my thesis exam and moved from Harvard to Imperial College, London on a NSF postdoctoral fellowship. I was still obsessed with finding a general proof showing normal QED dynamically required a massless photon and wrote a paper in April of 1964 claiming to have found this argument and published it in Physical Review Letters. Almost immediately, I realized that I had only succeeded in producing a statement about massless gauge modes in manifestly covariant theories. A careful analysis of these results allowed Hagen, Kibble and I to make a general exact statement of the mass mechanism that shows that the Goldstone theorem only applies to unphysical modes of gauge theories. We then wrote the now well known GHK paper which states this mass mechanism and give a particular example – charge symmetry broken scalar electrodynamics. We were very slow in sending the results off for publication because my experiences showed how careful one needed to be with this problem and also because we hoped to further extend our conclusions with additional examples. We eventually decided it was time to publish and literally were putting the finished paper in the envelope when Kibble discovered new papers by Englert and Brout and Higgs. We glanced at these, recognized they addressed the same issue, but felt they were deficient. Neither group had the general mechanism but only the example. Further, neither group dealt correctly with the Goldstone boson which is definitely present in both of their manifestly covariant models. Englert and Brout state there is a massless excitation but do not recognize it as being pure gauge and Higgs fails to recognize that the solutions to his equations have a massless pure gauge excitation. Englert and Brout entirely miss the Scalar boson (Higgs) while Higgs and GHK explicitly show it.

We decided to cite these works but only altered our manuscript by adding, in several places, references to these just-revealed papers. Not a single thought or calculation was removed or added, nor was any change made but to the referencing in our manuscript as the result of Kibble’s having pointed out the existence of these new papers.

Any careful reading will show that our approach is very different from that of E, B or H. We further state emphatically that beyond seeing the papers at the final moment, we had no previous contact with E, B or H or previous knowledge of their work which is also clearly independent. I add that I had been talking freely about our results for months before the actual submission of the GHK paper.

Returning to the present, I am looking forward to Tuesday’s announcements, although I will be amazed if there are any definitive results. The verification of a particle, particularly this one, requires a large amount of data and a tremendous amount of care. I have been very impressed with how the experimentalists in general have been handling this and watching the Brown experimentalists (who I know well) at work – David Cutts, Ulrich Heintz, Greg Landsberg (Physics coordinator for CMS), Meenakshi Narain, and their army of eager postdocs and students, I have no doubt that if the Boson exists, it will be found and it will stay found. While my personal interest undoubtedly biases my opinion, I think it is highly likely that an elementary scalar boson exists. While beautiful theories have often been wrong, the evidence so far seems to make this almost a sure thing. Of course, the chaos that follows a non-discovery would be exciting as well, but I think it very unlikely.









Videos courtesy of Daniel Ferrante.

-----------

Gerald Guralnik is a professor of physics at Brown University, Providence, RI.

Edited on Dec 20, in response to requests for links to papers and for more information.

Video of the 2010 JJ Sakurai Prize for Theoretical Particle Physics Talks for Higgs Brout Englert Guralnik Hagen Kibble.

The History of the Guralnik, Hagen and Kibble development of the Theory of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking and Gauge Particles.

A recent APS talk: The Beginnings of Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Particle Physics— Derived From My on the Spot “Intellectual Battlefield Impressions”.

A new posting of a 1965 conference talk with considerable addition to the original GHK paper: Gauge Invariance and the Goldstone Theorem.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 10:51 GMT
"if the Higgs is ruled out, life does get very interesting indeed. It means that the keystone which keeps the Standard Model propped up doesn't exist, paving the way for new, more exotic theories."

Maybe. However, I could also envision mere foundational corrections that are not exotic at all.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 11:34 GMT
Eckard

Yep, I'd vote for the latter. At the elementary level, all we have is stuff that's difficult to detect. That's it! There is no necessary implication in that that something wierd and wonderful is happening.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Feb. 12, 2012 @ 07:33 GMT
A journalist wrote for a daily newspaper that, in case the Higgs does not exist, SUSY would be among the possible alternatives. Is this correct?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zeeya wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 13:55 GMT
Higgs update from CERN webcast:

ATLAS overall result: 3.6σ @ 126GeV

(Higgs→γγ result: 2.8σ @ 126GeV Higgs→ZZ* result: 2.1σ @ 126GeV Higgs→WW* result: 1.4σ @126GeV) via @aidanatcern

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 15:50 GMT
And updated from CERN official:



Bottom line from #ATLAS: 2.3 sigma excess for a #Higgs mass at 126 GeV. More checks will come with 2012 data.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


paul valletta wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 14:01 GMT
The Higgs mystery continues, like a good detective/murder/mystery, we should inquire re Higgs: Was the particle dicovered or created at cern? did it fall into the data or was it pushed! :]

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 15:32 GMT
I think Holger Lyre would particularly appreciate your line of questioning.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 17:29 GMT
"Now you see Him, now you don't."

Holger Lyra wrote: "For a genuine property like mass cannot be gained by eating descriptive fluff, which is just what gauge is." Why is a gauge descriptive fluff?

