Anybody care to comment on my metaphysic?

[thelerner]

Reading it I thought of online video protocols. Originally videos were shown picture by picture which took up lots of memory and space and by there nature were sequential. Later mp4 formats would only recreate what moved from print to print. That saves huge amounts of space.

 

Don't know if that has anything to do with anything.

 

The mind of God uses efficient algorithms to plot out time and space??

[KoffeeKommando]

The mind of God uses efficient algorithms to plot out time and space??

 

You bet Sailor:

 

A Fuller Explanation

 

And it's all on autopilot. Self-regulating.

[Owledge]

Why does it matter? haha ... its called matter because it has mass causing gravity ... i.e. its not Dark Energy which hasn't and doesn't.

How can you claim that an idea/observation called "Dark Matter" has mass?

[thelerner]

You bet Sailor:

 

A Fuller Explanation

 

And it's all on autopilot. Self-regulating.

Thanks for the link. What made Fuller such a modern renaissance man is that he thought deep, and brought his theories into the real world with real products to help mankind.

 

I can study deep physics for 20 or 30 minutes before my head swims. What I need is good solid metaphors to hang the theory on. Better yet a physical structure I can see or at least imagine. If I can't apply something to the real world, I'm not sure I completely understand it.

[Apech]

Boom boom;-)

 

"mass-causing" "gravity"? or "mass, causing gravity"?

 

And why bother with a distinction between energy and matter? I thought that one had been done by Einstein? I'm probably getting this very wrong again...

 

Everything is forms or modalities of energy. But some of these forms have different qualities to others. Some forms i.e. particles called Fermions have mass, while others called Bosons do not. The way in which the Fermions acquire mass is speculated to be by interaction with the Higgs Field. The rule is that every interaction has a particle associated with it. The particle for electromagnetic interaction is the photon ... i.e. light ... which is a Boson i.e. a non mass bearing energy particle. The interaction particle for the Higgs field is the Higgs Boson which is what the Large Hadron Collider is looking for.

 

Whats Einstein e=mc2 demonstrated is that the mass of a particle is just a form of energy.

[Apech]

How can you claim that an idea/observation called "Dark Matter" has mass?

 

Not the idea but the reality if it exists.

[Creation]

Some forms i.e. particles called Fermions have mass, while others called Bosons do not. The way in which the Fermions acquire mass is speculated to be by interaction with the Higgs Field.

Hi Apech.

 

As it turns out, the Higgs mechanism was first proposed as a way for gauge bosons to acquire mass. Before people started talking about Higgs, "acquiring mass" was not an issue, the mass of the particle was already in the equation of motion (f=ma or whatever). The most general equation for a boson has an "m" in it that may or may no be zero. But the equations for gauge bosons require m=0, and are therefore long range forces like electromagnetism. So when physicists wanted to model the nuclear forces, which are short range, as gauge bosons, they had to find a way around this. For the weak force, they "broke" the proposed electroweak gauge symmetry using the Higgs mechanism, so that the part of the symmetry that remained unbroken was precisely the photon's gauge symmetry, and the bosons coming from the broken part of the symmetry "ate" Higgs particles to acquire mass. And indeed the W and Z bosons are observed to have mass.

 

So, in terms of the mathematics, the Higgs mechanism is necessary to explain the mass of bosons carrying the weak force, and not things like electrons. EDIT: I was just reading up on the Higgs mechanism, and this might not be true. The ordinary mass terms for fermions (used in, say, QED) interfere with the required chiral symmetry properties of the electroweak theory, and need to be generated by Higgs. Particle physicist is so confusing...

 

For the strong force, they did something completely different to get around the "long range" problem: the bosons are still massless and the symmetry is unbroken, but quantum effects asymptotically confine the force.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Creation

[Apech]

Everything is forms or modalities of energy. But some of these forms have different qualities to others. Some forms i.e. particles called Fermions have mass, while others called Bosons do not. The way in which the Fermions acquire mass is speculated to be by interaction with the Higgs Field. The rule is that every interaction has a particle associated with it. The particle for electromagnetic interaction is the photon ... i.e. light ... which is a Boson i.e. a non mass bearing energy particle. The interaction particle for the Higgs field is the Higgs Boson which is what the Large Hadron Collider is looking for.

 

Whats Einstein e=mc2 demonstrated is that the mass of a particle is just a form of energy.

 

A very kind TB has corrected me by PM thus:

 

 

...the Z and W bosons which mediate the weak force, have mass and in point of fact are relatively massive, their masses being measured in Gevs.

 

I appear to have been talking out of the wrong orifice.

[Apech]

Hi Apech.

 

As it turns out, the Higgs mechanism was first proposed as a way for gauge bosons to acquire mass. Before people started talking about Higgs, "acquiring mass" was not an issue, the mass of the particle was already in the equation of motion (f=ma or whatever). The most general equation for a boson has an "m" in it that may or may no be zero. But the equations for gauge bosons require m=0, and are therefore long range forces like electromagnetism. So when physicists wanted to model the nuclear forces, which are short range, as gauge bosons, they had to find a way around this. For the weak force, they "broke" the proposed electroweak gauge symmetry using the Higgs mechanism, so that the part of the symmetry that remained unbroken was precisely the photon's gauge symmetry, and the bosons coming from the broken part of the symmetry "ate" Higgs particles to acquire mass. And indeed the W and Z bosons are observed to have mass.

 

So, in terms of the mathematics, the Higgs mechanism is necessary to explain the mass of bosons carrying the weak force, and not things like electrons. EDIT: I was just reading up on the Higgs mechanism, and this might not be true. The ordinary mass terms for fermions (used in, say, QED) interfere with the required chiral symmetry properties of the electroweak theory, and need to be generated by Higgs. Particle physicist is so confusing...

