Sorry Mr Higgs,

But isn't the Higg's field simply "the conservation of angular momentum" applied to the largest known fundamental particle - the top quark - the higgs boson.

Light in, Light out.

Kind Regards,

Terry Giblin

You say "light in light out."

Which one do you want to measure, because you don't measure in, you measure the distance traveled, and the duration of travel. Ie, mass evolves to space. You measure the distance a car travels in the 1/4 mile away from the start line, not the distance from the stop line coming in.

But isn't the Higg's field simply "the conservation of angular momentum" applied to the largest known fundamental particle No. What's important is that the Higgs mechanism, where a broken symmetry gives rise to a dynamical mass term, is thought to be a likely candidate of why things have mass, and a single Higgs boson is considered to be the most likely manifestation of the Higgs mechanism. And since it's named for Peter Higgs, your use of apostrophe-s looks as ill informed as those that write about the physics of Steven Hawkins. Conservation of angular momentum follows from the general laws of physics as shown by Emily Noether. It does not have to be applied to individual particles as a glued-on piece.
- the top quark - the higgs boson. Are you trying to equate a fermion with a boson?


Light in, Light out. Are you trying to look stupid? The universe doesn't care about the maxims of Polonius, so why should it care about your baseless and irrelevant claims. Why should an audience care?


Kind Regards, Typical crank false civility which follows the devastating insult of equating 5 minutes of reading and refusing to put in time looking up stuff on even tertiary sources like Wikipedia with doctorate-level work in physics.

Sorry Mr HiggsProfessor Higgs.


But isn't the Higg's field simply "the conservation of angular momentum" applied to the largest known fundamental particle - the top quark - the higgs boson.No, angular momentum has nothing to do with it, the top quark isn't a boson and there's no reason to think that the largest known particle is the largest particle.


Light in, Light out.The light is on but no one is home, eh Terry?[/QUOTE]

This is an interesting post, if you mean that the Angular Momentum is quantized, conserved, and equal to Planck's Constant divided by 2pi.

Taking the Higgs Field to be the material from which matter (bosons, hadrons, and leptons) forms. If we assume that each of these matter units have quantized conservation of Spin and Angular Momentum. Then it can be said that Conservation of Angular Momentum is the condensing vorticity in quantized units of the Higgs Field.

The Higgs Field can be modeled as an Aether Gas, from which matter forms this concept is much bigger than the conservation of Angular Momentum.

Taking the Higgs Field to be the material from which matter (bosons, hadrons, and leptons) forms.It isn't. It couples to them.


Then it can be said that Conservation of Angular Momentum is the condensing vorticity in quantized units of the Higgs Field.Yes, if you completely ignore all quantitative and quantitative science and just make things up.


The Higgs Field can be modeled as an Aether Gas, from which matter forms this concept is much bigger than the conservation of Angular Momentum. [Citation needed]

The "Higgs Field" is currently being sought for in Geneva at the LHC. A lot of theories are riding on this Spacetime material being uncovered. So the mechanism for how this works is still speculative and open for new explanations/postulates for how and where inertial mass is formed. We will see!

This we know that bosons and hadrons (electrons, protons, and other sub-atomic matter) have mass. So let's look at the electron that is easier. We know that it exist in the vacuum, has mass, spins or rotates in a specific direction, and has a quantized angular momentum associated wth Planck's Constant divided by 2pi.

All of Quantum Mechanics is based on the above paragraph, and verified many many times.

Other gradient field properties exist for the boson that are either coupled to the Higgs field or is the field itself, i.e. the gravitational, electric, and magetic fields of any matter unit.

I will agree that the Condensing Vorticity mechanism of the Higgs Field is somewhat speculative. If this speculation is true, then this would mean that, inertial mass such as an electron is a condensed and rotating matter unit, whose orgins began with this Higgs Field.

Describing the Higgs Field as an Aether Gas is a somewhat new model, in that the Higgs Field itself is a new model.

I am quoting from the book: Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual and Mathematical Physics - The General Theory of Relativity, by Robert Louis Kemp

Chapter 8, page 281, Which states,

"More generally, the Higgs mechanism is the way that particles acquire a nonzero mass. The simplest realization of the Higgs mechanism in the standard model requires an extra Higgs field which interacts with the gauge fields, and which has a nonzero value in its lowest energy state, a vacuum expectation value. This is in essence an aether theory.

Attempts are being made to confirm the existence of the Higgs mechanism by experimentation, using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of mass in the universe.

The Higgs boson would explain the difference between the mass-less photon, which mediates electromagnetism, and inertial mass which mediate the weak force. If the Higgs boson exists, it is an integral and pervasive component of the material world.

If the Higgs exist, this means that all of space is filled with the background Aether, the so-called aetherons that condense into mass; this is also considered a condensate. Interaction with this background Aether which behaves like an ideal gas and a gradient field allows spacetime to become massive when condensed.

