Today is an important day for science and study of mass. It has been confirmed that a new boson has been observed with mass 125.3 +/- 0.6 GeV, with a 4.9 sigma level of certainty. This confirms the existence with a 99,99997% likelihood.
Nothing at all. The Standard Model received another rousing confirmation, but there is nothing in it now, nor will there ever be anything, that resembles gravity. The unification of gravitation and the other interactions lies far beyond the Standard Model physics that was confirmed (again) by the discovery of the Higgs boson.
From what I understand they are not sure what they have found. It is interesting that Fermi lab could not confirm the existence of the higgs boson based on similar observations of particle interacions. It makes me wonder if the announcement by Cern that they had discover Higg is a bit premature.
The discovery of the Higgs is certainly a great achievement of humanity. The prediction and confirmation show us that we can count on our intuitions and understandings of nature to proceed further and further. However, I agree with Lunsford. From a theoretical point of view, the Higgs doesn't bring us forward on the path to a unified theory. There are basic understandings that we are still missing to point the way.
They do not have a direct measurement of its parity, and one experiement (ATLAS) is missing decays via tauons. Until those are in place, they will not say definitely what it is.
The discovery of the Higgs Boson will add nothing to the understanding of gravity.
Hello Ana Maria, What a great question! I like your inquisivity. As you remember, we have been discussing the graviton in your ‘graviton’ post. As we discussed, the traditional physical theories of the past century have failed to put gravity in connection with the other energies. The Higgs Boson emanated from the same models and theories. Thus, the discovery of the Higgs Boson will not add any new information to the enigma of gravity. As you know, I modeled the formation of the Universe from the energy singularity, starting with the singularity. This let the unexpected causative discovery that gravity is anti-energy. I am planning to put the model as a pdf-file onto my website ‘RochesterResearch.org’. Ingo
Question: gravity as anti-energy means simply negative energy? The gravitational potential energy is negative............
all this, it is interesting, but me too, I made another questions to you, is this really the Higgs Boson or something else? An anomaly? A relative or an alteration of this particle? I study topics concerning planetary science, but , of course, this seems a very important discovery.
@Mattia:
Very good point. I was wondering myself until this morning when it was said that the odds it was a fluke was like 5 in 10 million. When Hawking himself accepted the results, that was it for me. I was reading carefully the news Monday and Tuesday and wasn't convinced enough myself until the official announcement. Yesterday, did you know an announcement video was leaked out by mistake, which made things even more confusing?
Higgs boson is a bad news since it closes the standard model without gravity: No hint or even hope where is the pathway to gravity. Of course, Higgs boson has not any relation to God.
The observation of the Higgs boson points us in a more focused direction as we try to get a better understanding of gravity. Since the Standard Model is now complete and it doesn't include gravity, we need to look elsewhere. Because of General Relativity we already understand what gravity is. I think what needs to be investigated and understood better is its role in the evolution of the universe and its structures.
I'm glad that the Standard Model has held up because it means that now the focus can go on to other problems instead of starting all over again if there were no Higgs. A pathway to gravity will not be as elusive as some indicate. Just as I was sure that the Higgs would be found, I feel the same about the gravity issues.
OK. Since my last comment got a couple of "likes", I have a question. SInce the Higgs gives other particles mass, does anyone have any ideas what that might mean, as far a gravity is concerned? I admit that I'm out of my depth here and don't have time to catch-up at the moment, so any ideas from more knowledgeable members would be great.
I'm used to the GR definition of gravity and in a another forum here, there was a discussion about whether or not a graviton particle would ever be found. If gravity can be viewed as the warpage of space-time due to mass, as in GR, and the Higgs gives mass to particles, it almost sounds like the Higgs is a graviton by proxy.
Where have I gone off the tracks or have I?
Einstein stated that repeating the same and expecting a different outcome is a sign of insanity. As far as the gravity problem is concerned, the same theory has been examined over and over and has been unsuccessful. The same is true for gauge theory. What has it actually predicted that is experimentally verifiable? This clearly shows that the old theory is lacking on some fundamental understanding. The Higgs Boson emanated from the same models and theories. Thus, the discovery of the Higgs Boson will not add any new information to the enigma of gravity.
The new understanding of gravity as anti-energy allows walking away from the space-time model, as far as gravity is concerned. The pre-Big-Bang energy singularity was a boson-state of photons. The Higgs boson would have been stable in this environment. The basic elements of the Universe, the electron and proton, are both fermions. It is my prediction that the Higgs boson will not be a boson, but a fermion. According to the model of the formation of the Universe, the Higgs boson will contain gravity, but itself will consist of energy. Hasn’t it been detected by detecting its energy debris?
This new understanding of gravity as anti-energy leads to photon-gravity duality based on experimentally supported basic science. The photon-graviton duality is experimentally testable in the laboratory. Manipulating photons is a standard laboratory tool. Thus, testing if photons carry gravity becomes a simple experiment. I am planning to publish the manuscripts about this the following week in the webpage ‘rochesterresearch.org’.
