[Spacetectonics (OP)]

Could someone explain this to me please?
What quantitative measure responsibly is in this sequence?is that our way of measurement? and does that mean any volatile figure in quantitative measure will change the game?

Particle gets mass when interacting with higgs field(H.F),higgs field is through out the universe and it is an energy field.
particles considered as wave"behavior" in QM >
wave/Pare. interacting with H.F creating mass >
Nature always wants to be in its lowest state and that is why H.F born>
In QM Wave Interacting with the lowest known state of energy in universe creating mass>
mass is a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration>
If acceleration reaches C mass will be Infinite
One line is missing! "quantitative measure" >
Quantitative measurements are those which involve the collection of numbers.
collection of numbers?! Is this a man made concept?!

Cheers

[yor_on]

The idea of a 'zero point' field (as space might be) is not a 'lowest energy state', as I understand it? It's somewhat 'higher' than a lowest energy state. But it would still be what we call 'space', if correct. Inside that space we may have a Higgs field consisting of 'bosons', or you may consider the bosons as 'excitations' in that field, I find that more natural. In a way it is a beautiful idea as we then get a 'plasticity', using that field, and possibly can find another explanation to the ideas relativity present, namely the 'observer dependence'. It's the field adapting to the observer But I can't find it discussing uniform motions anywhere, as far as I get it you need accelerations to create that mass.

And there is a problem, because even though we can define all uniform motion as 'relative' (whatever you measure against), we can also define different uniform motions as existing 'speeds', differing in the same object after a acceleration for example. In relativity all uniform motions are equivalent, but how does the Higgs 'know' that? And then you have some statements I've seen to that it gives everything mass, which just don't make sense considering matter in uniform motion.
==

(From my point of view, aka 'new theories', there might be one way though, and that is to consider it from 'accelerations'. You would then need to find a way to prove that all, dead as living, matter constantly are microscopically accelerating in its inherent processes. Which macroscopically might give a smooth expression of 'gravity' and 'mass', although microscopically then should flicker, if it is accelerations solely. But this is no more than a thought  

[yor_on]

Maybe one could look at it from a 'dynamic' versus 'static' field of (mass)energy too? Very abstractly if so.

If I assume that all uniform motion is equivalent, can I then define this as a state where there is 'no energy expended'? If I do, can I then also consider it a 'static' balance, no energy lost and no energy gained? Then a dynamical expression could be a acceleration, as you must expend energy and disrupt this 'static' expression, aka relative motion. Speeds are after all a relative expression, relative some measurement done. I must admit that I like that idea somewhat, but it bring the question of what different speeds and relative motion is into focus. Because I'm not sure what motion, and accelerations really would represent if it was so?

it also has to do with how one look at dimensions as a guess. The normal way to define it is as three spatial and one 'time like' dimension, making our universe. And we're 'inside' it. But you could also imagine it as something where everything exist simultaneously, maybe using 'densities' if that now is applicable on a idea of fields with only a few of them realizable for our measurements, meaning that WWSIWWG. Maybe you could use pressure too?

In such a universe you still need some mechanism though for making some things more 'probable', as becoming a outcome, and there we have the arrow defining outcomes. But fields allowing for (consciously controlled) living matter becomes a very tricky idea to me? And it's also a question of how field(s) can arrange themselves so that what we see, smell, taste and touch becomes what we call matter?

Or you could assume that relative motion doesn't exist, accelerations do as they expend energy. A uniform motion needs a acceleration to change. It's quite weird

[yor_on]

Try this one.

There are no particles, there are only fields.

[Spacetectonics (OP)]

Try this one.

There are no particles, there are only fields.

Thanks,
I am Still not sure about quantitative measure definition though!
Sorry!

[imatfaal]

I am not sure what you are getting at.  What is a volatile quantitative measurement in this context? 

The Higgs is part of the standard model of particle physics (the LHC is rapidly proving many of the ideas of the SM and cutting down the space that alternative theories could exist within), the impossibility of a massive object having a speed (not acceleration btw) of c is Special Relativity, and you touch on wave particle duality and QM (in fact in QM it is best to  move away from classical notions of waves and particle and think of quantum entities); these theories all mesh together in a theoretical basis AND on an empirical quantitative basis.  we no longer believe that we will find areas of QM that do not agree with SR etc - they are mutually consistent. 

If, like we saw in Gran Sasso a year ago, an experimental result challenges one of these theories it will have to be double and triple and ... checked before these theories are modified.

General Relativity does not mesh so easily with the other theories - and does throw up some anomalous empirical results.  Whilst some areas are incredibly accurate we have trouble with the super-scale ie galaxies, clusters, and bigger.  Our observations do not tally with the strict predictions of GR so we have postulated the existence of dark matter and dark energy.  Now some say that this shows the weakness of GR, if it needs the imagination of invisible matter to get the rotations of galaxies to be correct and the use of an expansive dark energy to explain incorrectly red-shifting supernova.  Others applaud that a theory dreamt up in the mind of a man in the early 20th century can still be telling us new ideas, about areas of the universe we may never reach, and about particles and energy we may never be able to measure directly.