The existence of this non-zero vacuum expectation plays a fundamental role, because it gives mass to every elementary particle that has mass, exchanging, mass, energy, and spacetime within the vacuum in a way the maintains conservation of mass and energy.

In essence, the vacuum is an ideal gas, that can be modeled as a field that is analogous to a pool of molasses that "sticks" to the otherwise mass-less fundamental aetherons that travel through the field, converting them into particles with mass that form, for example, the components of atoms.

This Vacuum Aether Gas Field permeates space, giving all elementary subatomic particles that interact with it their mass. The Vacuum Aether Gas Field confers mass on quarks, leptons, and other subatomic particles, which make up protons, neutrons, and electrons".

"If you cannot explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it" - Albert Einstein

If you search for an image of the higgs boson, you can find many nice feynman diagrams on the subject, one of my favorites is:

hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/cms/physics/HIGGS/Higgs_prod_graphs_new.jpg

g g fusion, t t* fusion ....

So, dear magneto_1 and alphanumeric,

Can you both please show me a simple diagram of each of your respected theories, so I can judge for myself.

Please show me Natures blue print as you see it and understand it.

Kind Regards,

Terry Giblin

A lot of theories are riding on this Spacetime material being uncovered.Its not a space-time material. It's a quantum of a quantum field, just like the electron or the photon is. It just happens to be a particular kind of quantum field.


All of Quantum Mechanics is based on the above paragraph, and verified many many times.And does nothing to justify your statement its a space-time material or retort my comments previously.


I will agree that the Condensing Vorticity mechanism of the Higgs Field is somewhat speculative. To what are you referring because its obviously not what the mainstream does.


Describing the Higgs Field as an Aether Gas is a somewhat new model, in that the Higgs Field itself is a new model. The Higgs model dates back 30 years. Aether gas hasn't appeared in many, if any, reputable journals. Unlike the Higgs mechanism. Please provide citations to reputable journal articles which refer to the Higgs field as an aether gas.


I am quoting from the book: Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual and Mathematical Physics - The General Theory of Relativity, by Robert Louis KempI want journals, not pop science books. A book doesn't have to pass peer review or be at all accurate. Journals at least ask for justifications and reasons.


"More generally, the Higgs mechanism is the way that particles acquire a nonzero mass. The simplest realization of the Higgs mechanism in the standard model requires an extra Higgs field which interacts with the gauge fields, and which has a nonzero value in its lowest energy state, a vacuum expectation value. This is in essence an aether theory.Speaking as someone who is familiar with the Higgs mechanism, both from the point of view of a Higgs boson and from the point of view of technicolour and as someone who knows people who work on Higgs phenomenology and who have worked at CERN or Fermilab none of them use the phrase 'aether'. Provide reputable journal citations.


Attempts are being made to confirm the existence of the Higgs mechanism by experimentation, using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Experimental detection of the Higgs boson would help explain the origin of mass in the universe.


If the Higgs exist, this means that all of space is filled with the background Aether, the so-called aetherons that condense into mass; this is also considered a condensate. Interaction with this background Aether which behaves like an ideal gas and a gradient field allows spacetime to become massive when condensed.Now we're into pet theories which have failed to pass peer review, if they ever attempted to be published in journals in the first place.

As a general rule of thumb if you have to retort to pop science books because you can't find papers on something then its likely bull. Or at the very least not going to hold much sway with actual physicists.


"If you cannot explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it" - Albert EinsteinThere are very few things I think you understand Terry. Science, on any level, isn't one of them.


If you search for an image of the higgs bosonWhy would I do that if I wanted information on the Higgs boson and the Higgs mechanism? I'd search for papers and textbooks, not pictures. I see your methods of learning haven't improved since your time on PhysOrg.


Can you both please show me a simple diagram of each of your respected theoriesI'm not putting forth my theories, I'm telling magneto what the Standard Model says, since he is at best misrepresenting it and at worse flat out lying. Since he's quoting from a pop science book he is in fact quoting someone else who is misrepresenting the SM.


so I can judge for myself.Terry, do you not recognise my username? I'm the same 'AlphaNumeric' (notice the capital N) from PhysOrg who considered you extremely bad at mathematics and physics and who (along with a few other people on PhysOrg) said as much to you. Many times.

I do not think you have it within your ability to be any kind of viable judge of what is or isn't good particle physics. You love to quote Einstein or Feynman but you don't understand their work on even a qualitative level, never mind a quantitative one. Your maths skills are insufficient to do a physics degree, hell your basic grasp of rationality is insufficient.


Please show me Natures blue print as you see it and understand it.
I firmly believe you couldn't understand what I understand about Nature, ie physics and mathematics. And to make it clear I'm not being overly egotistical I would say the same about you when comparing you to anyone who has any formal education beyond high school in physics or mathematics, you set the bar very low.

"If you cannot explain it to your grandmother, you don't understand it" - Albert Einstein
Citation required. In this form, I only found it on the Internet translated from the Portuguese.

