Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: flr on 14/03/2013 16:59:01
-
Apparently Higgs Boson was confirmed.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/14/wrd-science-higgs-boson-particle-discovery.html
I have a question however. I never understood how this Boson makes things have mass. I could not even visualize it.
Is it actually possible to explain in simple words how Higgs boson slow things down and make them have mass?
-
From what did they deduce a spin?
-
And it's more about inertia as I get it, not mass per se. Mass is about gravity, and we have no good particle theory for that. When it comes to inertia it may not fit perfectly either, but still give a good approximation for it. What you might consider it to split is the equivalence theory, and no, I don't think it explain anything that good myself. I would go from what simple experiments tell me firs, the more presumptions and assumptions you lift in a theory the weaker it seems to me, and there gotta be a whole lot of assumptions for the Higg. Another way to see it is to think of a lattice in equilibrium. It has equal 'forces' acting on it in all possible 'directions. As you accelerate those forces becomes unbalanced and you get 'inertia'.
But as that is gravity acting on you, according to the equivalence principle? Another thing irritating me is that the Higg seem to ignore observer dependencies, which I don't find that smart.
-
BTW: The equivalence principle has been only postulated and not proved from a theory, it that right?
-
I think it means something that its mass divides by 6. Everything inside atoms has to do with the number 6, and this particle divides by 6.. is that a coincidence?
-
I think it has been proved repeatedly :)
Every time we find a red and blue shift accelerating for example, and Pound–Rebka–Snider experiments have found its equivalence on earth, and NIST do it so beautifully. But if you mean proved without ever more being able to be questioned? I don't know, but it fits what physics we see so far, as I know I better add. And the easiest test is in your imagination, have you found a reason to doubt that you actually weight more when accelerating on Earth. Just try to move your hand and see in a linear acceleration. I'm quite convinced that it is more than coincidence that uniform acceleration and mass (gravity) fit together so well, as a hand in a glove.
There are in fact two definitions of the equivalence principle. "The Strong Principle of Equivalence states all the laws of nature are the same in a uniform static gravitational field and the equivalent accelerated reference frame. The Weak Principle of Equivalence states all the laws of motion for freely falling particles are the same as in an unaccelerated reference frame." The first one we tested, each by itself, you might say, on accelerations and mass, the other (Wep) is still being polished to a high degree. "If a Gamma Ray Burster occurs at a distance of about 100 MPc (326 million light years), observation of both the time of arrival of the gamma rays (via a GRB monitoring satellite such as currently operating GRO) and detection of ultra-high energy neutrinos (e.g PeV energy) would allow a test of the Weak Equivalence principle to about the 10^{-11} level on cosmic scale in a direct test of the uniqueness of free fall. " Why the weak equivalence is so interesting for physicists today seem to go together with what ways QM and string theory can find to describe gravity from a 'quantum/string' perspective, as I gather it.
==
To really get it you need to consider it from Pete's description of 'transforming ones coordinate system'. Because as you do it, in a 'free fall', gravity disappear, locally measured (no tidal influences allowed for this)
And that is as correct for your spaceship in a geodesic as it is on Earth. Tidal influences, as Earths frame dragging (due to rotating) have also been measured recently and found to exist. So relativity have a extremely elegant way of connecting gravitational mass, and uniform accelerations, to a distorted (bent) space. And it's been testable from the beginning on Earth, and later in space. Blue and red shifts are a natural effect from it, and we find them both from Earth and from the inside of that spaceship.
All together it connects into one he* of a description that no one have succeeded to get close to in a hundred years. But you ...must... accept observer dependencies if you try to 'advance' it to something else, or another scale. And so also find some way to translate macroscopic definitions to, for example quantum effects, or strings. And those descriptions better fit our macroscopic definitions too, to work. No wonder so many find Einstein frustrating, and want him to be wrong.
-
But if you mean proved without ever more being able to be questioned?
I was a bit imprecise, sorry....
My question was if there is any theory which explains the equivalence principle.
Of course there is experimental evidence of equivalence principle, and we can postulate it based on empirical evidence.
By 'proof' I meant theoretical proof, a theory that does not use it as postulate but which actually prove as a end result why inertial mass is the same with gravitational mass. In other words, do we know what is causing it?
-
Then you have to answer why 'c' is the same, as measured in a two way experiment done at/on a inertial object, no matter your 'speed' as defined relative some other frame of reference. So that is the king pin of relativity to me. Find a way to redefine it, changing it from a constant to a variable, or best of all, not existing even as that. The other thing you will need to do will be defining one 'frame of reference' that works for all of us, defining any uniform motion as having a 'speed/velocity' relative it. Then 'relative motion' cease to exist.
-
By 'proof' I meant theoretical proof, a theory that does not use it as postulate but which actually prove as a end result why inertial mass is the same with gravitational mass. In other words, do we know what is causing it?
No.
Being able to show from more fundamental laws why this is the case is on of the biggest problems in physics these days, and will probably be answered when we get to a theory of quantum gravity. But we're not there yet!
-
I FOUND IT!!!! I FOUND IT!!!!
Look, here's a photo to prove it!
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Damn it Don :)
Yep, I can see it too..
=
Ah, a faint question.
There are no bosun's on a military ship, are they?
-
Damn it Don :)
Yep, I can see it too..
=
Ah, a faint question.
There are no bosun's on a military ship, are they?
At the time of that photo there were. A Warrant Officer Signal Bosun was killed in the sinking of the Hood
Last Bosun went from the Royal Navy in 1990 - he was a commander as well tho!
-
Damn it Don :)
Yep, I can see it too..
=
Ah, a faint question.
There are no bosun's on a military ship, are they?
At the time of that photo there were. A Warrant Officer Signal Bosun was killed in the sinking of the Hood
Curses! I've been rumbled! I didn't think anyone would notice my 1st class Photoshop job on HMS Hood.
-
Damn it Don :)
Yep, I can see it too..
=
Ah, a faint question.
There are no bosun's on a military ship, are they?
At the time of that photo there were. A Warrant Officer Signal Bosun was killed in the sinking of the Hood
Curses! I've been rumbled! I didn't think anyone would notice my 1st class Photoshop job on HMS Hood.
Well on my browser at least it says HMS Hood 1.jpg underneath the photo - so I thought I was even money that it was a picture of the Hood. :-)