[Spacetectonics (OP)]

Particle gets mass when interacting with higgs field(H.F),higgs field is through out the universe and it is an energy field.
particles considered as wave"behavior" in QM >
wave/Pare. interacting with H.F creating mass >
Nature always wants to be in its lowest state and that is why H.F born>
In QM Wave Interacting with the lowest known state of energy in universe creating mass>
mass is a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration>
If acceleration reaches C mass will be Infinite
One line is missing! "quantitative measure" >
Quantitative measurements are those which involve the collection of numbers.
collection of numbers?! Is this a man made concept?!

Thanks Imatfaal,
I am not sure if you have agreed on that sequence above ?! it ends up to "mass is a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration".

(I am looking at this particular sequence which I believe ;they all are scientific base?!)

What exactly I mean is, if all the above sequences depends on  "quantitative measure"??Then...>

I shall  give an example first;before I continue so please be patient!

if you grab one cube of sand in your hand and want to measure it there are different alternatives to do so:One: you could call it:
One cube of sands,
Two:  10*10^8 (i.e.) sands,
And so on to the very fundamental parts.That is the way we have learn to measure visible objects.

Once you have chosen one above ,then there is another fact to consider.

if I am not wrong QM talks about the  second Cube (exactly the same )somewhere in the universe!?(which created at the big bang) So there again comes another set of “Quantitative measurements” .to me the measurement which was taken into the effect for “object's resistance to acceleration “has not been completed in the above sequence and it is violating the measurement itself.

In a very simple word all those measurements which were considered at the above sequences,only involved half of the "Objects".

I hope this give you an idea what I am talking about?!
And my question was how do we deal with this violation if it is true?

Cheers,



edited by imatfaal to get colours straight and place quote box.  let's keep it all black and white - my brain gets too easily confused when challenged with multicoloured posts and about 6% of our male posters will be red-green colour blind!

[imatfaal]

a.  No I don't agree it is a sequence.  It's a list - not the same. 
b.  Inertial mass - why should this equal gravitational mass?  So mass is not quite so simple.
c.  I don't really believe that how we measure and or count determines the reality of our world, merely how we perceive it

And then you lose me about here "if I am not wrong QM talks about the  second Cube" 

[yor_on]

Are you thinking of how the very small becomes macroscopic ST?

That is is a statistical process governed by 'history', aka probabilities?
But you have all kinds of physicists, most are doing QM (that very small) today, but there are other looking at macroscopic systems and happenings too, as the way relativity describe SpaceTime and gravity.

[Phractality]

Quantitative measures all boil down to counting something or comparing two counts. We measure distance in terms of wavelength of a particular emission from a cesium atom. We measure time in terms of number of those same waves passing a fixed point in a reference frame. The ratio of the unit of distance to the unit of time is defined in terms of the constant speed of light.

[Spacetectonics (OP)]

a.  No I don't agree it is a sequence.  It's a list - not the same.

does any of these "statements"violating the rule of physics? 

b.  Inertial mass - why should this equal gravitational mass?

1) Inertial mass. This is mainly defined by Newton's law, the all-too-famous F = ma, which states that when a force F is applied to an object, it will accelerate proportionally, and that constant of proportion is the mass of that object. In very concrete terms, to determine the inertial mass, you apply a force of F Newtons to an object, measure the acceleration in m/s2, and F/a will give you the inertial mass m in kilograms.

2) Gravitational mass. This is defined by the force of gravitation, which states that there is a gravitational force between any pair of objects, which is given by
F = G m1 m2/r2
where G is the universal gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects, and r is the distance between them. This, in effect defines the gravitational mass of an object.
As it turns out, these two masses are equal to each other as far as we can measure. Also, the equivalence of these two masses is why all objects fall at the same rate on earth.

Are you agree on the above?

c.  I don't really believe that how we measure and or count determines the reality of our world, merely how we perceive it .

Still working on this!!meanwhile you may want to give me an idea "if you think the http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/elements_as_atoms/quantum_numbers.html" could be engaged in the macro world?!or this has to stay in micro world?

And then you lose me about here "if I am not wrong QM talks about the  second Cube"


Every particle in universe has a pair.Is this correct?

Cheers,

[yor_on]

Super symmetry assumes 'opposites', if that is what you mean ST? Where Stands Supersymmetry (as of 4/2012)?

[Spacetectonics (OP)]

Thanks for the link ,very interesting.That could be a clue but not exactly what I mean,
I move this inquiry into a poll ,gradually @ physics page,

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46433.0

Cheers,