Also, this represents an opinion, not a statement of fact. It does not account for those of use who are brighter, more interested in a certain topic, and/or more alive than our grandmothers. Some of us don't share a common language with our grandmother. Finally, this is an argument from authority -- a dogmatic statement of belief -- and not a test used in the sciences.

http://portal.prbb.org/ciencia/entrevista/2303



Einstein va dir una vegada: “Si no ho pots explicar a la teva àvia és que no ho entens”
No hi estic d’acord. Si pogués explicar en tres minuts per`que em van donar el Nobel, no hauria valgut la pena tot l’esforç! Crec que un no pot entendre una cultura sense entendre la llengua, i el mateix passa amb la ciència. A no ser que la gent hagi après una base científica, no entendran mai temes complexos. Per això necessitem ensenyar millor la ciència als nens, per a que creixin amb la capacitat d’entendre, de ser més crítics.

Einstein once said: “If you cannot explain it to your grandmother, you don’t understand it”
I don’t agree. If I could explain in three minutes why I got the Nobel Prize it wouldn’t have been worth all the work! I think one cannot understand a culture without understanding the language, and the same is true for science. Unless people have learned some basic science they won’t understand complex subjects and never will. That’s why we need to teach science better to children so they grow up with the ability to understand, to be more critical.

WorldOfQuotes.com tags the more common form "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother" specifically as a Russian proverb and so without a time and place that Einstein said it or a book where Einstein wrote it, attributing it to him is specious and a product of poor research.

http://www.worldofquotes.com/search.php

Describing the Higgs Field as a Spacetime material or Quantum Field is the same or identical for me. What we seem to agree on here is, that, whatever the Higgs field or how it is modeled, it can become quantized rotating mass units whose angular momentum is conserved.

What has been proved many times in Quantum Mechanical experiments is that hadrons and bosons have spin or directional angular momentum related to Planck's Constant divided by 2pi.

If we agree that the Higgs Model dates back 30 years. That is still a relatively new theory. The various concepts of the Aether were described over the centuries by great scientist and physicist such as: Nicolas Copernicus (c. 1500), Johannes Kepler (c. 1600), Rene Descartes (c. 1600), Isaac Newton (c. 1700), Fatio de Duillier (c. 1700), Georges-Louis Le Sage (c. 1700), Michael Faraday (c. 1800), James Clerk Maxwell (c. 1800), Albert Einstein (c. 1900), Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (c. 1900), Alexander Friedmann (c. 1900), and Steven Rado (c. 2000)- Aethro-Kinematics.

In current journals they are avoiding papers that use the term "Aether" for obvious reasons, i.e. Michaelson & Morley, Einstein, and no Macroscopic experiments to validate.

However, if we are to make new headways in advancing the truth of nature we can either lead, follow, or get out of the way!

Instead of using the term Aether, to get published in journals use terms like: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Energy, Zero Point Energy, Ground State Energy. These terms will get your papers published in those journals that you bring up.

Over the last 20 years many different space based and ground based telescopes have determined that there is another material that exist in the vacuum of space that we are not describing accurately with our current models. Brilliant scientist now are even able to resolve this material, i.e. dark matter. See Wikipedia - Dark Matter

With this new evidence of the universe, there is a great momentum of scientist that are returning to the Aether; As I have seen in this forum and all over the internet.

Terry, try this on your grandmother;
Ignoring the size of the Aetherons, and considering an Ideal Aether "Rado" Gas where the constitutiets of the gas the aetherons are all moving in random, omni-directional motion with the average speed of the particles of the gas moving at the speed of light. Now, lets consider just two of the aetherons which interact via some small infintesimal time over some infinitesimal distance the aetherons collide.

The interaction between the two aetherons must obey the conservation of energy equation. And obeying the conservaton of energy equation means that there are two states which can be considered potentials; a before the collision state, and an after the collision state. in the before state the individual velocities of the aetherons can be different; and likewise are most likely the individual velocities of the aetherons are different in the after state. Each state is a potential, but the sum of the energy of each event is conserved.

However the most interesting thing about the two aetherons colliding is that for a short time in which they interact "Unstable Inert Mass" is produced. If they stick together in orbit a "Stable Inert Mass" is produced. They are currently looking for this Higgs Boson right now in Geneva at the LHC.

Alpha(N),

"Did a degree and masters in mathematics and then a PhD in theoretical physics, specifically flux compactifications and AdS/QCD models."

And give's a new meaning to PhD!

Alpha(N) PhD - Permanent head Damage.

40 years of monty python, is my excuse, whats yours?

Have watch the Richard Feynman Lectures?

Any questions?

"That's the way nature works, ... If you don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe...."

Light in, Light out.

Alpha, Omega - Be light made.

After darkness, light

Let there be light.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin

Describing the Higgs Field as a Spacetime material or Quantum Field is the same or identical for me. No, it isn't. You don't get to redefine what words mean to suit your purpose. When a physicist says "quantum field theory" he is not referring to an aether theory, quantum fields do not have the same properties as an aether. Calling it an aether means you're either trying to deceive people into thinking that physicists take an aether seriously or you're just ignorant of what the word means. Deliberately using a different meaning only confuses the issue and implies you have a lack of justification in your claims.