High Ingo: I have strong evidence that "at the beginning of the universe" the ratio of pressure to energy density was w = - 1/3. Also the deceleration parameter was q = 1/2 . This suggests expanding pressure with negative energy. Please, have you any comments? I will certainly read your manuscripts. Thank you.
We should understand what and why we do not understand what we don't for a new direction. I would bet on entanglement as the most perspective pathway to "quantum" gravity if the Higgs boson is a good news (if at all); no sense in persisting without a new understanding.
I don't think you've gone off the tracks at all, Marshall. In fact I think you're on the right track. I was recently reading the comments to another ResearchGate post that included two ways to describe mass ... first, as a characteristic of something that makes it resistant to a force and second, when two things have mass they attract each other. (i.e., they feel the effects of gravity). I put them together to think of it this way: Gravity IS what causes something (a particle) to be resistant to a force! Or … Gravity causes a particle to be resistant to a force. Ergo … gravity causes mass!
I’ve always believed that all of the quantum particles described by the Standard Model are really just our perception of energy fluctuations propagating in spacetime like waves. That includes the particles like electrons and quarks that make up atoms as well as the particles that carry the electromagnetic force (photons), the strong force (gluons) and the weak force (W’s and Z’s). I’ve now added the Higgs particle which interacts with other particles to give them mass to that list.
Is it possible that interactions between warped spacetime and energy fluctuations at small distances and high energies leads to a universal gravitational field that causes mass? I'm not sure but it certainly seems logical and possible to me.
Bill:
Thanks for the vote of confidence! A physicist friend of mine ,who has a masters in high energy particle physics, was mentioning the idea to me just off the cuff. When I posted my idea here, I was thinking about what we had discussed and then remembered the graviton discussion. On an intuitive level, it seemed to make sense, and my intuitions in physics are usually right, but as I said, this isn't quite my area.
Ingo:
I would not agree that there have been not experimental verifications for theories of gravity. GR has been verified repeatedly. It just hasn't been able to be extended to QM yet. I see a possibility for that now with the Higgs.
High Ingo: The requested paper can be downloaded from xxx.lanl.com, arXiv:1201.4688
"Underpinning the universe: its scales, holography and fractality" by
Antonio Alfonso-Faus, Marius Josep Fullana i Alfonso
The Higgs boson means: No quantum gravity!
I think that now is the time someone to declare the obvious: The king is nude!
In our case: No quantum gravity! As the French academy declared "No perpetuum mobile" and it was a new principle of nature that generated thermodynamics:
"No quantum gravity!" and it is a new very strange and amazing principle of nature. If the best minds tried a century to invent quantum gravity and they did not manage to do it, then it merely means that quantum gravity does not exist in principle. So that no sense in persisting to invent the "perpetuum mobile" of quantum gravity, however there is a great sense to build a new theory on that new principle:
1. The theory of gravity which is sure is general relativity, and it is not quantum: It is not a random fact.
2. If the standard model is completed by the Higgs boson but without gravity, then the cause for that is: The standard model is quantum. It cannot include gravity in principle just being a quantum theory.
3. Of course, a non-universality of quantum theory is a big surprise and quite incomprehensible at present, but all scientific experience of mankind is full of surprises.
@Henk:
LOL! So is Bill the only one here who has any esteem to lose in your eyes?
Various comments above bring about importance with unifying idea that hopefully verification of Higgs boson will signify. Advancing with general theory of relativity, I have come up whole new mathematical materials astro quantum particle physics analysis. Hoping that very soon presentation on this facilitated, then I will be able to show pattern trace space model that I developed quantitatively with mathematically analyzing natural astro quantum patterns space-time expressed exponential of exponent time form - exact form of a system of differential equations all expressed on time domain - corresponds to inflation theory and convergent approximation gives time equation parallel to string theory. This may hold key to grand unification of everything similar to general theory however advancing beyond on blackhole astrophysics. About a week of mathematical theoretical physics presentation conference will help to unveil model theory that I have come up with. World tour starting with Europe may be appropriate starting perhaps next year. My proposed analysis shows that strong nuclear entities are possible to have been likely produced at very high fields existing at genesis of universe.
I have just found this funny explanation in this comic video
http://vimeo.com/41038445
I have found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Uh5mTxRQcg
Otto:
Your concern over black holes being created at CERN is not unwarranted, but not because there is any real chance that one will become stable and gobble up our planet. The fault lies with CERN itself, which had a press release dealing with the possibility of creating mini black holes, to such an extent that they claimed that the LHC could become a "black hole factory". These mini black holes, however, last probably a fraction of a nanosecond, it's just that CERN's equipment is so sophisticated that they can still detect and analyze events that occur on such tiny time scales.
However, in their attempt to add razzle dazzle to their press release, they made it appear that mini black holes would be cranked out and watched on something approaching normal time scales which led to the fear of black holes becoming stable and eating the planet. This is part of a pattern that science institutions have engaged in where, instead of sticking to the facts, they use terms that make it appear that something more sensational is happening. One recent example is the announcement last year from NASA that made people believe that they had found evidence of extraterrestrial life, when in fact it was only a terrestrial micro organism that could live under conditions thought to be impossible.