Being just an enfant terrible, I read: "a gauge symmetry is merely conventional and that it can therefore not be considered the source of a real physical mechanism" and "it is in no case acceptable to claim that the breaking of a merely conventional gauge symmetry plays a crucial role ..." and "we get a negative mass term" and “Mexican hat” and "we can hardly change the physical content of our theory by merely transcribing it" and "the degree of freedom of the Goldstone boson is unphysical insofar as it can be made to disappear by a suitable gauge"and "The redundant degree of freedom of the Goldstone boson is in fact absorbed into the longitudinal polarization of the gauge boson. It is precisely this transcription of degrees of freedom—because of the non-invariance of the ground state—which is usually called the “Higgs mechanism" and "the whole 'mechanism' consists in a mere shuffling of degrees of freedom! and so on.

Admittedly, the much simpler line of argumentation in my last essay is even more radical at odds with the burst of theories that followed GSW.

I would never ask for an "appropriate interpretation of physical entities with imaginary masses".

Do we need "spurious, unphysical degrees of freedom, which can be transformed away by our conventional choice of gauge"?

As an engineer I understand the gauge transformation from U(x) to exp(i chi(x)) as a transformation from a domain of reality into a fictitious complex domain. If a non-negative quantity x is involved, the result exhibits overlooked redundancy, being prone to be misinterpreted.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Zeeya wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 14:43 GMT
CMS spokesman Tonelli: "What we see is consistent either with a background fluctuation or with the presence of a Higgs boson".

Now you see him, now you don't.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 15:00 GMT
Well sure. The predicted lifetime for such heavy particles is so short that it's probably always going to be hard to tell a blip from a glob. Personally, I think more indirect methods will have to be employed to test high energy field theories, though I can't say what they might be.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Zeeya replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 15:30 GMT
That's a great description of particle physics experiments Tom: Trying to tell the blips from the globs!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 16:37 GMT
On the Interactions Newswire #65/11 (http://www.interactions.org) the latest update from Cern indicated that there were "tantilising hints", and a lot of times the sequence "if it exists" is used, further results will be known in 2012. (the Higgs boson is taking a wintersleep).

Personnally I think that the theory about the Higgs boson is not the only truth available in science, it is only a way of thinking (and thinking is free). The fact that the Higgs is responsible for the mass of other particles is a for me strange idea, since the Higgs cannot be a part of the particle that it "gives" its mass because the Higgs is heavier than most of these particles, okay you could imagine that the Higgsess act like a crowd, and make it difficult for some particles to move, the more Higgses the more inertia, in this way the photon must be massless because of its speed (C), does that also mean that a photon passes through these Higgs bosons and other particles with mass don't ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 17:59 GMT
Wilhelmus

Well said, and good to hear from you. I must agree that the basis for the Higgs is far from complete and support seems to smacks of some desperation.

I'm afraid to say the understanding of dynamic background frames, as the discrete field model, and it's implications are little further advanced than when we last spoke, although more and more consistent papers are now arising. Have you seen Dowdye's extinction shift principle yet? Anticipatory plaguerism if ever I read it!! lol. But encouraging none the less. http://www.quantumrealism.net/uploads/ExtinctionShiftPrincip
le_An_Introduction_20Oct2006_1_.pdf

It's a new viewpoint of the same dynamic conceptual basis. On this basis the Higgs is of course entirely unnecessary and rather cumbersome. If you have any new presentational ideas on it do let me know, and all support gratefully accepted.

Kind regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 03:09 GMT
I refuse to offer any comment, except that I refuse to stop admiring Mr. Jackson's comments! And Wilhelmus, for not getting discouraged. At least you try, bud.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 18:33 GMT
The lack of a clear signal for the Higgs particle is probably telling us something. Even if next year the signal for the Higgs particle reaches 3 sigma there may still be something funny going on. Based on the standard model the Higgs particle should be screaming at us at sqrt{s} = 7 TeV. We should be getting clear signal at 5-sigma or better, the corks should be popping off the champagne...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 19:50 GMT
Hi Lawrence,

I completely agree that the 'results' should not be so marginal, and I think this is pointing towards a more complex Higgs sector, such as the MSSM Higgs sector with 5 physical Higgs bosons - light, heavy, pseudoscalar, charged-positive, and charged-negative.

IF SUSY exists at a higher mass scale (at least above 1 TeV), then the MSSM light Higgs, which is a quantum mixture of the 5 pure Higgs mass states, will behave much like an SM Higgs (but not identically). If one is looking for an SM Higgs, then a very similar MSSM light Higgs may give 'marginal results'.

You said that the current LHC data excludes the Heavy Higgs up to about 400 GeV, but our search for SUSY has already excluded m_0 and m_1/2 up to about 800 GeV each. As such, I think we should expect the MSSM heavy, pseudoscalar, and charged Higgs to have masses of at least 800 GeV. This scenario would require the MSSM light Higgs to behave similar to an SM Higgs.

I know that LHC is focusing on an SM ~125 GeV Higgs today, but has the data yet excluded an MSSM ~140 GeV light Higgs? Most of the results that imply the exclusion of ~140 GeV are assuming SM Higgs properties. And should we so naively expect a simple SM Higgs to explain all of the mass scales and varieties that we observe - from the electron neutrino to the top quark mass?

Regarding top-top-bar condensates, I think that Tony Smith has worked out a fairly detailed model of that. Perhaps it is reasonable to expect the origin of mass (Higgs) to be related to our largest observed mass (top quark) and the origin of gravity (Graviton), but such a duality between Higgs and Gravitons would require massive Higgs and massive pseudo-Gravitons, as well as massless Gravitons and massless pseudo-Higgs.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 23:11 GMT
Hi to both of you,

I recognize your dances of maths :)

happy to see the dream team !