Suppose I used 'charge' to mean 'temperature'. If everyone knows I have this weird definition then its fine but if they didn't then they might be confused by statements like "As you input energy the charge of an object goes up" and conclude I don't know what I'm talking about.

If you are not referring to the standard meaning of something, particularly technical terms, don't use them. Instead you should simply stick to the common usage or define your own new technical term. Otherwise its deceitful.


What we seem to agree on here is, that, whatever the Higgs field or how it is modeled, it can become quantized rotating mass units whose angular momentum is conserved.No, we can't. A Higgs field is a scalar field so its quantum spin is zero. It doesn't carry usual angular momentum, nor does it rotate and 'mass unit' isn't even a well defined thing in this context. Again, if you don't know how to use technical terms don't use them.


What has been proved many times in Quantum Mechanical experiments is that hadrons and bosons have spin or directional angular momentum related to Planck's Constant divided by 2pi.Which is entirely different from angular momentu. Quantum spin and classical angular momentum are different things, the quantum version is called spin because it has the same Lie algebra structure.


If we agree that the Higgs Model dates back 30 years. That is still a relatively new theory.Again, you're using your own definitions. Transistors are only 50 years old. Lasers only 30. Superconductors around 50. Particle physics moves quickly, 30 years is literally a lifetime of work for an academic. It is not 'new' in the colloquial sense.


The various concepts of the Aether were described over the centuries by great scientist and physicist such as: Nicolas Copernicus (c. 1500), Johannes Kepler (c. 1600), Rene Descartes (c. 1600), Isaac Newton (c. 1700), Fatio de Duillier (c. 1700), Georges-Louis Le Sage (c. 1700), Michael Faraday (c. 1800), James Clerk Maxwell (c. 1800), Albert Einstein (c. 1900), Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (c. 1900), Alexander Friedmann (c. 1900), and Steven Rado (c. 2000)- Aethro-Kinematics.So because an idea is older its somehow more valid? If anything the older a model gets the more it fails to explain. Newtonian gravity predates GR by 250 years but GR is better. Quantum electrodynamics came 50 years after electromagnetism but QED is better. And then there's the slew of ideas which were taken seriously in the past but are known to be just flat out wrong now.


In current journals they are avoiding papers that use the term "Aether" for obvious reasons, i.e. Michaelson & Morley, Einstein, and no Macroscopic experiments to validate.So no evidence and theoretical models fail to achieve the same as the Standard Model, which implies that's the reason no one uses the term, no viable model has ever been constructed. And plenty of people have tried.


However, if we are to make new headways in advancing the truth of nature we can either lead, follow, or get out of the way!And we can't cling to ideas long ago examined and found to be lacking just because some people don't like the notion of light not having a medium to move through. Aether proponents are, almost without exception, aether supporters because they don't like the fact quantum mechanics seems confusing and counter intuitive to them. That's just their naivety getting in the way of progress. Which is ironic given they call mainstream physicists close minded. We're not close minded, we just expect some kind of justification and methodology in science.


Instead of using the term Aether, to get published in journals use terms like: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Energy, Zero Point Energy, Ground State Energy. These terms will get your papers published in those journals that you bring up.None of them are aethers. You think they are because you don't grasp the specifics. Plenty of people want there to be an aether but wanting doesn't make it so.


Over the last 20 years many different space based and ground based telescopes have determined that there is another material that exist in the vacuum of space that we are not describing accurately with our current models. Brilliant scientist now are even able to resolve this material, i.e. dark matter. See Wikipedia - Dark Matter[/tex]Dark matter isn't necessarily a single kind of matter, it might be made up of many different types of particles, just as atoms are made from electrons and quarks.

And just to let you know, I'm fully aware of the notion of dark matter.

[QUOTE=Magneto_1;2603207]With this new evidence of the universe, there is a great momentum of scientist that are returning to the Aether; As I have seen in this forum and all over the internet.[/tex]Ah yes, you can gauge the attitude of the particle physics research community by looking at internet forums! Clearly that's a better way to find out what papers people are writing than going to somewhere like www.arxiv.org. I know people who have done research into dark matter candidates (ie supersymmetric particles), there's even a few on this forum. None of them, this forum or people I know, consider it to be an aether.

But hey, its not like I worked in a theoretical physics group in a physics & astronomy department of a university for 4 years or anything, what would I know about the state of particle physics research!

[QUOTE=Magneto_1;2603207]Ignoring the size of the Aetherons, and considering an Ideal Aether "Rado" Gas where the constitutiets of the gas the aetherons are all moving in random, omni-directional motion with the average speed of the particles of the gas moving at the speed of light. Now, lets consider just two of the aetherons which interact via some small infintesimal time over some infinitesimal distance the aetherons collide.Provide your quantitative model. Don't arm wave and just make up "These things collide and explain [X]". Can you model these 'aetheron' particle interactions? I can model supersymmetric particle interactions and people like BenTheMan can too. So much so he's got papers published on them!


