Thread: The Higgs Boson -- Found

Can we explain the need for the Higgs boson?

Let me put forward my theory here, and please indicate if you agree or disagree.

Mass (m, inertial) of anything is a fictive quantity to assign a linear relationship between 2 measurable quantities, force (F), and acceleration (a), as introduced by Newton in the form of m = F/a. The force F over the accelerational space (s) will appear as measured energy E = F * s. This way what we are measuring is E = m * v^2 (after combining the 2 equations), and v is a velocity v = sqrt(a * s) that is characteristic to this energy and is measured independently.

If we do these measurements by electromagnetic methods, then we find E = m * c^2 in the situation where the object with the mass m is at rest relative to the observer (the famous Einstein formula, c is the speed of light). If the mass m and the observer move relative to each other, then we reduce away from the c, and if the relative speed is c, then we get E = m * 0 = 0.

But ... experimentally, this energy is not measured (interpolated) to be zero! This means, that by classic physical models, we expect matter to pass across itself like ghosts when it is at the speed of light, and thereby "display" its mass as a proportionality between its deceleration and "impact force" at lower speeds. The problem is that this expectation is disproved by all experiments in history.

Higgs's idea is to explain that non-zero energy at the speed of light in form of a co-resonance (in the language of quantum mathematics) or "particle" in the language of engineering physics. By plugging this fictive particle into the explanation of our measurements, we have just invented a particle that causes the proportionality between force and acceleration, that is creates mass for everything.

If this fictive Higgs boson exists (and proves not to be that fictive any more), then it introduces a residual speed "v", a slow-down, at the speed of light "c", which can be calculated using the energy E measured and interpolated to the speed of light "c": E(c) = m(0)*v^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where m(0) is the mass at rest and the sqrt(...) is the relativistic term. What the CERN guys claim is, that their measurements give an indication of this speed "v" above the margin of error.

I think this measurement is believable, considering the atto-second accuracy of their time-coincidence measuring equipment. The statistics of the repeat experiments will provide the proof.

I am so freaking happy that someone other than I realizes that! I was beginning to worry that this thread had morphed into the nets version of the twilight zone. So much thanks for your opinion. Additionally, your comment is no insult, simply a statement of fact. If member Bishadi had admitted that he was mistaken way back and was wrong to criticize at least several of my opinions (of which I backed up with sources etc) it would have saved a lot of hurt feelings and a great deal of wasted posting. There is nothing wrong with being wrong, I have been so wrong and embarrassed so many times its not funny! There is, however a lot wrong with continuing to defend the indefensible.

reva

Originally Posted by spt5

Can we explain the need for the Higgs boson?

Let me put forward my theory here, and please indicate if you agree or disagree.

Mass (m, inertial) of anything is a fictive quantity to assign a linear relationship between 2 measurable quantities, force (F), and acceleration (a), as introduced by Newton in the form of m = F/a. The force F over the accelerational space (s) will appear as measured energy E = F * s. This way what we are measuring is E = m * v^2 (after combining the 2 equations), and v is a velocity v = sqrt(a * s) that is characteristic to this energy and is measured independently.

If we do these measurements by electromagnetic methods, then we find E = m * c^2 in the situation where the object with the mass m is at rest relative to the observer (the famous Einstein formula, c is the speed of light). If the mass m and the observer move relative to each other, then we reduce away from the c, and if the relative speed is c, then we get E = m * 0 = 0.

But ... experimentally, this energy is not measured (interpolated) to be zero! This means, that by classic physical models, we expect matter to pass across itself like ghosts when it is at the speed of light, and thereby "display" its mass as a proportionality between its deceleration and "impact force" at lower speeds. The problem is that this expectation is disproved by all experiments in history.

Higgs's idea is to explain that non-zero energy at the speed of light in form of a co-resonance (in the language of quantum mathematics) or "particle" in the language of engineering physics. By plugging this fictive particle into the explanation of our measurements, we have just invented a particle that causes the proportionality between force and acceleration, that is creates mass for everything.