If the fermion possesses a superpartner a boson .So we have a kind of equilibrium respecting the encoding of evolution between m/hv.The group of Poicarré is important where SU(3) is rational.The fractalization of the SU(3) become a key towards the deterministic road of calculations and measurements.

We do not really extradimensions. I don't think we need a binar system. The fermions are matter and they have an associated boson for fields and interactions. So we can extrapolate the fact that the mass polarises light . The stability seems a fermion increasing in density due to the "fusion" boson/fermion during the encoding of evolution by sortings or synchros.

If the dual system is prefered and is correct, so it is probably the volumes of spheres which become the key for the steps of encoding.

Between 10^16GeV and a BEC it doesn't exist difference. The uniqueness is essential at my humble opinion. So the finite number is essential.The finite groups of Galois can help.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 02:25 GMT
Hi Steve,

Fermions are massive matter. Photons are bosons with zero proper mass, but with an effective relativistic mass of hv. However, W and Z bosons are massive, and require something like a Higgs field to supply the necessary longitudinal degrees-of-freedom. You see, massless spin-1 bosons may only have spin up (+1) or down (-1) (the transverse modes), but massive spin-1 bosons also have a spin-0 projection (the longitudinal mode). In this respect, the Higgs field provides mass to the W and Z bosons, and at least one physical Higgs boson remains. The Higgs field also provides couplings to fermions, but do we really expect a system with just 4 (SM Higgs) or 8 (MSSM Higgs) parameters to explain the full mass spectrum from electron neutrinos to top quarks?

Whether SUSY is correct or not (I am still a fan - m_0 and m_1/2 greater than 800 GeV does not exclude SUSY), any TOE must be able to explain the differences between Fermions and Bosons, and unite them.

I am not sure that you want to use SU(3) - perhaps the related G2?

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John Merryman wrote on Dec. 13, 2011 @ 19:10 GMT
I suppose that when something is reverse engineered, it is possible to forecast the existence of necessary mechanisms, in this case between quantum particles and a static background. I wonder what, once the dust starts to settle from this discovery, if it is real, the next step will be? If I may use the religious analogy, this isn't the God particle, but the God's Messenger particle. God being that background.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Fred Diether wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 03:09 GMT
Hi Gerarld,

That is some history that I hadn't heard before concerning the Higgs mechanism. Thank you for that. But I am wondering why you didn't link to your recent arXiv paper? Well, there it is now. Could you also provide your original papers as attachments to this blog in PDF format? Thanks.

Fred

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 16:07 GMT
"what we have done is something of a fraud because the parameter of the “broken symmetry” appears in any formulae in an entirely inert manner just because of the gauge invariance. In so far as any physical interpretation of results is

concerned the symmetry under consideration has not really broken at all."

Is there any other enfant terrible who asks for possibly misleading religious tradition behind our present doctrines in physics?

The Big Bang idea stems from a catholic priest, and it got support by someone who confessed: For us believing physicists the distinction between past and future is an illusion. Aren't ideal symmetries and gauge invariance closely related to the block universe?

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 08:37 GMT
Mass is an energy form of quantum vacuum in symmetry with diminished energy density of quantum vacuum. Presence of mass diminishes energy density of quantum vacuum respectively to the energy of a given mass. A given particle with a mass diminishes energy density of quantum vacuum, mass-less particle does not diminish energy of quantum vacuum. In order to explain mass of elementary particles this view does not require existence of the hypothetical boson of Higgs.

attachments: Symmetry_of__mass_and_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum__11.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 16:37 GMT
Hi Amrit,

How are you? Happy to see you again.

I am not a fan of these external cause of mass. I beleive strongly about the intrinsic codes inside fermions so mass. The higgs like a fermion is not rational because the linearity is for light and bosons. It is a subtle difference but I think it is important and essential.In this line of reasoning, the higgs bosons are not logic because they are against the principle of evolution, if I can say, and its distribution, deterministic.

The bosons complete mass by informations I agree, but the main codes are inside mass and so it is this mass which polarises and encodes informations.

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

amrit replied on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 08:08 GMT
Hi Steve

We meet somewhere.

here is my mail

you can contact me

sorli@spacelife.si

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 16:32 GMT
Hello Amrit,

I am happy to have news from you. I thought that you didn't want to answer me lol. I am less parano.

But I fear to send mails or to accept mails lol

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 17:09 GMT
"Mass" FUNDAMENTALLY involves gravitational and inertial equivalency and balancing in conjunction with balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion. This explains F=ma FUNDAMENTALLY. GRAVITY AND INERTIA ARE BOTH FUNDAMENTAL TO DISTANCE IN/OF SPACE.

Dreams theoretically, actually, and fundamentally and generally unify physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 17:23 GMT
FQXI.org, I demand that you acknowledge that dreams fundamentally and generally unify physics. The proof is overwhelming. Dreams are physics.

FQXI.org, your credibility and honesty are seriously on the line here.

The longer that you evade this, the worse that you will look. I will make sure of it. The truth really matters here. It matters alot.

This unification of mine is extremely important for many reasons, and it goes way beyond physics. Read my recent posts too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 14, 2011 @ 20:22 GMT
Open letter to scientific community

Dear Sirs,

Higgs boson will be never discovered as it not exists.

Physicists as the CERN know that, what they are telling us this days in media is just to get money for searching for a black cat in a black room that is not there.