They are currently looking for this Higgs Boson right now in Geneva at the LHC.They aren't looking for anything like you've just outlined. And besides, they work out what particles were made in a collision by doing precise calculations on what a supersymmetric or Higgs decay process would look like given various factors. Can you provide the same? What's the differential cross section of two aetherons? Please provide a derivation with a clear explanation of any terms you use and where any formula you assume are derived.


And give's a new meaning to PhD! Alpha(N) PhD - Permanent head Damage.
Some of us didn't fail at physics when we were young.


40 years of monty python, is my excuse, whats yours?
Having to talk with you.


Have watch the Richard Feynman Lectures?
I read his books instead. As I said previously, you don't get physics information by looking at pictures, you get it by reading and doing physics. Try it sometime.


Any questions?
I know you'd like to think you grasp the material in his lectures but I am certain you don't. You're the last person to go to if someone had any questions on the Feynman lectures. And even if I did ask you a question you'd reply with something arm wavey and incoherent. I remember a favourite retort of yours when challenged on your knowledge being that you'd met a few famous physicists. Hardly a good response.

Of course if I'm wrong in my assessment of you I'm sure I can find a problem sheet question or two for you to demonstrate to us all your understanding.


"That's the way nature works, ... If you don't like it? Go somewhere else. To another universe...."

Light in, Light out.

Alpha, Omega - Be light made.

After darkness, light

Let there be light.

Kind Regards

Terry Giblin
Your lengthy signature is rambling, try to restrict yourself to just signing your name. Hell, don't even bother with that, your posts are labelled with your name already.

Alpha(N) PhD - Permanent head Damage.


I'm sure I can find a problem sheet question or two

Your wit hasn't improved I see. Am I to take it that you quoting what I said about a problem sheet question means you want such questions? I can PM you a few if so.

In order to try to keep this thread on topic.....

Terry, do you understand that the Higgs boson has nothing to do with the conservation of angular momentum? Do you understand that simply because the top quark is the most massive fundamental particle we've found so far that doesn't automatically mean it is the most massive fundamental particle? Do you understand the top quark is not a boson? Do you understand that nothing I've said thus far about the Higgs cannot be found in books on the Standard Model? If you're familiar with quantum mechanics you should understand these sorts of things but your comments imply otherwise.

How many quarks can you count?

bautforum.com/showthread.php/98000-Quarks

How many quarks can you count?There are 6 flavours of quark, each of them with 3 possible colour charges and then each of those have an antimatter partner. That's 36 in total but generally only 6 are ever listed, the different flavours.


bautforum.com/showthread.php/98000-Quarks So you own a book. And?

Would you care to answer my questions Terry or are you going to be like you were on PhysOrg, utterly unable to have a coherent discussion?

The argument of charge vs temperature is not a valid argument for claiming that there is no distinction between Spacetime Material & Quantum Fields.
The Charge is an extensive property, and Temperature is an intensive property of a body can be measured directly.

The concepts of Quantum Fields or Spacetime material embodies many extensive, and intensive properties to describe. These are not properties that can be measured. They are models. If you believe that the Quantum Fields possess the property of Entropy, and exist in extension in space, then Quantum Fields can also be described as Spacetime material which is equivalent to an ideal gas.

This is not switching names or meanings it is enlarging the concepts!

You are right, the Higgs Field can be modeled as a scalar field; however, this field should also have vector potentials. Once matter (an encapsulated mass unit) has formed from it, i.e electrons, protons, positrons, etc.... the Conservation of Angular momentum arises as a quantized measurable value that is related to Planck's Constant divided by 2pi.

The conservation of Angular Momentum and spin for Boson, Hadrons, and leptons are always conserved. This spin rotation in a particular direction evolves from the scalar field.

My point in naming these individuals that pondered on the Aether, is that with this cast of geniuses they can't all be wrong!

The various concepts of the Aether were described over the centuries by great scientist and physicist such as: Nicolas Copernicus (c. 1500), Johannes Kepler (c. 1600), Rene Descartes (c. 1600), Isaac Newton (c. 1700), Fatio de Duillier (c. 1700), Georges-Louis Le Sage (c. 1700), Michael Faraday (c. 1800), James Clerk Maxwell (c. 1800), Albert Einstein (c. 1900), Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (c. 1900), Alexander Friedmann (c. 1900), and Steven Rado (c. 2000)- Aethro-Kinematics.

I consider myself a mainstream physicist, however, the evidence for the Aether is starting to showing up in telescopes all over the planet. Describing the aether does not make me mainstream. Look at the cast of characters above are they main stream.

My prophesy/prediction is that in the next 5 years the Aether will be validated/measured. Einstein's General Relativity Equations for matter, energy, and spacetime also allow for such a material.

