Peter Higg's boson: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Peter Higg's boson » Peter Higg's boson

Page: 1 2

Peter Higg's boson

Budapest
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Location: France
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/15/08 - 02:18 PM: Subject: Peter Higg's boson	#1
With the recent opening of the Large Hadron Collider there's been much talk of Higg's boson, the so-called 'God particle' (because it's supposed to explain why all the other particles can exist/have mass) If I remember rightly, Peter Higgs went and sat on a hill in Scotland for a couple of days and during that time he came up with an idea of 'the particle that would explain all other particles'. I suppose it all depends on how particular you are (sorry; couldn't resist). My point is, although I have great respect for Peter Higgs as a theoretical physicist, it's very difficult to attach any big ideas to his boson because fundamentally it still doesn't explain anything. It just gives more of an explanation for other stuff that has no explanation, if you know what I mean. Anyone care to explain?
http://www.spiderbomb.com/burg42

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 09/15/08 - 06:52 PM:	#2
Thus far the "particle zoo" consists of some 230 particles with various properties such as spin, charge, etc. Although we can explain and predict a great deal about the properties of particles, mass and inertia remain mysterious. The Higgs boson is what, theorically speaking, imparts mass and inertia to particles. If we could explain and predict these properties we could answer a lot of the questions posed by sciencefiction writers such as whether or not warp drive, anti-gravity, etc. are possible. To put this in perspective, after publishing his theory of Relativity Einstein drew the first diagram of a laser on the back of a restaruant napkin and said, "See this, we won't be able to build one for fifty years."

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 1002

Posted 09/15/08 - 07:24 PM:	#3
Shrugs.. I prefer Tesla for the Laser. http://books.google.ca/books?id=rwekkS3oD0EC&pg=P... Talks about it his "Death Ray" around page 117. Page 118 According to the Author's belief, Tesla utilized this same basic principle to create ruby laser effects in 1894. Truth be told, I've never had a really good explanation given for the higg's boson. No real reasonings behind it or anything. The whole thing reminds me of something akin to the "Great X race". Be the first to actual "physical" proof. I had been considering looking at particles not as building blocks themselves, but more along the lines of if we have dimensions N; and they exist with conditions X; then particle Y will be stable; or basically be able to exist. Essentially what it boils down to is whether or not there is a creation of a moving 'circuit' within a specific area that creates it's own +/- ratios as the energy buildup moves around said specified area. Instead of a battery going from positive to negative; with the charge eventually balancing out; the actual movement of the energy causes the 'negative' node to move round. Since the negative node moved, the positive node moves as well; keeping a certain equilibrium. Edited by Cadrache on 09/15/08 - 07:29 PM. Reason: wording in wrong order.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 2150

Posted 09/15/08 - 09:09 PM:	#4
It explains "mass". Why does matter have mass and how does mass relate to other forces like gravity, density, momentum. The particles we think makes up matter don't have mass. If LHC actually produces some of these particles, then we would have a much better understanding of matter. Edited by swstephe on 09/16/08 - 01:15 AM. Reason: grammar
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Budapest
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Location: France
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/16/08 - 01:28 PM:	#5
So, the >> "particle zoo" consists of some 230 particles << and we stil don't really understand anything about them, or the eight zillion others that no doubt exist. In otherwords, we don't really understand anything. So how can the human race be so incredibly arrogant? Cadrache, 'building blocks' maybe come from our own perception of existence, and what humans might not be able to see is other dimensions of existence. It is interesting to note that Peter Higgs sat up on a hill back in the 1960s, and most of this QM stuff was done back in the 1920s... The human race has completely ignored QM for almost a century! because it didn't fit in with classical physics. Now how dumb is that...
http://www.spiderbomb.com/burg42

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 09/16/08 - 07:05 PM:	#6
Is this a philosophical discussion or a rant?

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 1002

Posted 09/17/08 - 01:25 AM:	#7
Doesn't really matter sometimes wuliheron. Budapest: That would be dependent on by what you mean exactly. There are at least 4 steps or divisions of people before "The human race" starts talking about a specific science. The theorists; the testers'; the propagators (journalists, teachers); and then the people. Some things take a while to go through all these levels.

Budapest
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2008
Location: France
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 21

Posted 09/17/08 - 01:52 PM:	#8
wuliheron, perhaps I am ranting, in which case I apologise. Cadrache, my own estimation is that QM never got beyond your first two steps/divisions. This could be seen as rather extraordinary considering that the classical model and the quantum model are so at odds with each other, and in the (almost) 100 years since QM theory was formed, human technology has leapt forward (sort of). I believe Einstein famously described quantum phenomena as 'spooky'. And ostrich-like the human race seem to agree. But if it wasn't for QM I wouldn't be able to rant on forums like this, because of course the digital computer can not work/function without electrons doing their quantum thang on slivers of silicon. It's a funny old world, isn't it.
http://www.spiderbomb.com/burg42

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 1002

Posted 09/17/08 - 10:10 PM:	#9
Meh. I've read a couple of books. Nothing technical on the Einstein area; though I do have one. (stupid math symbols.) Anyways to paraphrase this one particular book about how Einstein visualized his great time lapse theories. " I wondered what I would see if I stood still atop a photon? What would I see as I looked out to the universe?" And so his theories were formed. And QM shouted... "We are Here! WE ARE HERE!" (Dr. Seuss) And here we shout. "WHY CANT WE COMBINE THE TWO!!!" And here I ask "Did Einstein look down at his feet? Did he look upon the photon he was standing upon as it was traveling?" So the next question is; at the QM level, are particles actually single solid point entities? In the basic fashion, I chose the Yes/no scenerio. If No, then single point particles are possibly affected by the actual basics of Einsteins' temporal ratios as well; but as an inverse relationship. Since each particle seems to interact with each other; at what point are particles not able to interact with each other; and why? Since the speed of light is an actual limit to how fast something can get away from you; then the inverse opposite would also hold true. An object at the speed of light is moving at it's highest speed before it becomes unable to interact with another particle whose momentum is 0; relative to the moving photon. In other words; the speed of light isn't the maximum speed that something can go; it is merely the maximum speed that we can observe something. It holds true to Bell's locality observance theorems; and would likely confirm how and why some of the experiments prove or disprove his locality issue. It's like playing tag. If you and your opponent are running in the same direction; and your opponent is always moving faster then you; then you will 'never' ever tag the person. The leap of logic: The interactions between particles occur at the speed of light constant. Anything moving slower then c , allows you to catch up to the other party. Anything moving faster then C, you cannot interact with. Ie. The reason why we cannot equate Einsteins' theories to QM is because we have yet to observe where the interaction takes place; the stuff we stand upon.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 3157

Posted 09/18/08 - 07:31 AM:	#10
Sure, QM defies common sense and everyday observation. So do a number of scientific disciplines. Most people think as you go up the air just gets thinner and colder, but it does not. At seventy thousand feet, for example, there is a fifteen foot layer of seventy degree air at almost sea level air pressure. Likewise, people tend to think of outer space as super cold, but the term is misleading when there is no air pressure. There is no where for your body heat to go in a vacuum, so the astronauts have to use a heat pump to transfer their body heat to a coffee can sized garbage/feces disposal unit that they spit out of the space station. This is also why airplanes flying at high altitude are air conditioned even though the outside temperature is -70f. Those are merely a few simple examples of how common sense and everyday observations fail when taken out of context. The idea that everyday observations or any other kind yet known must apply in all contexts is demonstrably absurd.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.