No one has forgotten about mini black holes, it's just that the controversy was settled around two years ago.
Ingo,
I think the anti-energy nature of gravity may be disclosed in a very simple way. We know that there is no symmetry of operation. If action is not carried symmetrically this means that there is action and its opposite as well. If we agree that the effect of the energy means a change in the size in plus then its opposite (in this case – gravity, mass) will reduce the size.
The existence of "pure" form of action or its opposite is impossible to demonstrate because of the lack of reference system. Thus, to whatever could exist must come to an unbalanced mix of two opposite quality. Therefore, even the Higgs boson is not a pure form of mass.
Black holes, from the littlest to the bigger, can be the balance of asymmetry?
If proton and antiproton are annihilated, if both are in the same number in the same universe, would it not be doomed to annihilation?
(Light has one direction, time has one direction, does this not limit in one direction to our universe?)
"Light has one direction, time has one direction, does this not limit in one direction to our universe?" Yes, of course. Our universe goes in one direction: expansion.
But I guess not really just about expansion. A black hole acts exactly the opposite. These are clearly visible the two opposite poles of the action at any level of observation.
I neither take Higgs boson seriously nor its alleged properties and have no problems with understanding of gravity. To explain what it is, there must be met the following crucial conditions:
1. First of all one should acknowledge that the universe is finite, otherwise there is no solution to explain its functioning,
2. It's necessary to return to conception of ether, which is an elementary building block of all forms of matter as well.
Then:
3. Any mass is a source of gravity.
4. Everything that is contained in space is in motion
5. Motion of everything is a condition of mass / gravity.
6. Mas has quantitative character (depends on quantity of elementary building blocks contained in any form of matter) and exists due to motion of everything.
7. Ether counterpoises materialised part of the universe.
By “everything” should be understood any form of physical entity.
It`s observed mini black holes (nanoseconds) generated on storms in the atmosphere. (Science Nasa).
Thank you very much dear Henk Smid. A black hole with a mass of a big hamburger would have a size of the order of 10^(-25) cm . It would certainly fit in the pipes of the LHC !!
"Black holes, from the littlest to the bigger, can be the balance of asymmetry?" - Ana María Sánchez Peralta
If one could balance the lack of symmetry of the universe it would be annihilated.
In case involves two opposing qualities: + and (-), (and our experience shows them), there are clear solutions, which can be regarded as the limits of the observable universe:
0 - 1 = -1 (collapse, reduction)
1 - 1 = 0 (annihilation)
1 + 0 = 1 (dispersion, expansion)
For convenience, it would be written like this:
-1 < 0 < 1
The borders themselves cannot be shown experimentally, as they are monolithic forms. It is impossible in such a body distinguish any change. It is a unity. The point. Each "place" at such a point is identical. There is no reference system, which enables to make the comparison. So, in order that something could be shown it must come to an imbalance according to:
- 1 < E + M < 0 < E + M < 1, where E is the expansion (energy) and M is a collapse (mass).
Then and only then we get a frame of reference, a tool that can be taken as a measurement standard.
From the human point of view local differences in content of energy and mass appear to be, as the distance and the particle. They are not pure forms of quality, but because of the significant difference that separates them (they evoke such sensations) they are treated like that. It would be written like this:
-1 < kg < 0 < m < 1, where kg is the mass standard and m is the distance standard.
We know that for the photon could be absorbed, its energy must lie in the difference between the excited state and the state of the primary:
h = W1 - W0,
subtraction is just a summation of values, hence:
E + M = W1 - W0.
Thus, neither kilogram nor meter, may accept arbitrary value. But to the particle could exist must be preserved lack of symmetry. Higgs boson can have a lot of mass, but it must also have the size. Pure mass cannot be shown.
Thank you, Krzysztof. Your comment is very interesting although it's very subtle and I'll have to think about it to understand it. Do you believe that E=mc^2 must hold in all spacetime scales from the largest to the smallest?
Thank you very much.
If I understand, is E bigger than M in expansion?
Bill,
I guess you mean the proportionality factor: c? I never thought of that like this. I was focused on the determination of the overall basic relationship, rather. Well, it's no big deal, I know. In fact, it's very simple reasoning based on the simple conclusion of the observation, but it gives a general notion of what's the matter at all? In my opinion, the coefficient should work just like Planck’s one, because it is one and the same mechanism. The mass cannot be converted into energy or vice verso. Here is merely a local change of values. Total value is retained. Nothing disappears. Just changes its position. But I think it’s not at odds with the general concept that can be interpreted differently.
Ana Maria,
That's right. When the expansion is only partially reduced, but mainly, we get the impression of space, increasing the distance. Whereas reduction forms objects. Causes a relative slowdown in the local expansion, that generates the impression of movement. Appears an area of attractive properties, as acts the exact opposite. At the same time the same area seems to be more dense, more compact, which gives the impression of the appearance of the particle.
This is binary system. Information is stored on two opposing forms of action. And any phenomenon is just a whole series of “tints" that can be obtained from their mixing.