Our research shows mass has origin in energy density of quantum vacuum.

Yours Sincerely, Amrit Sorli, Space Life Institute

attachments: 1_Symmetry_of__mass_and_energy_density_of_quantum_vacuum__11.pdf

Bookmark and Share
this post was moved here from a different topic

report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 11:52 GMT
Amrit

As the Higgs will effectively prove an 'ether' style condensate I can't entirely support your reasoning, though fully agree with the basis behind it. Of course many will try to interpret it another way as it will challenge their beliefs.

Gerald correctly points out that Higgs himself missed the implication of a massless 'pure guage' field excitation, and points out the implications of a non vanishing vacumm value, which is consistent with dark energy, the CMBR rest frame, the 2.7 degree temperature and all the other evidence now pointing to the conflict with Einstein's enforced assumption of no, at least 'local', background frame.

The 'frame last scattered' is now an undeniably logical and fully consistent concept in astronomy/ astrophysics, making sense of many disparate anomalous phenomena, from Raman/Stokes and 'anti-Styokes up and down shifted scattering right through to the Kinetic Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect etc.

Ray, this would it seems include and explain the wave-particle Boson-Fermion question, as the 'quanta' condenses from the 'wave field' like snowflakes from air. We simply have to face that the air has (a guage of) 'dampness'. Therein will lie the issue. Reality may prove too different from 100 year old physics to be believed.

Of course there's panic that LHC funding may be pulled with no promise of progress. And also as the Higgs itself (as such) is not actually essential to the process. What propagates the Higgs in the first place anyway? Is there really no simple link between energy and matter? of course there is! So is Amrit correct? and are they looking in entirely the wrong direction? However much we look away many signs now seem to point that way. And for any who doubt Einstein's own views; 1938: ""For the present we must still assume the existence of both: field and matter".

If all space has a degree of em field in the frame of the 'parent' massive body or bodies, and we CAN tell the speed of something in a vacuum (LHC pipe) by the 'photoelectrons' propagated and their synchrotron frequency, what price now for the unnecessary removal of the background frame, against dynamic moving frames defined by 'constant coupling'? The apparent logic of extinction used by NASA's Dr E H Dowdye may be helpful here; http://www.quantumrealism.net/uploads/ExtinctionShiftPrincip
le_An_Introduction_20Oct2006_1_.pdf

Views?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 13:15 GMT
Hi Peter,

You said "Ray, this would it seems include and explain the wave-particle Boson-Fermion question, as the 'quanta' condenses from the 'wave field' like snowflakes from air. We simply have to face that the air has (a guage of) 'dampness'. Therein will lie the issue. Reality may prove too different from 100 year old physics to be believed."

I like your analogy, although I was thinking more in terms of (spherical?) water droplets condensing from the air, and subsequently forming a close-packing lattice. For Joy's 1-spheres, 3-spheres and 7-spheres; these would relate to the G2 hexagonal graphene-like lattice, the F4 24-cell lattice, and the E8 Gosset lattice; respectively. For Steve's 3-balls, we would have a Face-Centered Cubic (or the similar Hexagonal Close Packing, but the FCC has a simpler mathematical basis) lattice.

Perhaps you see why I have been trying to build a TOE based on subsets of multi-dimensional simplices (see my latest Prespacetime paper and my FQXi essay from the 2nd contest) - because these simplices lead directly to close-packing lattices.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 21:43 GMT
Ray

"I like your analogy, although I was thinking more in terms of (spherical?) water droplets condensing from the air, and subsequently forming a close-packing lattice."

I used to too. Snowflakes make better densely packed snowballs, and perhaps there's an analogy with their (infinitely?) variable complex geometry. But I don't like or see the need for them packed too close. We also actually know little of how they form. One may assume that the moment the tiniest droplet of H_2O forms, the whole thing crystallises from the condensate in one hit - almost like some boson creating matter from energy. Now where have I heard that before?

Frankly my money is on no Higgs being found but a different mechanism and the standard model T being updated. I do have good reasons, but it seems good is a relative term.

Can you post a link to your paper. Will I understand it?

A questions for you: As we know, the EM field of a massive body is (as Tom correctly pointed out) theoretically infinite (beyond a virial redius) and indeed supercluster and filament fields permeate the whole universe. In this case, do you think the fact that we can easily discern the speed of a particle or bunch moving through a vacuum permeated by an EM field, (in at least 2 ways) is apparently inconsistent with the assumption (made before space travel) that we cannot discern the speed of any body through the vacuum?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 22:19 GMT
Hi Peter,

I understand the necessity for at least one physical Higgs boson, but do not expect the complete explanation of mass to be quite that simple. Also, if SUSY exists at a higher energy scale, then the MSSM light Higgs would behave similar to, but not identical to, the SM Higgs. I noticed that many of the mass exclusion diagrams had a vertical axis of sigma/ sigma_SM with a bold line at unity. This is mildly disturbing because it assumes that the Higgs is an SM Higgs. What if the Higgs multiplet is more complex?

You mention EM fields filling all of space, and you question the vacuum. EM might not be as good an example as is Gravity because EM fields are mostly charge-shielded at large distances such that these fields are dipole, quadrapole, etc. that generally fall off faster than inverse-distance-squared. In Quantum Electro-Dynamics, electrons couple to quantized photons, Z's, W's and neutrinos, and Higgs. The Higgs field is required to explain why the photon is massless while the W and Z bosons are massive.