If this fictive Higgs boson exists (and proves not to be that fictive any more), then it introduces a residual speed "v", a slow-down, at the speed of light "c", which can be calculated using the energy E measured and interpolated to the speed of light "c": E(c) = m(0)*v^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where m(0) is the mass at rest and the sqrt(...) is the relativistic term. What the CERN guys claim is, that their measurements give an indication of this speed "v" above the margin of error.

I think this measurement is believable, considering the atto-second accuracy of their time-coincidence measuring equipment. The statistics of the repeat experiments will provide the proof.

Great post, however I do not know enough to discuss the intricate mathematical nature of Higgs with you. Maybe another member will engage your comments. I am aware of only the rank basics of Higgs and the standard model of physics, and what Higgs the discovery of Higgs means for the standard model of physics.

reva

Originally Posted by spt5

Can we explain the need for the Higgs boson?

Let me put forward my theory here, and please indicate if you agree or disagree.

Mass (m, inertial) of anything is a fictive quantity to assign a linear relationship between 2 measurable quantities, force (F), and acceleration (a), as introduced by Newton in the form of m = F/a. The force F over the accelerational space (s) will appear as measured energy E = F * s. This way what we are measuring is E = m * v^2 (after combining the 2 equations), and v is a velocity v = sqrt(a * s) that is characteristic to this energy and is measured independently.

If we do these measurements by electromagnetic methods, then we find E = m * c^2 in the situation where the object with the mass m is at rest relative to the observer (the famous Einstein formula, c is the speed of light). If the mass m and the observer move relative to each other, then we reduce away from the c, and if the relative speed is c, then we get E = m * 0 = 0.

But ... experimentally, this energy is not measured (interpolated) to be zero! This means, that by classic physical models, we expect matter to pass across itself like ghosts when it is at the speed of light, and thereby "display" its mass as a proportionality between its deceleration and "impact force" at lower speeds. The problem is that this expectation is disproved by all experiments in history.

Higgs's idea is to explain that non-zero energy at the speed of light in form of a co-resonance (in the language of quantum mathematics) or "particle" in the language of engineering physics. By plugging this fictive particle into the explanation of our measurements, we have just invented a particle that causes the proportionality between force and acceleration, that is creates mass for everything.

If this fictive Higgs boson exists (and proves not to be that fictive any more), then it introduces a residual speed "v", a slow-down, at the speed of light "c", which can be calculated using the energy E measured and interpolated to the speed of light "c": E(c) = m(0)*v^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where m(0) is the mass at rest and the sqrt(...) is the relativistic term. What the CERN guys claim is, that their measurements give an indication of this speed "v" above the margin of error.

I think this measurement is believable, considering the atto-second accuracy of their time-coincidence measuring equipment. The statistics of the repeat experiments will provide the proof.

at least someone comprehends.

SO i will keep it simple, the fields are everywhere. "electromagnetic"............. ...... faraday/maxwell

the speed of a particle is not the energy of the em (see spectrum). What the above is about is quantifying energy upon mass.

note the size at the wavelength (em)/4pir2.

fixed.

to get a better grasp, look up lavoisiers work

Originally Posted by spt5

Can we explain the need for the Higgs boson?

Let me put forward my theory here, and please indicate if you agree or disagree.

Mass (m, inertial) of anything is a fictive quantity to assign a linear relationship between 2 measurable quantities, force (F), and acceleration (a), as introduced by Newton in the form of m = F/a. The force F over the accelerational space (s) will appear as measured energy E = F * s. This way what we are measuring is E = m * v^2 (after combining the 2 equations), and v is a velocity v = sqrt(a * s) that is characteristic to this energy and is measured independently.

If we do these measurements by electromagnetic methods, then we find E = m * c^2 in the situation where the object with the mass m is at rest relative to the observer (the famous Einstein formula, c is the speed of light). If the mass m and the observer move relative to each other, then we reduce away from the c, and if the relative speed is c, then we get E = m * 0 = 0.