This is getting interesting, Krzysztof. If you assume, as I do, that the coefficient, c, has changed during the history of the universe, E=mc^2 provides a powerful constraint on the evolution of spacetime. It's not difficult to show that the observed history of the universe including inflation, the creation of stars and galaxies and the current accelerating expansion of the universe results from changes in how much of the universe's fixed amount of energy is in the form of massive particles.
I've written a paper that describes how this happens. You can download it from my website at www.laporte-bryan.com. I'd appreciate it if you read it, particularly Section III - Cosmic Mathematics and give me your thoughts. I'd be particularly interested in your comments because of the way you think about the nature of the relationship between energy and mass. Thanks.
thank you, krzysztof.
Is the black hole opposite to expansion in the universe?
Prakash:"Dear Satsangi, I wish to know your views about the Higgs field: Whether it is mass or energy or both or none. "
Dear Prakash, you have repeated my question to me for reply. I am lot of confused with discussion on Higgs Boson. Higgs in one of his recent speech apprehended his doubts about its application.
Bill,
First of all, I think that we look at the universe very similar and in general, despite some differences, I like your approach.
Let me put it this way: in my opinion in the physical sense something like the speed simply does not exist. C shows a constant dependence. It is simply a constant ratio of what we call distance to what we call time. But, neither the distance (in the sense of "emptiness"), nor time does not exist in a physical form. Thus, the speed and a force as well. They are abstractions, inventions, which only helps to model (describe) the reality from the level of human impressions (e.g. something like an assembler for the binary code).
If the distance would be emptiness then logically we should describe it as a zero. Describing the space by a positive value (1 m) and the simultaneous treatment its physical form as nothing (0) is self-contradictory. (Personally, I’m amazed that this apparent contradiction is widely ignored). The only explanation is that the space and energy are the same. The space has a size which determines the energy. This is one and the same phenomenon.
The clock doesn’t show time but only the object on the road. The road is of course energy, distance, understood as the size. While object results from the reduction of energy. Energy adds size, and mass = gravity subtracts the one. (Hence the attempt to build a perpetuum mobile is vain). Mass as opposed to energy takes the quantum nature directly from definition. There is nothing to prove, because this is direct reasoning. So we have here some asymmetric relationship between energy and mass. And this is what we observe. The lack of symmetry of operation shows in direct way the existence of action and indirectly the existence of its opposite on the following basis: 2 > 1 2 > 2 - 1, where (+) means action, and (-) means the opposite of action. When we make any comparison we add up the value of two systems: (E + M) + (E + M) where M = - E. They are two pendulums at rest. The result is another clock. If the summation runs with maintaining of constant proportionality factor M / E, it will happen some surplus or deficit. Thus, there is no cessation of activity until there are differences. There is a natural engine that drives change. But there's no time. They are just next results of addition, which can be compared with each other. A group of subsequent results can be considered as a unit of time. And the results are dependent on the reference system. The same clock will show a different result in the presence of different clocks, because the sum of their values naturally changes. At the same time when the clock changes the position also changes the value of its own, because change is a change of position relative to other clocks, and not a "shift in the void." Just look at the axis of action of inequality, which I’ve shown above. It can be freely extended and divided into smaller sums (fractions). You can see immediately that the change of position is simply the change of value. Here there are no time, force, void. An object can change the position theoretically in no time. (No need for subsequent results). It’s enough simply adjust the value. This is a matter of technique. Time does not exist in a physical sense. Human came up with past and future. But it is a pure abstraction, which allows to average values, and this helps us to speed up or regress results. And only in such a sense one can travel in time.
Making any measurement involves the use of tools for this purpose. And tools (meter, kilogram, clock) are a mixture of the same material. Important thing is that kilogram and meter are mutual mixture of each other. Each distance has a mass and each mass has a size. When changes what we call speed, changes the tool. It just interacts. But the ratio of mass to energy is retained, so we always measure the speed of light as a constant value regardless of how quickly we change position.
In this context, I can say that the change in the rate of expansion of the universe testifies to maintain constant coefficient of proportionality, or that the constant coefficient of proportionality allows for determination of expansion of the universe at any stage of its existence.
Homogenization of all interactions into one reduces in this case to the homogenization of the ordinary units of measurements. Formulas of gravity and electrostatics are identical. There is only one type of interaction, which consists of adding up the value with maintaining constant coefficient of proportionality. See that in the formula for gravity, we have a normal ratio of kilograms to meters multiplied by a constant factor. So we’ve got something like E = mc² thou in other convention. The factor here is a specific value, but it is still constant ratio of mass to distance. The electric charge is also a size that has mass. Here important are differences in values. Small differences connect while big divide. We observe a seemingly different forces because we do not use uniform units of measurements.
"Is the black hole opposite to expansion in the universe?" - Ana Maria
Yes.
Krzysztof,
I like your approach too.
It seems to me that we might be saying the same thing with different words. You say, "The only explanation is that the space and energy are the same. The space has a size which determines the energy. This is one and the same phenomenon." I say, "So energy, space and time exhibit the deepest of all symmetries. While they can be distinguished, in the ultimate reality they’re not different. They’re really all the same thing."
