http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...iggs-boson-particle-discovered-Wednesday.html So... we have every basic particle of force now. Next up, Unified Field Theory? Obviously, we're going to need to wait for confirmation from ATLAS and CMS, but this is a great first step. When we are able to manipulate them with greater reliability. I might have more thoughts on this later, but I'm still in a state of shock. Hard to absorb having the entire world change overnight.
I do not believe it. It will take much more confirmation to convince me. Mass is related to gravitation, and likely the background vacuum energy, not some heavy transient short-distance boson. This find might turn out to be some other new particle, which would still be an important surprising discovery. I was an immediate believer (and still am) when they announced neutrinos had been observed to exceed the speed of light, so I am not a close-minded person when it comes to these types of things. We can see, for example, with the Mikheyev–Smirnov–Wolfenstein effect that the effective mass of neutrinos can be altered by their surrounding environment (much like the refractive index of the medium light propagates through), so there is no reason not to expect that the vacuum energy would not similarly give mass to matter.
I have a layman's question: If the Higgs allows matter to exist and affords it its mass, is it also responsible for neutrinos and their mass? Is the Higgs behind every little particle, e.g. electrons? That stuff about altering mass by changes in surrounding environment is very interesting to me, because it fits with gravity being the result of how matter and the "space" around it interact. It's quite interesting and fun to ponder the fundamentals of existence itself.
The Higgs Boson is basically considered to be the mechanism by which elementary particles gain mass. The way that this is a significant breakthrough is that it has a lot to do with how different forces interact. Specifically, it is expected to provide significant evidence for how electroweak force behaves, which has, up to now, been completely theoretical. In addition, it relates gravity to weak force. This is, theoretically, a route to a unified field theory.
Yes, this is the theory. Yes, it may possibly be that the entire existence of "space-time" — all that so-called "empty space"— is actually a result of the very mass in the universe itself. Mass and space may be inextricable linked. This certainly is my opinion. If or when all the mass in the universe collapsed into a single point, all the space (and time) in the universe would collapse with it. Think of it this way, in the complete absence of any matter, the concept of space is completely meaningless. I believe space is directly related to the vacuum energy (which may itself be extremely long wave-length coherent electromagnetic radiation, but this is open to debate). When an object can move infinitely fast, it is as though space does not exist. When the mass of an object is coupled with (and augmented by) outside mass, it is as though space has been warped.
I think I've had basically the same thoughts about space for a while now. After all, space can't be "curved" if it doesn't have mass of some kind, as in some kind of physical existence by itself. I wonder what this could all do for understanding singularities, incidentally.
This is just my opinion (not that of established theory) but I do not regard black holes as a "singularity". The only singularity is when (or if) all the mass in the universe ever collapses on itself. My guess is, when this happens, the size of the singularity will approach the Planck contstant (which is very very small, but higher energy correlates to smaller wavelength so this is to be expected) where all the matter-energy in the universe would exist as a single coherent standing wave. This would be a set up for another "big bang" of course.
the sphere of an object of mass, is primarily empty space, except for the fields same concept of viral to suggest the big bang there is no perfect vacuum between any 2 points of mass (postulate) It means, there is no vacuum. vacuum energy? how about the fields of em, enclose this whole earth and there could be field fluxuations combining with fields within an environment and bam a blip of what some call a particle appears from no where. It aint utter dimensions, it aint magic, it aint quantum vacuum fluxuations, it the em within the environment that is always there. the warped part is believing information is traveling via a particle versus its entanglement
If you read the articles and then from cern, it seems they were collectively voting in whether it is within the existing data or not. i liken it to the catholic church, finally accepting evolution. both know, they dont have the full story, but they have to publish something on the matters
They found evidence of it, all subject to peer review. Wasn't it all that long ago they found evidence of neutrinos surpassing c. Proved later to be an anomaly in the measuring equipment. CERN is funded by millions of dollars of government money. Given the austerity measures in Europe, it's funding is potentially at risk..therefore the timing of this "evidence"...for me at least. Is suspect. The Higgs-Boson field may give particles mass, but money still makes the World go around and atomic colliders ain't cheap. The Scientists needed results to convince folks to keep funding it. I am not convinced.