However, the journals that you quotes will use the names that I described earlier: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Energy, Zero Point Energy, Ground State Energy; and all of these are Aether Theories at their core, each has their own twist; but Aether theories never the less.

I have worked with the math models of supersymmetric particle interactions. And find that I can't explain that to my grandmother. So I sought a simpler model to explain supersymmetric particle interactions. She seems to be able to understand that when two mass particles come together for a short time they exhibit mass. If they remain stuck or in orbit after a collision the mass particles exhibit mass.

Purely speculative: The surface area for two aetherons should be 4pi*(Planck length)^2. The one aetheron would act as a surface, and the other would bounce around within that sphere, the two can exchanges places, and well as produce virtual photon pairs.

Correction:

She seems to be able to understand that when two mass "less" particles come together for a short time they exhibit mass. If they remain stuck or in orbit after a collision the mass "less" particles exhibit mass.

The argument of charge vs temperature is not a valid argument for claiming that there is no distinction between Spacetime Material & Quantum Fields.I disagreed with your claim, there is as distinction. The quantum fields of the Standard Model exist within space-time, they are not space-time or made of space-time or whatnot. At best you could try to argue space-time is the effective low energy limit of a gravitational quantum field but such a thing would involve quantum gravity and the SM has nothing to say about that.


If you believe that the Quantum Fields possess the property of Entropy, and exist in extension in space, then Quantum Fields can also be described as Spacetime material which is equivalent to an ideal gas. Particle physicists would disagree. How is space-time like an ideal gas? Things in it can sometimes be viewed simplistically as ideal gases but space-time itself in all current models is viewed as a single coherent structure, not made up of things as an ideal gas would be. And even if you allow for space-time to be quantised into gravitons there's no reason to say they are behaving like an ideal gas. Ideal gas particles don't couple to one another, if anything a sea of gravitons would be exhibit highly complex couplings.


This is not switching names or meanings it is enlarging the concepts!I'd say you're narrowing the concepts. You're trying to frame quantum fields in terms of older simpler, more conceptually acceptable notions.


You are right, the Higgs Field can be modeled as a scalar fieldIt is a scalar field.


however, this field should also have vector potentials.No, it shouldn't. You obviously don't know what a scalar or vector quantum field is. The Higgs mechanism is facilitated by a scalar field, as the mechanism involves contributing a scalar quantity, a vacuum expectation value, to a Yukawa term in a Lagrangian so as to give a mass term. There's several ways to see why this must be a scalar. Firstly the VEV must be Lorentz invariant as the vacuum is Lorentz invariant. Secondly if the VEV is viewable in terms of rest masses then it inherits the Lorentz invariant nature of rest masses in relativity. And a field cannot have some scalar contributions and some vector, all its contributions must transform in a consistent manner.

Your assertions are false and heavily suggest you haven't actually done any of this stuff, you're just trying to grasp qualitative stuff you're read elsewhere.


Once matter (an encapsulated mass unit) has formed from it, i.e electrons, protons, positrons, etc.... the Conservation of Angular momentum arises as a quantized measurable value that is related to Planck's Constant divided by 2pi. No, conservation of angular momentum arises by the invariance of the Lagrangian under the SO(3) rotational subgroup of the SO(3,1) Lorentz group. The quantum spin of which you speak refers to how the fields individually transform under SO(3,1). You've conflated angular momentum and quantum spin and reached a false conclusion.


The conservation of Angular Momentum and spin for Boson, Hadrons, and leptons are always conserved. This spin rotation in a particular direction evolves from the scalar field.
No, it doesn't. QED has no scalar field yet has angular momentum conservation, momentum conservation, energy conservation and charge conservation via Noether's theorem and all fields have well defined quantum spin. You're wrong.


My point in naming these individuals that pondered on the Aether, is that with this cast of geniuses they can't all be wrong!
Appeals to authority are flawed arguments. Yes, they can all be wrong. No one is infallible.


I consider myself a mainstream physicist,
Is that a "I passed high school physics and now I read pop science books and Wikipedia and watch TV documentaries" mainstream physicist or a "I have working knowledge and first hand experience with research level physics, having studied it at university and undertaken published research" mainstream physicist? Or are you somewhere in the middle. Regardless of whether you consider yourself mainstream, you've got your facts wrong a lot of times.

And for the record, I fall under the second definition.


My prophesy/prediction is that in the next 5 years the Aether will be validated/measured. Einstein's General Relativity Equations for matter, energy, and spacetime also allow for such a material.

However, the journals that you quotes will use the names that I described earlier: Quintessence, Higgs Field, Vacuum Expectation Energy, Zero Point Energy, Ground State Energy; and all of these are Aether Theories at their core, each has their own twist; but Aether theories never the less.
So its a no lose setup for you, you claim you're right if aether makes a come back and you claim you're right when it doesn't but words like 'VEV' and 'Ground state' are used in publications. That way you can delude yourself aether is back even when it isn't.