It's interesting to me is that you say, "The ONLY explanation is that the space and energy are the same." (Caps mine). It seems that you've derived the fact that space and energy are the same. I assumed it.
You also say that "If the summation runs with maintaining of constant proportionality factor M / E, it will happen some surplus or deficit. Thus, there is no cessation of activity until there are differences." Does this mean that you think it's possible for us to perceive that c is the same for all observers and at the same time to perceive that c changes over time while E must seem to always be equal to mc^2? If all of those things are possible in your approach, we need to work together to try to put our two different ways of looking at things together and see what comes out.
Mass does indeed create time in my approach, Ana Maria. If there was no mass there would be no time and no space as well.
@Bill LaPorte-Bryan
This is my second attempt to take part in this thread.
My first and last post in this thread of 23-07-12 was deleted by admin (probably due to not conforming of scientific mainstream). Nevertheless, any mass is in motion. Motion means time, hence any physical entity is in constant motion. All physical entities are contained in space. If there was no mass, there would be no motion / time ( as it is the same), because motion is condition of mass.
I agree with you, Andrzej. In fact, everything moves through spacetime at the same speed, the speed of light. If a particle has no mass, it moves through space at that speed but if it's massive it moves slower.
Bill, there is no spacetime. Just space. By the way, there are instantaneous interactions, but this is a separate topic. Any and every physical entity has its mass. That means - massless particles / physical entities don't exist.
Andrzej, I believe you are fully aware that claims that spacetime or massless parrticles doesn't exist or that there are instantaneous interactions contradict frontally what we know better about the Universe. So, could you tell us in what are your claims based? For instance, could you derive a mass for the photon?
@Vilson
Well, “we” means who? Scientists? All of them? I do not question science, but CAN question scientific hypotheses and theories. Science has no proof of existence of:
- spacetime
- massless particles
- lack of instantaneous actions
and that is why I have my own stance in the above questions.
My claims are based on logical thinking, because I haven't got (similarly as “official” science) any proof supporting my claims. Consequently,
1. As to alleged spacetime:
- Space is a container of all physical entities.
- Time is motion / change (of something).
- The above two real entities cannot couple.
2. As to alleged massless particles:
- If there were massless particles, e.g. allegedly photons, they could leave black holes – can they?
- Path of photons couldn't be changed by massive celestial bodies – isn't their path changed?
- Mass of photon has been estimated. It's smaller than 10^-48 g.
3. As to instantaneous actions:
- Does science exclude it? How about hypothetical tahions?
- Does science have any proof that such actions are impossible?
- Have you heard about conclusion of Einstein, Podolski and Rosen?
1) That space and time MUST be seen as aspects of a single entity is well accepted for over a hundred years now. That is the simplest way of reconciling the Principle of Relativity with the _observed_ invariance of the speed of light. This is explained in the first chapter of any special relativity text. As an example of an experimentally verified consequence: can you show us how to derive the splitting in the fine structure of atomic emission lines without Thomas precession?
2) The mass of the photon was not estimated. The value you quoted is an _upper bound_ based in the largest known range of the electromagnetic interaction. But massive photons make you lose gauge invariance. Can you derive a complete electroweak theory without this?
3) Why do you say the paths of electrons can't be changed by massive bodies? When they are deflected by gravitational fields, they are just moving along their geodesics, as all particles do.
4) Tachyons violate causality. No currently accepted theory demands them or predicts them (well, string theory usually does, but it is far away from currently accepted).
5) Of course I know the EPR paradox. I just don't know how it implies action at a distance. This is a misconception that might easily arise from incomplete knowledge of the quantum subtleties of measurement. Could you please explain carefully where do you see action at a distance there.
Sorry, but I asked you for evidence and you just provided a list of implausible beliefs. There are arguments against all of them in every standard physics textbook. But, of course, science is not dogmatic. You could be right, if you succeeded to provide plausible evidence. But you just say "I haven't got any proof". Now, suggesting that "official" science hasn't either is problematic. The evidence is out there. Just because you didn't take your time to learn it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
"Of course I know the EPR paradox. I just don't know how it implies action at a distance."
It implies acction traveling at a very high speed, much larger than the speed of light by many orders of magnitude. In fact this action may travel through the whole universe in about 10^(-24) seconds (a pulse from an elementary particle). The point is that a local measurement of spin (up), from a previously entangled pair of particles subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, gives the information of the far away second particle (as far as you may accept) about its spin (down). As this knowledge travels in less than 10^(-24) seconds, it is not exacltly an action at a distance, but as close as you may imagine after this form of talk.
"Does this mean that you think it's possible for us to perceive that c is the same for all observers and at the same time to perceive that c changes over time while E must seem to always be equal to mc^2?" - Bill LaPorte-Bryan
Personally, I see no reason why the universe would take only one value (E + M). Since it was possible to break the symmetry once it may become such a phenomenon continually. And as it may, it certainly occurs. However, any measurement is a relative thing, and the measurement is made in this case by a man. I think that we human (may be) have the mechanism to recognize “our c". Something like a general sense. This sense does not recognizes/counts any other coefficient of proportionality M/E but "our c". The reason is that every other c does not lead to logical results from our point of view. Any other c acts as noise, distorting the results, it shows things impossible to accept. This is similar to the effects of other senses that select too much information, either. (So, maybe the disorder of this sense derives some mental illnesses.)