One can understand this perspective, but this is just one perspective. If you believe the uncertainty principle is a fundamental law of physics, then yes, this would be true. But I do not believe it is, although that may be a minority opinion amongst theoretic physicists. The truth is that it is not actually known for certain. I neither believe that particles exist as points, nor that their true existence expands outward undefined. I think there is an interplay between space and mass, and in a way, trying to define the exact size of a particle would be a meaningless concept, as counterintuitive as that sounds. Remember, our conceptions of distance are all relative. When we try going down to small distances, no fine grade ruler exists. Trying to see how many subatomic particles fit within a given area does not work either, for more complicated reasons I am not going to get into (have you heard of a Bose–Einstein condensate?) No, we are discussing extremely high energy levels. If it was ordinary electromagnetic radiation it would be enough to vaporise the earth. But at much much longer wavelengths - so long it would be impossible to directly detect - matter would become transparent to this energy. Again, the vacuum energy is not very well described by official theory. The phenomena of rogue waves could explain the transient formation of virtual particles - and why these particles are unable to permanently impart energy to a system. No, we are talking about two different things. It is possible to exceed the speed of light - if that speed is through a medium. For example light travels only half as fast through cubic zirconia as it does through air. In fact, physicists recently were able to slow the speed of light down to the speed of a running human (over a very short distance): http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html There is no reason why the "speed of light" cannot be exceeded if the "vacuum" is altered (analogous to space being "warped"), and no, it would not make the light go back in time! That the vacuum can be altered ("rarified" for lack of a better term), at least to a very small extent, is already demonstrated by the Casmir Effect. Recent experiments have already suggested that neutrinos can exceed the speed of light, throwing "conventional" notions into question. There may also be "non-linear" effects. At high enough energies, a particle could potentially interract with the vacuum, changing the "speed of light" it experiences. Since the vacuum energy is extremely dense, we are unlikely to see such effects demonstrated in particle accelerators any time soon.
oh. yeah. sure. AGAIN. First time this year though. They're just needing to get their name out there....must be grant time.
For a related effect, one might also read: http://physics.aps.org/story/v23/st2 "quantum blurring" There have been calculations how what this vacuum energy density actually is, all of which are absurdly large. I cannot find a reference now, but found this: "Zeldovich suggested that the anomaly was due to the uncertainty principle in quantum theory, which endows empty space with energy. Sadly, his calculation of this 'zero point energy' was 10^120 times bigger than the effect it was supposed to account for". Considering that the effect it accounts for is enough to produce W bosons to facillitate the the weak force, which have 80 times more rest mass than protons, I think it goes without saying this energy is ridiculously large.
What do you think about dark matter? I've found myself thinking that it may not actually exist, but rather that space-time itself has mass which accounts for it. In fact, here's a thought about gravity: Where there is "normal" matter, something happens to reduce the "mass" of space-time, if reduction would be the proper idea. Its effects are reduced, or maybe just altered in some strange way. When you get to the galactic level, though, you're looking at massive expanses of space without all of that "normal" mass filling it, so perhaps the space surrounding galaxies actually ends up exerting a kind of effect. Actually, this may be another property of what we call a gravity well - perhaps that "falling" effect also encompasses a kind of "pushing" force towards or into the well from without, i.e. from the less distorted/undistorted space-time beyond. Such an effect might account for the appearance of more mass in a gravity, as it would maybe help to keep what's in the galaxy in the galaxy, and would form kind of barrier at its periphery that is not unlike the idea expressed in Star Trek, where the Enterprise encountered a kind of barrier at the edge of the galaxy. Now, granted the barrier wouldn't be anything so severe as what's seen in that series, nor something so acute in its area, but rather a gradual building up of space-time mass which collectively has the observed effect on the gravity. In other words, there may simply be more to gravity than what is currently theorised and modelled, and the effect would likely be extremely small, if indeed at all existent, within a gravity, where there is so much normal matter already distorting the space-time. It wouldn't be all that observable on such a "small" scale as, say, a solar system, either because the effect is too weak at that scale or because all of the other surrounding distortions from the normal matter would nullify it..
I tend to think it is composed of clouds of neutrinos and all that vacuum energy (ultra-long wavelengh electromagnetic energy that cannot be detected by ordinary means) A more simplicistic explanation could be that there might be many more dead brown dwarfs than cosmologists realise. The interesting thing is that when one looks out on the largest scale structures of the universe, it seems to form a foam-like structure with filaments, resembling sea foam floating near waves. While some scientists interrpret this as "negetive" energy, I think it could indicate, just as with the water, a cohessive force of "empty" space, pushing ordinary matter to the side lines. Perhaps not really surprising if the mass density of vacuum energy is much higher than ordinary matter. I am not sure, I have not really thought much about this.