But ... experimentally, this energy is not measured (interpolated) to be zero! This means, that by classic physical models, we expect matter to pass across itself like ghosts when it is at the speed of light, and thereby "display" its mass as a proportionality between its deceleration and "impact force" at lower speeds. The problem is that this expectation is disproved by all experiments in history.

Higgs's idea is to explain that non-zero energy at the speed of light in form of a co-resonance (in the language of quantum mathematics) or "particle" in the language of engineering physics. By plugging this fictive particle into the explanation of our measurements, we have just invented a particle that causes the proportionality between force and acceleration, that is creates mass for everything.

If this fictive Higgs boson exists (and proves not to be that fictive any more), then it introduces a residual speed "v", a slow-down, at the speed of light "c", which can be calculated using the energy E measured and interpolated to the speed of light "c": E(c) = m(0)*v^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where m(0) is the mass at rest and the sqrt(...) is the relativistic term. What the CERN guys claim is, that their measurements give an indication of this speed "v" above the margin of error.

I think this measurement is believable, considering the atto-second accuracy of their time-coincidence measuring equipment. The statistics of the repeat experiments will provide the proof.

There is a need for a Higg's Mechanism because mass cannot be explained in the Lagrangian of the standard model. In fact mass does not appear in the Lagrangian for QED or QCD but it does for QFD, namely the W and Z boson. The Higg's Mechanism explains why the weak force gauge bosons have mass. The Higg's Lagrangian: http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/comphep_ol...l/node106.html

I like to study the Higgs Field - and Higgs Bosom

What on earth is this?

Originally Posted by spt5

Can we explain the need for the Higgs boson?

Let me put forward my theory here, and please indicate if you agree or disagree.

Mass (m, inertial) of anything is a fictive quantity to assign a linear relationship between 2 measurable quantities, force (F), and acceleration (a), as introduced by Newton in the form of m = F/a. The force F over the accelerational space (s) will appear as measured energy E = F * s. This way what we are measuring is E = m * v^2 (after combining the 2 equations), and v is a velocity v = sqrt(a * s) that is characteristic to this energy and is measured independently.

You're not integrating properly, E=mv^2/2 is the correct formula for classical kinetic energy

Originally Posted by spt5

If we do these measurements by electromagnetic methods, then we find E = m * c^2 in the situation where the object with the mass m is at rest relative to the observer (the famous Einstein formula, c is the speed of light).

No, Electromagnetic methods do not give us E=mc^2, those are relativistic methods. I agree that they are based on electromagnetism, but it's dishonest to say that that's the important part of the method.

Originally Posted by spt5

If the mass m and the observer move relative to each other, then we reduce away from the c, and if the relative speed is c, then we get E = m * 0 = 0.

No, E=gmc^2 relativistically (where g is gamma, the Lorenz factor, which is 1 at rest and infinite at the speed of light). For relative speed c, E is undefined (in practice infinite). Classically, it would be E=mv^2/2 + mc^2. At no point does energy go down with increasing speed.

Originally Posted by spt5

But ... experimentally, this energy is not measured (interpolated) to be zero! This means, that by classic physical models, we expect matter to pass across itself like ghosts when it is at the speed of light, and thereby "display" its mass as a proportionality between its deceleration and "impact force" at lower speeds. The problem is that this expectation is disproved by all experiments in history.

Classically, higher energies mean more energetic collisions. Particles passing through each other is not classical in any way.

Originally Posted by spt5

Higgs's idea is to explain that non-zero energy at the speed of light in form of a co-resonance (in the language of quantum mathematics) or "particle" in the language of engineering physics. By plugging this fictive particle into the explanation of our measurements, we have just invented a particle that causes the proportionality between force and acceleration, that is creates mass for everything.

Not sure what you mean here, possibly because you start arguing from a point which I disagree with, but I agree that he ran through the maths, and it didn't fit together until he added a particle.

