Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 10:22:14 +0200) it happened David Brown wrote in :

It emerged from the ionised glow of space. Always makes me feel good.

On a sunny day (Tue, 16 May 2017 19:05:08 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje wrote in :

For the math:

I started on it late last night, and got stuck, so obviously need to read up on that.

But whenever somebody says 'field' I think 'screen'. That works for everything I know, (electro static, magnetic, RF, .. )so why not for Higgs field. Some google searching found many people had the same idea (from scifi to more serious views).

I read this in the Wikipedia article. "In the standard model, at temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all elementary particles are massless."

What impact would this have on matter falling into a black hole or matter at the core of a black hole?

--

Rick C

Hmm, Well you can have scalar fields, like temperature, that has one number at each point in space. And then you can have vector fields, like E and B fields which have three numbers (a 3-d vector) at each point in space. It could be that the Higgs field is even more complicated. (but I don't know. I took group theory a long time ago, but have forgotten most of it.)

George h.

I'm guessing they mean that at high enough temperature the kinetic energy of the particles is so high that the slight differences in rest mass can be ignored.

George H.

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 12:51:35 -0400) it happened rickman wrote in :

It is a tricky game, 'in my view (tm)' anyways at some point some decennia ago it was postulated that you could look at / represent all particles in that standard model as a wave, There is a problem with that, nothing has mass. In those big accelerators with all the photomultiplier detecting basically ... photons.... no wonder the whole model is 'wave'. And a 'photon' is (again IMNSHO) just a mathematical construct, most definitely not a particle. So they needed to fix that mass thing (they already had plenty of math things), here comes the Higgs,

Yes, at very high temperatures, but define 'temperature' if you (they) do not even have a clue as to what mass really is, gravity really is, that space-time jive holds no mass... -) BUT I admit at this point I have no clue, but find it fascinating, Something in QM and related reminds me very strongly of epicycles:

a basic idea, math let lose on it, 'and there is QM', (Feynman lectures are online somewhere) cats are both dead and alive, all is 'chance' and 'probability', multiverses, strings, and Elvis of course. I do not like QM I am with the Broglie's pilot wave theory:

So, just like we at some point had to see everything (and the math) was so much more simple if earth and other planets orbited the sun, and not all that stuff the earth, we need a simple breakthrough because OBVIOUSLY our theories suck, 'nature' is by nature so to speak usually taking / going for the simplest way.

This does not answer your question, but OK, :-) But interesting stuff.

As to CERN, do you think that by shooting 2 Tesla cars at 1000 km/h into each other you will get a better idea how its autopilot works? Just like the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and Trump mentioned it was the second most powerful industry in the world (he learns) there is the Scientific Industrial Complex, they build everything from large tunnels to laser fusion, and it creates jobs in the same way, the goal is jobs, profit, NOT science and result. As long as things get to be bigger and more expensive, and you the taxpayer pays for it But it does create some on the side things like maybe every now and then something useful, but forget about science. Science it self will likely advance in the next world war, as then what works will win, things that work will be needed, and not a bunch of right from the school Einstein reciting QM babbling kids. Just like WW2 gave us rockets, submarines, radar, etc etc, lots of chemistry.. Or we just blow it up and the ants won, I killed a few dozen today that were invading my house. Seems that fight happens every year. Mosquitos are tuff to, some mosquito eggs survived on the outside of the ISS for weeks (was an experiment). But mosquitos still need us, or other warm blooded mammals, ants do not.... So better stop here... :-)

The Schroedinger equation has had a mass term in it, since the beginning, before the Standard Model was a glimmer in anyones' eye.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com

You took group theory? Great! I have a math joke you should get...

What's purple and commutes?

--

Rick C

Google knew. It took me to

Q. What's purple and commutes? A. An abelian grape. (A pun on abelian group.)

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 16:46:41 -0500) it happened "Tim Williams" wrote in :

Dear Tim, I will not challenge your near infinite wizzdom, but that is what professor Frank Linde explained. You can see the recording of his public lecture on Higgs here:

At about 12 minutes into the video, note the shirt. It is in Dutch, so maybe we need an arbiter, maybe Bill Sloman speaks Dutch too?

So, anyways as to the man and his cat (Schroedinger for those who have not heard of his cat), when I was in Copenhagen it became clear to me there is a finite probability that he went into that park and tried LSD, and since then did not know if his cat was alive or dead. A rational explanation I think, I am all for simple explanations :-). That not even taken into account that there were 2 other theories proposed in that Copenhagen conference, one of those De Broglie's, one that makes more sense to me.

But I cannot sweep your argument just away, as I am a novice in this subject, in case of tronix I probably could if I only would, no well that is Simon and Garfunkel in reverse. Hope this helps.

Schroedinger never said he didn't know if his cat was alive or dead. He only has to open the box and look. Until then it exists both alive and dead... but not really.

--

Rick C

On a sunny day (Fri, 19 May 2017 17:58:28 -0400) it happened rickman wrote in :

It was worse, he said NOBODY could know if their cat was dead or alive ;-) Just imagine, and I did not even HAVE a cat.

It was the sign of times, lots of LSD, it hit the masses, his 'math' worked, and so that was selected out of the three proposals.

Worth reading:

In 1952 David Bohm developed decoherence, an explanatory mechanism for the appearance of wave function collapse. Bohm applied decoherence to Louis DeBroglie's pilot wave theory, producing Bohmian mechanics, the first successful hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. Collapse was avoided by Hugh Everett in 1957 in his relative state interpretation. Decoherence was largely[34] ignored until the 1980s.

Acceptance among physicists Throughout much of the twentieth century the Copenhagen interpretation had overwhelming acceptance among physicists. Although astrophysicist and science writer John Gribbin described it as having fallen from primacy after the 1980s, according to a very informal poll (some people voted for multiple interpretations) conducted at a quantum mechanics conference in 1997, the Copenhagen interpretation remained the most widely accepted specific interpretation of quantum mechanics among physicists. In more recent polls conducted at various quantum mechanics conferences, varying results have been found. In a 2017 article, physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg states that the Copenhagen interpretation "is now widely felt to be unacceptable."

It has had my attention for a long time. Beware of mathematicians.

Beware of those with too little or too much attention span.

--

Rick C

Jan when I clicked on the above I was recommended this,

Susskind, "Demystifying the Higgs..."

(Just about the perfect level for me.)

George H.

On a sunny day (Sat, 20 May 2017 09:23:57 -0700 (PDT)) it happened George Herold wrote in :

Nice, good to follow, also good he mentions the limitations (of the model). Just watched an hour of it, Sometimes you hear things mentioned an it changes our perspective,

Long long time (many years) ago about probabilities and our limit of understanding, somebody in sci.physics (just a regular poster) mentioned if there is a current in say the sea, or in the river, then nothing can move against it, the probability of something moving the other ways is zero.. and then here are fish, That stuck with me until this day. We have our models, we make those, but just see the bigger thing, the current, throw some wood in the river... at a deeper level will we ever see the fish it is life! It has its own agenda (swins up the river for breeding). And just because we do not know we should not believe in our limited mathematical models, EVER.