That does not mean that you can’t get any results that show a change in c. Mathematics is just a language. It all depends on how you define the terms. But, I would prefer not to change it.
The logic is our invention. The universe does not have to be logical. Changes in proportion may occur freely. Here there is no other principle but the principle that something just may happen. In this case, the logical arrangement of cause and effect must be supported on at least one constant element.
I must add that the idea that the universe notoriously changes the value, comes from my son, Gerard (junior programmer). I told him that no one today will believe it, but an idea is just an idea : )
Krzysztof, I now realize that we think of E (energy) differently. I think of mass as a form of energy. E=mc^2 is the equation which constrains the transformation of energy back and forth between mass and other forms of energy. So, if you talk about E + M you're double counting since E includes M. What's constant in the universe the way I look at it is E in all of its forms including M. So E is constant in the universe but M is not and since E/M changes over time, c which I think of as the proportionality factor between E and M must also be a variable. Does that make any sense to you and Gerard?
E=mc^ is of only limited value. It can't be applied in all conditions.
Bill,
I also treat the mass as a form of energy - exactly, as a thing opposed to energy. The point is that I think these things can’t be changed in each other. This means that it is impossible to get the energy from the mass. When adding up the value, energy (which is and remains) can take the place of mass (which is and remains – nothing does disappear). It can lead to local changes in the amount of energy and mass, (so we can see different effects: from particle to space), but consistent with a constant coefficient of proportionality. It’s a shift of place. When the energy grows the mass decreases, so that their ratio is constant. Just like we have a relation between length (indirectly, according to my above interpretation, showing mass in my opinion) and the frequency of the EM wave (energy). One grows a second decrease, but constant ratio is maintained. I think that in such a way one can predict the mass and energy of any particle. Approximately rather, because I realize that as a number c can be not finite value. Each particle has a size and energy. Also photon whose mass is indirectly stored in its length. When the mass increases, energy decreases according to a constant coefficient of proportionality. It's a matter of definition of mass.
That’s why I think it is very important experience that show what is what? What in fact we perceive?
You do sound very similar. You conserve energy by changing the mass and c. Thou, here appears some difference. When I think to keep the proportionality coefficient c (when changing some local effect) you want to keep the energy E, treating mass as a part of energy, so in conclusion just energy in some other (I think: compressing) form. Of course, if you want to keep constant energy you have to change mass and c, so that then E is constant coefficient of proportionality.
That is why I wrote that is a matter of definitions of terms. What is what and why?
@Antonio Alfonso-Fauls
I am curious where did you get this 10^-24 s from. Lets look at the situation: observers A and B are at very distant places, and each one of them has access to one photon of an entangled pair. First important point: it is impossible to know the state of either photon without making a measurement. So, A makes a measurement in his photon and observes a particular value for its spin. At some instant, B does the same (you can't require them to make their observations simultaneously, because simultaneity is relative). The value he observes is constrained by what A observes. But, suppose B get a "spin up" result. Can he conclude: "the spin is up because A made a measurement and got spin down"?. No, until he knows that A made a measurement and know the result, which has to be transmitted to him, with speed at most c. So, no action at a distance.
Let us see. If observer A makes a measurement of his electron (photons do not obey the exclusion principle, but may be you mean polarization state), and founds it is up, then he knows the other one that is entangled has its spin down. Then if observer B measures his electron he certainly will find it to be spin down. No problem. Then they compare their results at the speed of light and find this to be the case. No problem.
Sorry, where I wrote photon I actually meant electron, you are right. But if you agree with the point I made, I still don't see where the claim of action at a distance comes from. For me, action at a distance would mean this: at the moment A makes its measurement, the state of the other electron immediately changes to conform to the observed value (notice that just using the expression "at the moment" makes this relativistically unsound). It doesn't. The other electron is in a superposed state and only assumes a definite value when B makes its measurement. Therefore, again, I don't see action at distance.
"The other electron is in a superposed state and only assumes a definite value when B makes its measurement. Therefore, again, I don't see action at distance. "
I do think that when A makes his measurement (up) the other entangled electron acquires his spin (down) collapsing his wavefunction. Then observer B has no choice in his measurement: he has to see the electron with its spin down, its wavelength is already collapsed. This is a way to interpret the sentence "when a butterfly starts flying in Madrid it affects the weather in Miamy, in some way". The whole universe´s energy (information) is entangled in a pure Bose-Einstein state. Each part is somehow connected with the rest of the universe (a Machian picture).
Krzysztof, getting back to Ana Maria's original question, what is your understanding of gravity? Also it seems to me that there's a close connection between your ideas and string theory. What do you think of string theory?