NOTE THE DATE: Bad News for Higgs Boson. Higgs Bogus?? God Particle May not Exist After All August 24, 2011 Photo: Statue of the Hindu god, Shiva Outside Cern Headquarters in Geneva A particle believed to have played a key role in the creation of the universe might not exist after all, a media report said Tuesday quoting experts. Scientists said last month that they were close to cornering the elusive Higgs boson or ‘God particle’ – a tiny but vital element in the construction of life as we know it. But hope is now fading after the disappearance of signals scientists had hoped would lead them to it, the Daily Mail reported. The CERN research centre, whose giant Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been carrying out the work under the mountains on the French-Swiss border, announced its scepticism at a conference in Mumbai. Guido Tonelli, from one of the two LHC detectors chasing the Higgs, said: “Whatever the final verdict on Higgs, we are now living in very exciting times for all involved in the quest for new physics.” CERN said new results, which updated findings that caused excitement at another scientific gathering in Grenoble last month, “show that the elusive Higgs particle, if it exists, is running out of places to hide”, the Mail reported. The centre’s research director Sergio Bertolucci told the conference at Mumbai’s Tata Institute of Fundamental Research that if the Higgs did not exist “its absence will point the way to new physics”. Under what is known as the Standard Model of physics, the boson – named after British physicist Peter Higgs – is posited as having been the agent that gave mass and energy to matter just after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. As a result, flying debris from that primeval explosion could come together as stars, planets and galaxies. In the subterranean LHC, which began operating in March 2010, CERN engineers and physicists have created billions of miniature versions of the Big Bang by smashing particles together at just a fraction under the speed of light. The results of those collisions are monitored by hundreds of physicists, not just at CERN but in linked laboratories around the world which sift through the vast volumes of information generated by the LHC, the Mail said. For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation.
While you may be correct in the first part about the Higgs, it's undeniable that the experimental results for neutrinos did not show them exceeding the speed of light. You're correct.
that POSTULATE aint an opinion, its a known truth (fact) when you can prove wrong then debate against a 'fact' quite the opposite. the uncertain approach is where your vacuum fluxuations have no causality. So it is your point of view that the uncertain (heisenberg/planck) and vacuum fluxuations are interrelated. fields still have a size affecting space/mass/time Have you read anything on Milo Wolffs point of view? Otherwise, from what i am reading, you really are not comprehending that you are crossing disciplines that dont mix. brownian motion was einstein model to calculate size of structures. are you even aware of that. Dont even try and play with BEC, especially if you do not comprehend brownian motion. em is the energy of mass (all cases) I guess you never knew that, did you? but its still there and it is affecting the system. I could care less, whether you can measure them or not. I am trying to assist you in comprehending causality versus beliefs. i am telling you how to comprehend these concepts and truth is transparent to you, so i gather the idea. ; ( and why i posted. dude, stop it. all energy is of waves in one form or another the virtual particles are the combining of them waves, unseen, but affect the detector (a particle blip) geeze.... the detector is capturing the energy (of the rogue per se, within the system) and why they claim they are there the speed of light is a joke of plancks constant. A fact you need to comprehend is energy is not based on speed. Planck was wrong! a hot piece of iron aint running fast either ie... the energy upon the mass, is slowed my first paper in 82' was declined by Cal Tech, and they made a stupid claim too "a photon cannot be slowed, per relativity' basically, i have been making idiots out of the 'system' of the community for over 3 decades. space dont warp, fields impose to the space. ie.... like what a hot road does to light (a mirage) space dont bend and there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum learn these base facts and quit posting non sense. and please, dont even mention casimirs name if you do not comprehend the fields of em your line items are practically stupid to me. if you want to learn it straight, please ask questions before posting. i will assist
The Universe didn't change our understanding of it has.Where is god going to hide now that we know how the Big Bang developed. And as it is "higgs boson like "particle that has been PROVEN TO EXIST who knows what wonders will be revealed when we explore it more. One thing for sure the god killing particle has been found ,sorry ,particle and field to be more accurate.
You are so patient with them ,something to do with scientific methods of thinking ,OBJECTIVELY BASED ,vs goobly goog,a perfect Vacuum only describes the space between our 'friends' ears.They may have something ! Do they teach Wave\Particle duality anymore ? science is under attack from its opposite ignorance! i blame the parents teaching their children about Santa,the Tooth Fairy ,and GOD! The Higgs Boson Particle \Field the God killing Paticle has been observed ,it pauses all science with the implications of its appearence \disappearence not directly observed but known to exist from its effects. Like all things time is required for its unfolding.Science 1 ,god still zero ,1 is infinitly more.EVIDENCE EVIDENCE WACK THEM IOVER THEIR FAITH THUNKIN HEADS WITH EVIDENCE ,Higgs Boson the God killing Particle\field. Stopped me dead in my tracks,the greatest discovery since E=MCc [squared don't have a squared function on my laptop or do I ,anyone ?
In my opinion a mass of infinite density would do for a singularity any day of course mass cannot exist in that way but is converted into energy and we witness that process with x-rays and gamma radiation as well as all othe forms spewing out into space how much" mass of infinite density" into how much energy is a" black holes" size, a matter energy converter not a litteral "hole"black or otherwise in spacetime. ,yep,the unverses recycle machine .Black hole isn't a good term and the great crunch isn't going to happen its oh so yesterday and not a good lifestyle choice in my opinion.So sorry a 'black hole is the closest thing you won't see to a singularity ,which cannot really exist this side of the wave\particle duality Universe. Time around a black hole slows relatively but it dosen't nor can it stop.Light is trapped behind the event horizon not stopped nor destroyed .its a very bright place between the event horizon one of the brightest places .Nothing Black or dark about it.