Those papers are attached.

Have Fun!

attachments: 1_Hidden_Dimensions.pdf, munroewhat_is_ultimately_possible.pdf

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Domenico Oricchio wrote on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 14:40 GMT
I am thinking on the deep meaning of the particles mass, and I have many unresolved problems.

Each modern theory contain the previous theories.

The mass is contained in the classical theory, in special relativity but it is not contained in general relativity: Einstein's equation contain only curvatures and four-momentum (derivative of a Lagrangian).

Each quantum equation have a correspondence with a classical theory (Schrödinger, Dirac and Klein-Gordon), and each equation contain the mass; but the hypothetical general relativity quantum equation must have not the mass term (the gauge transformation make this elimination in each quantum theory with wave function).

If the mass is not necessary in a general quantum equation, why it is necessary to insert a mass creation using the field interaction with the vacuum?

I understand the measure of the energy spectrum of the particles in a general equation, but I don't understand a mass spectrum using a Higgs boson.

Saluti

Domenico

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 15:43 GMT
The body is fundamental to physics AND thought. Tactile ideas are essential to fundamentally understand gravity.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 15, 2011 @ 15:53 GMT
What Einstein's gravity lacks and what dreams FUNDAMENTALLY demonstrate, include, and unify:

1) Instantaneity (and fundamentally).

2) Truly and fundamentally equivalent and balanced inertia and gravity (both at half energy/force strength.)

3) Fundamentally balanced and equivalent attraction and repulsion.

4) Gravity and inertia are both FUNDAMENTAL to distance in/of space.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 08:15 GMT
Hi Peter

Thanks for your letter.

Mass and gravity are phenomena of energy density of quantum vacuum.

They went into wrong direction because they have seen only mass and not being aware that mass in in space (in quantum vacuum) which plays essential role in the universe.

What is quite interesting you can post that, i send letter to CERN.

No respond, they simply ignore you.

Yes, it is all about money.

They now there is no Higgs boson, they just want to play fey years more to get money.....

You can see about gravity as a result of energy density of quantum vacuum on my home page, articles: www.spacelife.si

yours amrit

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 08:43 GMT
we manage to make a SciRePrint

http://scireprints.lu.lv/198/

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 16, 2011 @ 10:13 GMT
Thanks Guys, - in turn;

Ray,

I agree the assumption is disturbing, in fact I'm disturbed by how easily we make them and forget that's what they are. Thanks for the link, but I'd read that and was referring to your other paper. You'll recall I feel there are some far more fundamental assumptions we have wrong. In logic just one early imperfection can render the whole thing irrelevant, so we should (and can) invest more thought on logically testing assumptions. This has been my methodology and I now believe in it more strongly than ever.

Amrit,

I had read your paper too, and found our models similar and compatible. Yours in mathematical detail, mine as a conceptual topological (energy gradient) part of a far broader rationalised ontology, the most complete version (with others) not yet published but I will initially send you an extended abstract direct. In fact I hope I may cite yours, If you have not read my essay and earlier papers I hope you may.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/803

http://vixra.or
g/abs/1007.0022

I have identified some fundamental wrong assumptions about maths, so avoid many areas where it is used to model motion, acceleration, non point particles, infinities etc.

Steve

Great to hear from you. I'm good, I hope you're holding up. You asked how are "the DMF spaces in motion?" Luckily our magnetosphere and ionosphere are still hanging on to the planet, and the heliosphere to the sun. If they disconnect and part company I'll let you know, but I won't have long! (none of us would). Luckily I've derived that they are inseparable - and indeed are all that a full Discrete Field Model dynamic background ontology needs to derive local reality.

And they are almost spherical! Do read Amrit's paper, and Dowdye's posted above, both of which more accurately describe key structural components.

But the problem is 'beliefs'. We deny science is belief based but it pervades fundamental physics and keeps us (ok, ..'them') stuck in the ever deeper dark trench of current mainstream theory. The real issue then is how to get some of the light of logic down there before it's too late. I fear we may prove to be a quite short failed experiment as a species if this proves unachievable. (Where's Spock when we need him! lol!)

Keep those spheres spinning. how do they deal with torque?

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 16:46 GMT
Hello Peter,

Thank you ,it is nice. FQXi missed me.

I have not read still the papper of Amrit. I am persuaded that it will be a very good work.

What is "torque" Peter ?

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT
Steve

Torque is turning force, or the inverse of angular momentum, conceptually equivalent to the electro motive rotational force, or 'twist'. I keep coming across it as a potentially far more important component of nature than we've seemed to recognise. Working alongside translation it derives the helix.

EM torque is very efficient and effective, which is why electric cars blow the internal combustion engine away in acceleration. I'm presently researching the phenomena wrt nuclear tokamaks, which are the same thing dynamically as active galactic nuclii (SMBH's). Multiple toroids circulating to form the ring of a larger toroid, all within an oblate spheroid, and giving a continuous helix around the body of the torus, plus a helical gas jet from the big torus axis. All EM fieldds are of course toroidal, including Earth's. Could your spheres have toroids inside them?

Did you know that there is an intrinsic rotational force on all mass in space? If so any idea where it comes from and how anything can rotate at all when in Special Relativity there is no such thing as space at all so it cannot be rotating!

Yes. Read Amrit's paper. there is much of sense in there, and a beautiful simple and undeniable logic But then I would say that as it is entirely consistent with discrete field dynamics!