I have worked with the math models of supersymmetric particle interactions.
I'm calling you a liar. You'd never have made the mistake about scalar fields and vector potentials if you had. You'd not have confused angular momentum and quantum spin either. You'd never have said angular momentum conservation comes from a scalar field either.


Purely speculative: The surface area for two aetherons should be 4pi*(Planck length)^2. The one aetheron would act as a surface, and the other would bounce around within that sphere, the two can exchanges places, and well as produce virtual photon pairs.
Purely BS more like. Care to provide your detailed calculations? If you know how to do SUSY stuff then you're familiar with the level of detail expected in particle physics research. Let's see it.

Six flavours of quarks

The largest being the top quark.

top quark plus a anti top quark makes a higgs boson. I have seen the diagram, it works.

That bit I understand.

Now please show me a diagram of the higgs field?

Now run the clock backwards.

A top quark and anti top quark appear out of the vacuum.

Which conservation law are you applying?

Show me a diagram? - A simple fourier analysis or synthesis will do.

My friend, I knew coming on here that I would endure a beating. I was interested to see how tough my skin is! To my suprise I am not that offended:)

Are you aware that these SUSY physics/mathematics concepts are being discussed @

Simons Workshop in Mathematics and Physics 2010
Stony Brook, July 26 - August 20, 2010

I have seen every presentation, over the Web; with understanding. I am glad that I did not go to the conference. These concepts are great for the mathematician. However the Conceptual Physics understanding for these SUSY concepts are not so easily translatable to grandmothers.

My goal in physics is to unite the conceptual understanding with this new math that has been emerging for last 60 years.

My (3) Books and background can be found:
""SuperPrincipia.com""

The Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics - The First Law of Motion (Inertial Motion)

The Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics - The Special Theory of Thermodynamics

The Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics - The General Theory of Relativity

Which can be found at Barnes & Nobel & Amazon
At the website you can look inside the books

The largest being the top quark.

top quark plus a anti top quark makes a higgs boson. I have seen the diagram, it works.

That bit I understand.

Now please show me a diagram of the higgs field?

Now run the clock backwards.

A top quark and anti top quark appear out of the vacuum.

Which conservation law are you applying?

Show me a diagram? - A simple fourier analysis or synthesis will do.

I suspect this thread is not long for this forum, and I rather doubt that this will be at all useful to Terry, but I'm going to type it nonetheless.

The Higgs is obviously not a top - antitop pair but some people have speculated that the Higgs is a composite particle rather than a fundamental one, and came up with technicolour. In technicolour, the higgs is a bound state (actually, a condensate) of some particles that come from a higher, strongly coupled sector that we can't detect just now. This new sector is the technicolour sector and the new particles are "techniquarks." AFAIK, this theory has some phenomenological problems, but still persists in various forms that people like to tinker with today.

top quark plus a anti top quark makes a higgs boson. I have seen the diagram, it works.A top and antitop annihilating might make a Higgs boson but a Higgs boson is not a bound state of a top and anti-top. You've failed to understand the diagrams.


Now please show me a diagram of the higgs field?Still think you understand things because of pictures. How naive.


tWhich conservation law are you applying?Everything, as such a thing doesn't violate any conservation laws.


Show me a diagram? - A simple fourier analysis or synthesis will do.Rather than a diagram what is wrong with doing the mathematics of a Fourier decomposition?


Are you aware that these SUSY physics/mathematics concepts are being discussed I did a PhD in theoretical physics, I'm aware of them more than most.


I have seen every presentation, over the Web; with understanding. I am glad that I did not go to the conference. These concepts are great for the mathematician. However the Conceptual Physics understanding for these SUSY concepts are not so easily translatable to grandmothers.I asked you if you could do the algebra. Your lack of response in terms of details makes me think you don't know the details, you're deluding yourself into thinking you can do it because you understand the superficial qualitative side. Watching someone give a presentation is a hell of a lot easier than doing the work yourself.


My (3) Books and background can be found:
""SuperPrincipia.com""

The Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics - The First Law of Motion (Inertial Motion)

The Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics - The Special Theory of Thermodynamics

The Super Principia Mathematica - The Rage to Master Conceptual & Mathematical Physics - The General Theory of RelativitySo you cited yourself as a source and couldn't admit it? Hardly a sign of honesty. I asked you if it had been published in a reputable journals. A pop science book I couldn't give a stuff about. You're not the first hack to have his work published as a book despite having failed to get published by a journal. Publishing a book rather than submitting your work to a journal is a sign you're trying to get your 'work' to people who lack the relevant knowledge. Laypersons often can't tell science from science fiction and cannot review material on its scientific merit. Did you submit your work to a journal? If not why not?

You claim you want to help science but if you didn't submit your work to a journal then you've made no attempt to impact the research community and instead have jumped to an attempt to influence it by getting popularity in laypeople. Its dishonest and its deceitful.


At the website you can look inside the booksIf you can't point to detailed calculations and peer reviewed articles I see no reason to think you're anything more than another hack with delusions of grandeur.

