Here is an example of an emerging field. Peer reviewed and well pseudoscience or sciforums stable, LOL http://www.physorg.com/news100753984.html >> It is hard to describe this because it is so different from what we are used to. For us it makes a big difference whether we measure masses in grams or kilograms. But in a scale-invariant world, it makes no difference at all.” Georgi explains that photons, which are particles of light, have the property of scale invariance because they have zero mass. Multiplying all the photon energies by a factor of 1000 would make them look exactly the same. He explained that a good way of understanding unparticle stuff is with neutrinos. Neutrinos have some properties in common with unparticle stuff. For example, neutrinos are nearly massless and therefore nearly scale invariant. They couple very weakly to ordinary matter at low energies, and the effect of the coupling increases as the energy increases. “Very often, in a scattering experiment, we can infer the existence of neutrinos by adding up the energy and momentum of the colliding particles and subtracting the energy and momentum of all the particles we can see to get the energy and momentum of the ‘missing’ (which just means that we don’t see them because they escape our detectors without interacting) neutrinos,” he said. “By doing the scattering many times, we can measure a probability distribution for the missing energy and momentum. And by looking at the distribution, we can tell whether there is one or two or more neutrinos missing in the particular process we are studying. “An interesting result of my analysis is that such a distribution for a process that produces unparticles looks like the distribution for a fractional number of massless particles,” he added. “This is weird, but it follows very simply from the scale invariance of the unparticles. It is the first glimmer of an answer to the question of how unparticles begin to show up.” >> Citation: Georgi, Howard. “Unparticle Physics.” Physical Review Letters 98, 221601 (2007). More at reference. It could be (my opinion) that really nothing has mass at all. It is all dynamic electrodynamic interactions between a structured electrodynamic field and a moving disturbance (un-particle). Anyone wish to discuss UN-PARTICLES ? This is at the leading edge of current physics. Yes, I know not suitable for here. so I bid y'all adieu
I have been seeing these papers for quite a while by Georgi, and haven't spent the time to understand them. I can assure you, though, that Georgi would not agree with your point of view of mass. If you're interested in discussing the paper, post some talking points, and I will read the paper (if I've time) and we can discuss the physics. As far as I know, Georgi is looking at a conformal symmetry of the SM gauge group above the eectroweak scale.
Up to here is good science, or at least a popular media report of good science. Note that Georgi has defined the idea quantitatively, that he doesn't attempt to discard great swathes of knowledge, that he identifies possible tests, that he talks about possibilities rather than claiming absolute truths, and that his ideas have been developed in consultation with other thinkers in the field. Here is a preprint of the paper at arXiv.org: Unparticle Physics This, on the other hand, is pseudoscience. The ideas are poorly defined, with only a vague and barely meaningful qualitative description. Those parts that are meaningful attempt to radically rewrite physics ("nothing has mass"). The opinion presented is of an absolute truth, rather than a possibility to be investigated. There is no mention of predictions or any way to test it. So what do you want to talk about URI? Unparticle physics? Or a coffee table discussion of your idea? Be warned... the coffee table round is harsh. If I may present a mangled metaphor: All new ideas are thoroughly hammered at this stage, and most are subsequently discarded. That's the only way to filter out the crap and find the quality gems. Good scientists are smart enough to brush away the rubbish, alert enough to spot the promising rocks, patient enough to polish them up and search for flaws, pragmatic enough to throw away the fractured stones and fools gold, smart enough to enlist and accept critical assistance, hardworking enough to collect a reasonable cache of small jewels over their career, hopeful enough to think that maybe one day they'll be at the coffee table when a flawless diamond shows up, and realistic enough to know that it's probably never going to happen to them. Coping with this kind of environment is tough. I'm not sure that I'd be up to it. Are you?
All of the great thinkers have seriously explored this idea. All of them confirmed that it was a possible scenerio. I would like to discuss it, but doubt that closed minded people in charge will allow it.
For Example: Einstein Pete, you seem particularly harsh about the concept of an electromagnetic universe. I suspect that is the reality; when I was your age I thought as you do. However, I have since lost my belief in magic. All of nature falls into reasonable causal understanding when you investigate it inside the box of an electromagnetic only universe.
Hi URI Any scientist worth their salt can think within the particle physics scenerio and also in the field theory scenerio. Now I see where you're coming from in your posts. You are thinking within the field theory box. You're thinking of an electromagneic universe. To stay within that box you immediately realize a few things: ( 1 ) Relativity phenomena is real and restricted to the experience of the moving mass. ( 2 ) The Big Bang theory is not real. It is impossible to go to a singularity in an electromagnetic only universe. Many others, but that is enough for now.
That doesn't seem relevant. How is it supposed to indicate that Einstein seriously considered the idea that "It is all dynamic electrodynamic interactions between a structured electrodynamic field and a moving disturbance"? What I'm harsh about is thin skinned arrogance. I'm harsh about the assertions of those who profess to have a better idea of how the universe works than the greatest minds of our time, but take it personally when their ideas are put to the question.
I'm not sure you really want to know where URI is coming from. If you do, you should discuss it as his site (see his user page for the link).
Einstein was writing about a Unified Field Theory, which would have been an electromagnetic theory of the universe. I visited the site; didn't follow every link but didn't see anything that would make me want to hide it from the kids Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes it is sad. But reality will remain reality whether it is discussed here or not Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And Eisntein was wrong, nobody doubts this. If you want to discuss Unparticle physics a la Georgi, then please read the paper and post topics for discussion. If you want to discuss why the "Theory of Everything" is electromagnetic in nature (its not), then start another thread. And I can think of many great thinkers who think that Einstein was disconnected from physics in his later years---i.e. his attempts to find a theory of everything are fundamentally flawed, and bound to fail.
I would be happy to discover why it is that I didn't kick and scream hard enough when I let reality pull me away from particle theory. I just can't accept that things happen without cause as if by magic. I thought I was remaining relivant to this thread. I don't doubt that Einstein was wrong. But to explain why would violate the hijack rule. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The thread is a discussion of Georgi's paper, not the ideas of you and URI. Since the Un-particle physics are becoming more popular, I would like to discuss this paper with someone. Everyone is gone to Europe this summer at OSU, and I have requested that we invite Georgi here next fall to give a colloquium about his Un-particles (my adviser and he are friends). If anyone is actually interested in the paper, as opposed to the sub-scientific claims that yall are making, I would love to read this paper and talk about it. Otherwise, I would suggest that this thread be either locked or moved, because the original author clearly has no actual intent of reading the paper.
I have read the paper. It is a portion of an electromagnetic TOE. He doesn't go as far as Einstein did in demanding that every equation for anything must be derivable from Maxwell's partial differentials. But I bet he thinks it.
Georgi: Digging deeper I see that Georgi seems to assume a different kind of mass. It is still a good read and makes me think he's moving toward an electromagnetic TOE. Einstein: I'm guessing that Georgi is going there.