Please do have a go at my Xmas brain teaser in the 'Origins of quantum..' string (I think it's just above my 'Thank you guys' post). it'll take some thought and visualisation skills.!

Very Happy Christmas.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 19, 2011 @ 22:55 GMT
Hi Steve and Peter,

NO! - Peter's "Torque is turning force, or the inverse of angular momentum" is wrong!

Consider these similar (not equivalent) terms for linear vs. rotational motion:

linear............vs...........rotational

momentum, p....................angular momentum, L = r x p

force, F.......................torque, tau = r x F

Newton's 2nd, F = dp/dt........tau = dL/dt...(no inverse relation here)

where r x ... is a vector cross-product (a pseudo-vector with odd parity properties - flip a rotating sphere, and you get a factor of -1) with the radial lever arm.

Before I mess Steve up completely, please check this French Wikipedia link for torque/moment.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 01:00 GMT
Peter,

You say: "Did you know that there is an intrinsic rotational force on all mass in space? If so any idea where it comes from...?"

For the answer to this, go to my essay in the 3rd contest: The Analog-In, Digital-Out Universe, equation 8.

It's what I've been trying to sell for years now. The C-field *IS* the rotational field induced by the proper momentum of moving mass, and it is intrinsic.

I'm not going into a long explanation on this blog, but it really is "a potentially far more important component of nature than we've seemed to recognize."

And as for the Higgs, I still claim it's not there (don't need it in my theory). I agree with Lawrence that: "The lack of a clear signal for the Higgs particle is probably telling us something. Even if next year the signal for the Higgs particle reaches 3 sigma there may still be something funny going on. Based on the standard model the Higgs particle should be screaming at us at sqrt{s} = 7 TeV."

Lawrence also says: "The Higgs field is the entire gemish, which was proposed to exist because physics kept coming up with evidence for a massive boson field for the weak interactions. There is a problem with this. If the spin is s = 1 h-bar, then in a massless theory the spin is projected along the momentum as m = 1 or -1. However, if this particle has a mass the spin can be projected normal to the momentum, or equivalently there is a frame of zero momentum for the particle."

I do not believe that the spin can be projected normal to the momentum. Same equation 8 above.

As I mentioned on another blog, I'm also beginning to have very serious doubts about the reality of *any* scalar field, which is what the Higgs is supposed to be.

But with the European monetary crisis, one can see why some people would choose to say "We MIGHT have seen something, but we need to look for another year."

Happy Christmas to you, too.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 13:36 GMT
Hi Edwin,

You might want to look up the paper that I referenced earlier by Haramein and Rauscher - (as I understand) they have added a Coriolis term to Einstein's Field Equations, and obtained toroidal solutions.

Dear Peter,

You asked "Can water ever go down a plughole without 'tortion' creating a vortex?" This is due to the Coriolis effect. If all of reality was rotating (just as the Earth rotates), how would we know? We might know via the observed physical effects.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Dec. 20, 2011 @ 11:02 GMT
Ray, Edwin.

Thanks. As Steve's a good numbers man I know your mathematics will mean more than my ambiguous words. Application of torque energy can of course result in angular momentum energy, and indeed counter it, but only via a conversion.

I never, ever, argue with maths (except of course when it tries to model motion in vector space, acceleration anywhere, mixes rest and inertial mass, assumes particle as points in modelling interaction, claims better than than 5% aberration and better than 20% accuracy of Navier-Stokes magnetohydrodynamics, ignores Godel's theorem, believes itself 'real' etc.)

I agree with almost all you say Edwin, except that it does not seem to require motion to generate the torque. I actually agree that there is a rest frame for all massive particles, the key is defining it when a particle is itself only energy which is motion, and more than one form and plane of of motion. Perhaps the sum total of spins gives precession.

Can water ever go down a plughole without 'tortion' creating a vortex?

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 21, 2011 @ 02:01 GMT
Outer space and the Higgs search involve the inanimate and [basically]unnatural. You really think that this can fundamentally tell us about physics, ourselves, and our natural sensory experience? How far removed from truth and reality are you all willing to be/go? Why don't you all ask a rock to tell us about reality?

The truth is found in the integrated and interactive (and related) extensiveness of truth/thought, being, experience, natural reality, vision, and physics. Ultimate truth in physics is found in us.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Allan Rosenberg wrote on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 20:09 GMT
Instead of wasting all of this bandwidth, maybe we should just auction the Nobel Prize off on eBay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 20:37 GMT
Dear Allan Rosenburg,

Or perhaps we should find out what it is that is wrong with theoretical physics such that it requires the re-ocurring imposition of ever increasing theoretical baggage onto the otherwise physically meaningful, empirically founded, equations that begin by modelling only the patterns observed in empirical evidence. Those patterns have to do with changes of velocity. The cause of change of velocity is unknown to all. There are just two parts to theoretical physics: The first consists of mathematical equations that model the patterns of changes of velocity; the second consists of imposing guesses about what is cause onto the equations. The second allows the theorist to change what is known into what is both known and imagined.

No harm done for the practice of guessing unless the theorists begin to insist that their guesses represent reality. The theorists are sincere in their guesses and the public is respectful in their acceptance of experts' opinions. Unfortunately, for all, no one knows what cause is. We only know about effects. The causes of theoretical physics are all inventions of the mind. Forcing those inventions of the mind onto the otherwise empirically important equations of physics changes physics into theoretical physics.