I suspect this thread is not long for this forum, and I rather doubt that this will be at all useful to Terry, but I'm going to type it nonetheless.

Dear prometheus,

Please accept my apology and a warm welcome.

Any idea or thread which does not have Alpha(N) - PhD, approval - is banned

But I welcome your discussion and points of view.

I appreciate that a top - antitop pair annihilate each other to form a Higgs Boson.

Now run the clock backwards.

Higgs Boson, annihilation, top - antitop pair.

You get no argument from me.

Light in, Light out.



The Higgs is obviously not a top - antitop pair but some people have speculated that the Higgs is a composite particle rather than a fundamental one, and came up with technicolour. In technicolour, the higgs is a bound state (actually, a condensate) of some particles that come from a higher, strongly coupled sector that we can't detect just now. This new sector is the technicolour sector and the new particles are "techniquarks." AFAIK, this theory has some phenomenological problems, but still persists in various forms that people like to tinker with today.

Thanks I ll lookup AFAIK.

Thanks I ll lookup AFAIK.

You're quite clearly a wacko. I have no doubt about it. If you really want to learn about the Higgs you'll need the prerequisites, which your responses thus far lead me to believe you don't have. Go and learn some QFT and then we'll talk about the Higgs. Until then you're simply wasting your time.

Have you watched the Richard Feynman Lectures?

Then my job is done.

Whilst we are on the subject, I recommend you check this out, as well.

bautforum.com/showthread.php/104133-Alpha-Omega-Be-light-Made

Light in, Light out

Any idea or thread which does not have Alpha(N) - PhD, approval - is banned That chip on your shoulder about people who can do science must really throw off your balance Terry.


Have you watched the Richard Feynman Lectures?

Then my job is done.Prom is doing a PhD in theoretical physics, he doesn't need your help to learn physics, he's already beyond anything you're capable of.

Alpha(N) PhD - Permanent head Damage

I'm sure I can find a problem sheet question or two


This is all you ever do or say, get a life.

Get a girlfriend.

Get help.

Please go away and take your friends with you, then everyone is happy. :)

Higgs Boson, annihilation, top - antitop pair.

Electron and positron annihilate into photons. Are you saying photons are bound states of electrons and positrons?

This is all you ever do or say, get a life.I'm more than happy to engage you or anyone else in informed rational discussion. The problem is you don't seem to be capable of it. Besides, I think its a little hypocritical for you to complain "That's all you ever say" when you tend to mindlessly repeat the same things again and again, such as your attempts to insult me. Yes, I'm really going to be upset that you've made up a different meaning for the acronym 'PhD', I'm so embarrassed I have one. I'm sorry that I managed to do what you couldn't.


Get a girlfriend.Is this your plan, to simply assume things about me and try to insult me in order to try to get me to stop pointing out your ignorance? You presume a lot Terry.


Please go away and take your friends with you, then everyone is happy.Wow, less than 20 posts and already telling people where to go. I'll play nice if you can manage to form coherent posts and keep your delusions of mediocrity in check. I'm not going to ignore it when you say something which I know to be false, such as your opening post in this thread. If you don't want people to reply with "You're wrong" then either do some reading before hand, get a blog or leave. Or did you expect to come to a discussion forum and not to get replies?

Please go away and take your friends with you, then everyone is happy. Um, AlphaNumeric and his friends were at this forum first, so you are going to have to argue on the merits and win before you have even the tiniest fair expectation that you can establish that you have a right to dictate where and with whom AlphaNumeric chooses to associate.

Also, AlphaNumeric and his friends have a consistent track record of producing useful, verifiable and communicable descriptions of nature and related systems -- some of which are quotabily novel -- which is what the immediate sub-forum is titularly dedicated to. Since you aren't either asking fair questions or explaining what your mantra "Light in, Light out" and all the tedious rest means, then it looks like you fail at basic Internet social expectations and are far from the stated goal of expelling AlphaNumeric.

Finally, if you have some sort of proof of this proposition that everyone will be happy, I would like to see it. Is your claim everyone will be happier and/or at least as happy or is this some sort of non-useful definition of happiness where a large number of people will become less happy and one insane person becomes insanely happy?

I forgot my own first principle.

There are no bad dogs in the world, only bad owners.

Its not your fault.

Its not your fault.

I did not come here to argue.

Here is something for everyone, I hope you enjoy and learn.

Sidney Coleman - I am still working my way through, but I particularly enjoyed lectures 34 and 40, so far. - Don't forget your sun glasses.

physics.harvard.edu/about/Phys253.html

Richard Feynman (Again.... ) Speechless as usual and with the answer to his previous lectures, except with the exception of the double slit experiment - it had still not been solved in 1979.

vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Bryan Magee has forgotten more philosophy than I have ever learnt, please watch the whole series, it will blow you mind.

youtube.com/watch?v=cG3sfrK5B4E

Lex Justitia Pax

Fiat Justitia (et ruat caelum)

Terry Giblin