Originally Posted by spt5

If this fictive Higgs boson exists (and proves not to be that fictive any more), then it introduces a residual speed "v", a slow-down, at the speed of light "c", which can be calculated using the energy E measured and interpolated to the speed of light "c": E(c) = m(0)*v^2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) where m(0) is the mass at rest and the sqrt(...) is the relativistic term. What the CERN guys claim is, that their measurements give an indication of this speed "v" above the margin of error.

As mentioned earlier, a few of those v's should be c's. All that the CERN guys are claiming is that we ran through the maths again and saw that this particle should decay into other particles, and we found some of those.

The Higgs particle in itself is not that important, it is merely an excitation in the Higgs field. However, that would mean that the Higgs field exists, and that is sort of a big deal, that's what really gives us mass. The analogies to the Higgs field are numerous and not very good, so I would stay away from trying to explain it.

Originally Posted by spt5

I think this measurement is believable, considering the atto-second accuracy of their time-coincidence measuring equipment. The statistics of the repeat experiments will provide the proof.

This was the repeat experiment. Two separate experiments, 5.8 fb-1 of data, 5.9 sigma. This is considered proof. You may, of course, hold yourself to a higher standard than science in general, but there's really no point in that.

Originally Posted by Anarcho-Technocrat

There is a need for a Higg's Mechanism because mass cannot be explained in the Lagrangian of the standard model. In fact mass does not appear in the Lagrangian for QED or QCD but it does for QFD, namely the W and Z boson. The Higg's Mechanism explains why the weak force gauge bosons have mass. The Higg's Lagrangian: http://theory.sinp.msu.ru/comphep_ol...l/node106.html

and why does a boson have mass?

can you tell me how many bosons (measure) to finish making gold from lead?

And then, how many bosons in a buckey ball?

Originally Posted by Swensson

What on earth is this?
You're not integrating properly, E=mv^2/2 is the correct formula for classical kinetic energy

dude...

you're sharp

ie... it means, energy is based on the 'speed' (the error of today's phsics)

No, Electromagnetic methods do not give us E=mc^2, those are relativistic methods. I agree that they are based on electromagnetism, but it's dishonest to say that that's the important part of the method.

again, almost perfect

relative desciptions are based on a frame, then the field equation define the potential (again, based on speed (it's underlying constant))

No, E=gmc^2 relativistically (where g is gamma, the Lorenz factor, which is 1 at rest and infinite at the speed of light). For relative speed c, E is undefined (in practice infinite). Classically, it would be E=mv^2/2 + mc^2. At no point does energy go down with increasing speed.

of the reference, in relation to the measured system.

It is a method for einstein to show the energy 'state' of a system relative to an environment.

As mentioned earlier, a few of those v's should be c's. All that the CERN guys are claiming is that we ran through the maths again and saw that this particle should decay into other particles, and we found some of those.

what is the particle?

that is the issue.

The Higgs particle in itself is not that important, it is merely an excitation in the Higgs field. However, that would mean that the Higgs field exists, and that is sort of a big deal, that's what really gives us mass. The analogies to the Higgs field are numerous and not very good, so I would stay away from trying to explain it.

now the 'field' is defined by a particle?

this is where the evidence divides from the physics

This was the repeat experiment. Two separate experiments, 5.8 fb-1 of data, 5.9 sigma. This is considered proof. You may, of course, hold yourself to a higher standard than science in general, but there's really no point in that.

the standards held to some are inconsistent with nature. So YES, i do hold myself to a higher standard.

The current model is wrong and the reason is, that energy is defined by speed.

Particles observed within the accelerator are protons from hydrogen and from there forth the additions to the energy state are manmade creations and not breaking mass down to constituents. And the additions of energy to the mass being spun around is from the field (flux lines) that they are cross during the cycle. Think of how electricity itself is transformed in the globes power grids.

Dont let anyone tell you that spinning particles is breaking them down to their constituents because that is bull