@Antonio Alfonso Fauls
"I do think that when A makes his measurement (up) the other entangled electron acquires his spin (down) collapsing his wavefunction. " You see, Alfonso, that is the problem. Suppose that one particular observer see things as you say: A makes the measurement and the other electron change its state at the same time. But, every other observer will see things differently, due to the relativity of simultaneity: for some of them electron A will colapse its wavefunction before B and vice-versa.
"A makes the measurement and the other electron change its state at the same time" Impossible. The other electron changes nothing. Its state is not defined until the collapse of its wavefunction when A does the measurement. B just finds a collapsed state
I know it is impossible. This is the whole point I am defending. But I thought that was what you meant so I apparently misunderstood you. You said: "I do think that when A makes his measurement (up) the other entangled electron acquires his spin (down) collapsing his wavefunction" and that is inconsistent with relativity. Is there something I am not getting?
By the way, I think we are doing here something I criticized in another thread: the original question was about Higgs boson (and I find the answers given so far satisfactory) and not about the EPR paradox. So anyone think a topic about this would be interesting?
@Vilson Juliatto
Well, I will gladly answer your questions if you accept my way of perceiving of nature. In a nutshell:
I. Relativity is false.
II. My list of scientific myths (not limited to the undermentioned items):
1. Dilation of time
2. Relativity of time
3. Relativity of space
4. Time travel
5. Arrow of time (general)
6. Spacetime
7. Time dimension
8. Warping/curving of space
9. Singularity of the universe (big bang)
10. Lack of so-called ether
11. Expanding universe
12. Infinity of the universe
If you / or somebody don't wish to discuss with me, I can fully understand it and respect such position on this issue.
I don't agree that what you cited are myths. There is plenty of evidence supporting them. But as I said before, this is not the thread to discuss it. If you have evidence to support your claims, could you create a new thread to discuss them? I will then post my views there.
VJ: I don't agree that what you cited are myths. There is plenty of evidence supporting them.
You may not agree. There is not a single evidence supporting the myths I mentioned.
VJ: But as I said before, this is not the thread to discuss it.
I need not to discuss them. My question was: “I will gladly answer your questions if you accept my way of perceiving of nature.”
VJ: If you have evidence to support your claims, could you create a new thread to discuss them?
I have no proof likewise science has no proof. I need not create a new thread. The point is – do you accept my way of perceiving of nature? On the basis of which I would be answering your questions.
@Andrzej
Let me see if I understand you. You want to know if I agree with you to then explaining me your point of view. This is rather pointless: if I already agree with you there is no need to give more arguments whatsoever. And if I don't you just refuse to discuss.
"I need not to discuss them." I'm really disturbed, maybe even sad, that you think that way. This is not how science is done, blindly believing something just because you say so . "(..) science has no proof". For the last time: it has plenty of it. Any physics undergrad could spend days lecturing to you on the arguments for special relativity and the evidence supporting it.
Please notice that instead of bashing you or labeling you a crank I offered myself to discuss it rationally with you: you show me your arguments, I show you mine and logic does its work. But you just don't look interested in doing this, in admitting the possibility of being wrong.
So, answering your question: no, I don't accept your way of viewing nature. Doing so would be a disrespect for the men and women who dedicated their wholes lives to physics, to construct the body of knowledge we have today and that you simply disregard based on no one knows what kind of erroneous argument (if you gave yourself the work of developing any whatsoever). However (man, I think I'm gonna regret it) if I answered otherwise, that I accept your point of view, how would you explain things for me?
@Vilson
VJ: Let me see if I understand you. You want to know if I agree with you to then explaining me your point of view. This is rather pointless: if I already agree with you there is no need to give more arguments whatsoever. And if I don't you just refuse to discuss.
The point is, that I can discuss basing on my point of view, i.e. how I understand it. All in all I am not going to follow mainstream science.
VJ: "I need not to discuss them." I'm really disturbed, maybe even sad, that you think that way. This is not how science is done, blindly believing something just because you say so . "
You definitely misunderstood me. I can discuss it, but they seem another topics and require another threads unless they fit to this thread.
VJ: (..) science has no proof". For the last time: it has plenty of it. Any physics undergrad could spend days lecturing to you on the arguments for special relativity and the evidence supporting it.
Please notice that instead of bashing you or labeling you a crank I offered myself to discuss it rationally with you: you show me your arguments, I show you mine and logic does its work. But you just don't look interested in doing this, in admitting the possibility of being wrong.
As I said earlier, I can discuss anything. I hugely respect scientists and am extremely humble in front of science, but can't accept nonsense residing in “official” science, that does not tolerate those who think otherwise, particularly in questions pertaining to hypotheses and theories.
VJ: So, answering your question: no, I don't accept your way of viewing nature. Doing so would be a disrespect for the men and women who dedicated their wholes lives to physics, to construct the body of knowledge we have today and that you simply disregard based on no one knows what kind of erroneous argument (if you gave yourself the work of developing any whatsoever). However (man, I think I'm gonna regret it) if I answered otherwise, that I accept your point of view, how would you explain things for me?
Of course you need not accept my way of viewing nature.