 

For the strong force, they did something completely different to get around the "long range" problem: the bosons are still massless and the symmetry is unbroken, but quantum effects asymptotically confine the force.

 

Thank you for this ... very interesting ... someone else already put me right on this mass thing. I need to read more ... I feel like a heavy boson myself.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Like the pull of a black hole when you are too close to the event horizon, I couldn't resist posting this.

 

 

It's a scene from the very odd series Lexx. The planet that they are talking about destroying is earth and its possible destruction because of experiments related to the Higgs boson forms a major subplot in a long series of episodes. You might say it is a major source of conCERN.

[Owledge]

Whats Einstein e=mc2 demonstrated is that the mass of a particle is just a form of energy.

My suspicion is only growing, about that saying that people tend to try and adapt reality to their mathematical models. Happens a lot: An observation doesn't fit the models, so we have to add some adjustment, and voila, now it fits again. But if it didn't fit without the adjustment, it might be because the basic assumption was wrong.

 

How does that Einstein equation demonstrate that mass of a particle is just a form of energy? To me it shows the opposite: that energy is nothing but the observed effect of mass in motion.

You know about that longing in the scientific community for a purely mechanical explanation for all processes in the universe (or something like that)? It's a bit like Christians with their second coming of Jesus. It could already have happened, they wouldn't know.

I think scientists often make the mistake of overcomplicating things because they cannot see the simplicity.

 

One example that smells fishy to me is curved space. To my understanding this idea wasn't derived from any observation that exclusively pointed to only this. It was made up in order to explain that light gets bent by gravitational forces ONLY because a fixed (and weird) assumption that light has no mass and thus can't be influenced by gravity. It gets messy there, where they say, yes, in motion it has mass, but when we say mass regarding light speed, we mean something different than 'ordinary' mass.

 

I think there's a reason why ideas in science seem to crazy and weird: because they try to maneuver around a simple explanation that they cannot grasp.

 

When I confront physics-versed people with this, usually they respond with even more complex and weird explanations, that again only add more complexity on top.

 

Can someone explain to me how particle accelerator experiments where electromagnetic fields accelerate a particle to near light speed and need more and more energy for every little bit are showing that the 'mass' (the other one) of the particle increases? Excuse me - how fucking crazy is it to try and accelerate something to or above light speed using a force that is fueled by a sub-light speed phenomenon (electricity)?

Tell me, what speed does the force of an electromagnetic field work at? Does science claim to know that?

And then we could talk about ordinary magnetic fields. What speed? What is flowing? Particles? Where is the energy for that force field coming from? There must be an input from somewhere, since applying force against the field doesn't diminish its strength.

Tom Bearden is an example of using the right approach: He observed something that cannot be explained with the present models, so instead of inventing new stuff, giving it a fancy name and thus mending the models with more theory, he examined the basic assumptions in the models and found them to be flawed, artificially limited.

[Birch]

I don't understand physics.

[Apech]

My suspicion is only growing, about that saying that people tend to try and adapt reality to their mathematical models. Happens a lot: An observation doesn't fit the models, so we have to add some adjustment, and voila, now it fits again. But if it didn't fit without the adjustment, it might be because the basic assumption was wrong.

 

How does that Einstein equation demonstrate that mass of a particle is just a form of energy? To me it shows the opposite: that energy is nothing but the observed effect of mass in motion.

... etc

 

Hi,

 

I'm not going to try to explain physics again having fouled up with my mass-less bosons. In a way I think you are right to be skeptical because apart from anything else there is no doubt that in 100 years time (prob sooner) many current scientific models will be over turned. That's how its supposed to be I guess.

 

Two things only ... the mass equivalence of energy has been demonstrated by experiment. And relativistic effects have also been verified for particles moving close to the speed of light. There is empirical data fro these things. I don't have it. You'll have to google around I suppose.

[Apech]

I don't understand physics.

 

Quote from Richard Feynman (great physicist)

 

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."

[Creation]

I'm not going to try to explain physics again having fouled up with my mass-less bosons.

Oh come now, you are one of the only people around here who knows some real physics.

 

I don't see how I could reply to Owledge's question without making a monster post on relativistic mechanics and electrodynamics, which probably wouldn't be very appreciated anyway. That's why I don't post much about physics anymore...

[Owledge]

Quote from Richard Feynman (great physicist)

Specifically related to quantum physics, and I understand what he means. It might be related to that other quote, something like 'If you want to deal with quantum physics, better to leave your rational mind at the door.' Scientists dug so deep that they are beginning to discover the basics of what spiritual teachings have been saying all the time. Like they are trying to scientifically examine what is beyond their idea of science.

Who knows, maybe in a few 100 years western quantum physics will have caught up in understanding with eastern sciences. Haha.

In a way there's a nice duality: the west specializes more in analysis, the east in synthesis.

[Birch]

Oh come now, you are one of the only people around here who knows some real physics.

 

I don't see how I could reply to Owledge's question without making a monster post on relativistic mechanics and electrodynamics, which probably wouldn't be very appreciated anyway. That's why I don't post much about physics anymore...

I'd read it but I wouldn't get it.

[Apech]

Oh come now, you are one of the only people around here who knows some real physics.

 

I don't see how I could reply to Owledge's question without making a monster post on relativistic mechanics and electrodynamics, which probably wouldn't be very appreciated anyway. That's why I don't post much about physics anymore...

 

Ernest Rutherford said: "All Science is either physics or stamp collecting"

 

...so make that monster post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In fact start a new thread ... I promise to read.

[zerostao]

" (prob sooner) many current scientific models will be over turned. That's how its supposed to be I guess."

reckon so

 

 

http://www.quantumgeometrydynamics.com/blog/