Nobel prizes should be given for experimental discoveries and for predictions, that can result even theoretically infiltrated equations, that are born out by experiment. The prize should never be given for theory. Theory is the imposition of guesses about the nature of cause onto equations that otherwise simply model the patterns observed in empirical evidence about effects. No one knows to this day what cause is.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Dec. 30, 2011 @ 08:50 GMT
James

Careful, you'll get relegated to the peanut gallery!!

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 03:06 GMT
Welcome, I'll make room for you in my massive Peanut-Gallery nest of ignonimity and foxfire Symbology!

lol, good call: auctioning Nobels! Better still: a nobel lottery. Really could use the Prize Money to buy more Google Adwords....

Now that's progress: a homeless, jobless website CEO with a site that sells everything useful, at the lowest prices. And needs a pot to pee into. I say that with all due respect, and with as positive a light as can be on the point...

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Dec. 29, 2011 @ 20:23 GMT
Modern physics is not about reality and truth; it is about money, nonconsensus, unnatural and inanimate experience, power, and control.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Don Hamilton wrote on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 19:12 GMT
Is it the "Higgs Boson" or "Space Energy Level" that creates the Mass of matter??

The energy level of a body of matter relative to space - its "space energy level" determines the body's mass. There is no need for the fictional Higgs boson to create matter's inertial mass.

A body does not travel through space. Relative to absolute space itself a body is completely motionless. Although Michelson's many experiments in his quest to find our planet's motion through the hypothetical aether in space failed, his experiments were successful in that he discovered one of the most fundamental characteristics of nature.

http://novan.com/higgsboson.htm

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Jan. 31, 2012 @ 21:36 GMT
Hi Don,

Ok, I will give my opinion. My answer is neither. Mass is not something given to matter. 'Matter' is a substitute word for cause. No one knows what cause is. Whatever the purpose was for introducing the concept of matter, it was not the result of scientific knowledge. Mass is the empirical, physical representation of an object as seen through its behavior. So, can you please say more to support your assertion.

I think also that this: " A body does not travel through space. Relative to absolute space itself a body is completely motionless." needs logical support. Please say something about this for two or more particles in motion relative to one another very nearly in the same space.

I did not go to the address you posted. Some motivation needs to be provided for here first. Your message didn't yet generate that for me. Thank you.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 1, 2012 @ 12:15 GMT
Hi,

Don,

No, the real origin is the rotations of the spheres proportional with mass, considering the uniqueness of course for the serie.

And all is in 3D for the respect of all proportionalities.

Keep on thinking RATIONAL !

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 1, 2012 @ 12:19 GMT
James

Contrary to what you might think from other posts, I do agree with your basic principle of the avoidance of a priori hypothesis and the need to determine phenonmena, as are. However, be careful you do not extend yourself into the metaphysical in doing so, or get 'hung up' on labels.

The simple fact is that existence occurs because we are aware of it. And we are able to be aware because there is existence.

So, leaving aside the labels as such, within that sensory closed loop, there is a phenonenon known as 'matter'. How it occurs in these circumstances is the question. What is known as 'mass' is a characteristic of 'matter'. Again, it is an existent phenomenon. So again the question is how does this occur within the circumstances which obtain.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 07:26 GMT
Dear Ray,

I was much happier after Joy restated his work on "quantum correlations as evidence that the physical space we live in respects the symmetries and topologies of a parallelized 7-sphere" although he later says: "Our observations are still confined to various 3-dimensional subspaces of this 7-sphere, but the correlations among the results of our experiments are revealing that the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 10:38 GMT
Edwin/Ray

Indeed, my first post in that Topic (On the Origins, which again seems to be overloaded)was to question the original phrase, which I then noted was subsequently changed to the one you refer to above.

Now, in simple terms, the whole point here is not the wording, per se, but whether the representational device being deployed (ie mathematical framework in this case) can properly be said to be representing physical reality. Because, if it it not, whilst it might be intrinsically valid (and there are arguments over that), it is not extrinsically valid. That is, it is just an abstract mathematical construction bearing no, or little, logical relationship with reality. And thereby, manifest characteristics that it is attributing to reality are actually functions of the framework. Some may, but out of coincidence, reflect reality.

Another way of addressing this is to ask, what phenomenon reflects all these underlying concepts that are referred to. Not what actually occurs, or how, etc, etc. Just what phenomenon constitutes spatial dimension, quantum, quantum correlation, wave-function, etc

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 16:41 GMT
It seems that sooner or later this dialogue returns to the question of how many dimensions the world "really" accommodates.

However, I think it's helpful to remember that there are at least 3 ways in which mathematicians treat the term "dimension." 1. One of an arbitrary range of added variables; 2. One of an arbitrary range of coordinates needed to describe the position of a point in a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Rick Lockyer replied on Feb. 8, 2012 @ 17:23 GMT
Hi Edwin,

I have had a small problem with Joy’s position on extending the singular 7-sphere restrictions he imposes on Bell to a full cover of our existence, and told him so in his “Origins” blog. I also have an issue with the characterization in his statement you quoted “…thus traded off for the extra dimensions going beyond our immediate experiences in the macroscopic world." I...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Putnam wrote on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 02:35 GMT
There is a thread over at Something for nothing.:

My reply is [was] that there is no such thing as empty space. Particles of matter affect all other particles, theoretically, throughout the universe because they have effects that stretch infinitely. We only know about existence through the observation of effects. The observation of effects means there is something and not nothing there. Effects involve the change of velocity of objects. The idea of a 'space' without objects is unsubstatiated. The idea that space has an existence separate from object effects is unsubstantiated. Resorting to a pure vacuum for answers, for me, represents imagination and not concreteness. Imagination can see substance without verifying it is substance. Concreteness means the observation of substantive effects. The observation of effects means the presence of objects and not the empty purity of a vacuum. I have not seen evidence of the thing called empty space.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 3, 2012 @ 21:52 GMT
This clarification of my opinion comes from the same source as my previous message. I attempted to fix its format, but, found it unrewarding. So, in its original form, I add this:

When I referred to the effects of particles throughout the universe, I

was not referring to something that extended beyond the particle. The

particle is defined by its effects. The particle exists where its

effects exist. If it has effects that exist throughout the universe,

then particles themselves exist throughout the universe. There is a

possible exception. When a photon has been re-arranged by a particle

so that it now carries the potential for the particle's effects to be

carried relatively undisturbed for a long, long way, there may be the

appearance of absence of the particle.

My previous statements were meant to convey that particles exist such

that their size fills the universe. Photons do play a significant

role, but they do not define the range of extension of particles. The

extension of particles becomes very insignificant with distance.

Photons have the important property of maintaining their significance

over great distances. Still though, the point of my message was that

the universe is filled up. It is filled up with particles. It is

defined by the existence of particles. If there were no particles and

existence was devoid of their effects, then existence would be

imaginary.

James Putnam

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 4, 2012 @ 11:12 GMT
James

I think the question here is, when is a particle a particle (ie is this about labelling or are there fundamental differences)? I agree with the 'spirit' of your point that there is 'something' occupying every possible spatial position (ie "the universe is filled up"). But, over in Some When (thread Anon 2/3 15.32, post Peter 3/3 13.40)in response to a point raised by Eckard which I repeated, Peter states: "If there are no particles about, then light will do what light does with or without 'ether'...". Here Peter is using 'particle' to refer to that which forms substance/matter. Its existence also causes 'fields', which are, by definition, in space in that they are 'not-particle', just of particle. Fields must be some physical phenomenon, ie something. Which brings us back to 'its filled up', but there seems to be a labelling difference over these various types of 'something'.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 4, 2012 @ 14:13 GMT
Paul,

"Here Peter is using 'particle' to refer to that which forms substance/matter. Its existence also causes 'fields', which are, by definition, in space in that they are 'not-particle', just of particle. Fields must be some physical phenomenon, ie something. Which brings us back to 'its filled up', but there seems to be a labelling difference over these various types of 'something'."

Still teaching instead of learning. There is no labelling difference that matters except in your imagination. What you have described above is not reality, it is an unempirical perspective adopted for reasons that do not have to do with the nature of the universe.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 4, 2012 @ 08:11 GMT
"The chaos that follows a non-discovery" of Higgs boson reminds me of the huge heap of rubble of which Fraenkel warned the mathematicians in case set theory fails.

The comparatively simple experimenta nova de spatio vacuo performed by a mayor of Magdeburg were expensive for the community of this entirely destroyed city. They nonetheless paved the way for two lines of technology and discovery: steam engine and electricity. Otto Hahn and Lise Meisner also performed their experiments without expensive means.

Otto de Guericke argued in favor of experiment against pure speculation. So far I cannot see eye-opening results from LHC.

My favorite recent experiment was performed by Norbert Feist with just a BMW and an ultrasonic range finder. See Proc. of the NPA Vol. 6, No. 2, 1-4.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Douglas W Lipp wrote on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 00:25 GMT
Please respond to my theory: www.CIGTheory.com

I do believe it is correct. Bohr and Einstein would have enjoyed discussing it.

Too bad about Davy Jones from the Monkees.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 02:07 GMT
Hi Douglas,

I think perhaps you should post an introduction to your theory here. And, I think, you should defend your ideas here. This is meant to be helpful. Perhaps there are others here who will visit your site and read what you have to say and comment on it. If that occurs, then you have had it far easier than have others in your position. If you find that that does not occur, then you might consider what I said about introducing and defending your ideas here. I am a participant and nothing more. So, follow your own guidance whatever it is.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Tommy Gilbertson replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 03:02 GMT
Mr. Lipp:

Please run for your intellectual life and sanity: I've learned from personal exp. that it's much better to not put forward any ideas in these forums at all, rather than have every profferement roundly ignored. Or else, just put forward boring ideas that are mostly a matter of opinion, then you may get some ears turning. foundational questions folderal!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Mar. 5, 2012 @ 06:04 GMT
Douglas

But you were right about Davy Jones. One could get snobbish about how they were formed, etc, but it was just enjoyable stuff. Luckily I saw them a year ago at the Albert Hall.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Tommy Gilbertson wrote on Mar. 7, 2012 @ 14:55 GMT
Mr. Jackson:

Your so good at this: you remind me of the producer Artie from the Larry Sanders show. Can't tell whether to be complimented, encouraged, offended or pissed. I'll go with encouraged!

So, you agree with my third Postulate? Could you be more specific.

Too fundamental of a theory, and incomplete?

Can't help the former due to the groundbreaking (see...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Carrillo wrote on Sep. 15, 2016 @ 10:59 GMT
Good discussion going on.

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the author since its original submission

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.