I will try to answer your questions still today, but my first and most important one is:
Do you agree that if one hypothesis of any theory is refuted, the whole theory = rubbish? In other words is worth nothing.
@Andrezj
"Do you agree that if one hypothesis of any theory is refuted, the whole theory = rubbish? In other words is worth nothing." No, I don't. It is so in mathematics, where everything follows rigorously from your axioms. But not in physics. There would be no science if we were that harsh. That is the problem at the core of Popper's falseacionism. Read up about Duhem-Quine problem.
@Vilson Juliatto
VJ: 1) That space and time MUST be seen as aspects of a single entity is well accepted for over a hundred years now.
It's by over a century too long. I consider this concept as entirely false.
VJ: That is the simplest way of reconciling the Principle of Relativity with the _observed_ invariance of the speed of light. This is explained in the first chapter of any special relativity text. As an example of an experimentally verified consequence: can you show us how to derive the splitting in the fine structure of atomic emission lines without Thomas precession?
Relativity is false. And it's not only my opinion on this theory. The one of the most essential hypotheses in Relativity is alleged dilation of time that makes all the theory mendacious. Refuting time dilation makes the theory worthless. There is no need to apply mathematics to reject it. It's enough to analyse it logically, which I did among other things on http://www.eioba.com/a/33e7/why-time-cannot-dilate . But of course, there are plenty of other sources that disclose absurdity of Relativity in a more elegant way, e.g.:
http://erkdemon.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/relativistic-ellipse.html
VJ: 2) The mass of the photon was not estimated. The value you quoted is an _upper bound_ based in the largest known range of the electromagnetic interaction. But massive photons make you lose gauge invariance. Can you derive a complete electroweak theory without this?
I, though am a dilettante, I don't like the standard model. There is not enough physics in it, and too much mathematics, powered by strange descriptions. It's too complicated and seems untrue. The clue to solving riddles of the universe are:
- ether = dark matter = elementary building blocks of all forms of matter;
- magnetic field that is next of kin of ether, with the difference that the letter appears (according to me) in two kinds of spins – clockwise and anticlockwise. That means, magnetic field consists of magnetic monopoles that have clockwise and anticlockwise spins. Scientists look for dark matter
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/sun-surrounded-by-dark-matter-claim-scientists/articleshow/15448431.cms?intenttarget=no
allowing it have a mass but refuse mass magnetic field although (according to me) this is the same family. To sum up, all binding forces consist on magnetic field
Planc constant, particularly Planck length should be verified, as cosmic “life” flourish luxuriantly at much smaller distances. Returning to photons, the Sun loses around 5 million tons of its mass every second. Among Sun's “excretions” its significant amount belongs to photons.
VJ: 3) Why do you say the paths of electrons can't be changed by massive bodies? When they are deflected by gravitational fields, they are just moving along their geodesics, as all particles do.
Because I can refer to so-called gravitational lensing. However I don't fully agree with its description. Massive clusters of matter can bend beam of photons, but definitely cannot bend space (or as they call it, spacetime).
VJ: 4) Tachyons violate causality. No currently accepted theory demands them or predicts them (well, string theory usually does, but it is far away from currently accepted).
5) Of course I know the EPR paradox. I just don't know how it implies action at a distance. This is a misconception that might easily arise from incomplete knowledge of the quantum subtleties of measurement. Could you please explain carefully where do you see action at a distance there.
Skipping the reality behind these phenomena, I meant that on one hand physicists are eagerly searching for speeds greater than light and / or instantaneous actions / interactions in nature, but on the other hand Einstein doesn't allow them, therefore they have dilemma.
VJ: Sorry, but I asked you for evidence and you just provided a list of implausible beliefs. There are arguments against all of them in every standard physics textbook. But, of course, science is not dogmatic. You could be right, if you succeeded to provide plausible evidence. But you just say "I haven't got any proof". Now, suggesting that "official" science hasn't either is problematic. The evidence is out there. Just because you didn't take your time to learn it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
All I am writing about is associated with cosmology and all these questions have not been solved yet - no matter how beautifully supported by scientific calculations. I, of course, admit that can be wrong, but at the same time disagree with this I am questioning. Please note that it refers to falsifiable hypotheses and theories.
Dear Henk Smid,
I, too, I thought that can fall into this category. Probably offended majesty of holy science, which cherishes and propagates absurdities (in some topics of course) in which we all must blindly believe, like the followers of religion.
Always surprises me with pride that some people speak of issues that have not studied. When talking about something you know little, must be from the utmost humility. Antonio, you make me laugh. Sanjay, I think the same. (Physics is admired or feared. This is the problem).
I do not care much for the four letters, my language is the Spain, and this not offend me. I laugh with you, Henk, but I think you are too tense and "serious". Try to respect at least the question posed, because we intent to know a little more.
If you need to talk or "discuss"about anything else put it in a new topic.
Intent to respect the question, please. But no problem, I laugh so much with you.
(I don´t stand you well, because I think that you think similar Sanjay, about people whose write not knowing). But no, Sanjay has more patience.
Intent to answer questions, not discussions.
Best regards.