Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList
Thread
'[OT]:: The Higgs Boojum .. er ... Boson explained.'
2012\07\04@085225
by
RussellMc
2012\07\04@180555
by
Tamas Rudnai
2012\07\04@181133
by
Tamas Rudnai
2012\07\04@194305
by
IVP
A Higgs boson particle is trying to get an audience with the Pope
"Higgs bosons aren't allowed in here because calling you the God
particle is so sacrilegious!"
The Higgs boson particle says, "If you don't allow Higgs bosons
in here, how do you have Mass?"
See, we can all get along ....
2012\07\04@223140
by
Tamas Rudnai
It is a very interesting field, however, one thing is still not clear to
me. So there are particles that are interacting more with the Higgs field.
But why or how do these particles attracts each other? Is it something to
do with anti-matters?
Tamas
On 4 July 2012 16:42, IVP <.....joecolquittKILLspam
.....clear.net.nz> wrote:
> A Higgs boson particle is trying to get an audience with the Pope
>
> "Higgs bosons aren't allowed in here because calling you the God
> particle is so sacrilegious!"
>
> The Higgs boson particle says, "If you don't allow Higgs bosons
> in here, how do you have Mass?"
>
> See, we can all get along .....
>
2012\07\05@000016
by
Sean Breheny
:)
I have a coffee mug which says: "Photons have Mass? I didn't even know
they were Catholic!"
(p.s., I am Catholic)
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, IVP <EraseMEjoecolquittspam_OUTTakeThisOuTclear.net.nz> wrote:
> A Higgs boson particle is trying to get an audience with the Pope
>
> "Higgs bosons aren't allowed in here because calling you the God
> particle is so sacrilegious!"
>
> The Higgs boson particle says, "If you don't allow Higgs bosons
> in here, how do you have Mass?"
>
> See, we can all get along .....
>
2012\07\05@005234
by
IVP
> But why or how do these particles attract each other?
http://www.lhc-closer.es/php/index.php?i=1&s=6&p=5&e=0
http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/higgs-boson-one-page-explanation/
If I could find "Higgs Mechanism For Dummies" I'd post it
I can't pretend to understand most of the maths behind it, but the
analogy most often given is that the Higgs field looks like a viscous
fluid to a particle and, generally, the bigger the particle the more
the drag (ie less speed). The search for the Higgs boson came
about because every field has a particle associated with it (the
electromagnetic field has the photon and so on). To make the
Higgs field theory work, they had to find the Higgs particle that
is responsible for the field. However, I've not yet found a simple
explanation of how particles react with the Higgs field, just that
they do
There's a lot of quantum thermodynamics to wade through, which
I really would like to get a handle on, and finding the Higgs boson
answers only a very few questions. For example it gets you thinking
about how exactly you distinguish between energy and matter. How
does a massless particle have energy ? If the Higgs boson is purely
mass, then how does it convey information or properties to other
particles ? And if it is such an enormous particle, why has it been
so difficult to find ?
There seems to be a connection with superconductivity and ferro-
magnetism too. Maybe reading up on those will help, especially
now that the Higgs boson has more or less been confirmed
Joe
2012\07\05@074410
by
V G
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Sean Breheny <shb7spam_OUTcornell.edu> wrote:
> :)
>
> I have a coffee mug which says: "Photons have Mass? I didn't even know
> they were Catholic!"
>
> (p.s., I am Catholic)
>
>
That's going on my next T-shirt
2012\07\05@142526
by
RussellMc
> > I have a coffee mug which says: "Photons have Mass? I didn't even know
> > they were Catholic!"
> >
> > (p.s., I am Catholic)
> >
> >
> That's going on my next T-shirt.
Without the word "Roman" in there somewhere it's less than accurate./
No less (or more) funny.
2012\07\05@155640
by
Electron
One thing I don't get is... if the particles are "volumeless", how can they "collide"?
At 00.05 2012.07.05, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}
>> -
2012\07\05@181157
by
Nicola Perotto
On 05/07/2012 20.56, Electron wrote:
> One thing I don't get is... if the particles are "volumeless", how can they "collide"?
Because aren't particles but waves! ;-))
2012\07\05@224549
by
Sean Breheny
I thought that electrons, neutrons, and protons DID have a defined size.
However, even if they don't, they can still have a "scattering
cross-section", which is the volume which represents how close they
have to come in order to interact. Imagine, for example, a planet with
an asteroid passing by. Depending on how fast the asteroid is going,
there will be some distance of closest approach from which the
asteroid will be "captured" by the planet and pulled in. This would be
the scattering cross-section of that planet (which is a function of
speed in this case).
Sean
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Nicola Perotto <KILLspamnicolaKILLspamnicolaperotto.it> wrote:
> On 05/07/2012 20.56, Electron wrote:
>
>> One thing I don't get is... if the particles are "volumeless", how can they "collide"?
>
> Because aren't particles but waves! ;-))
>
>
2012\07\06@030655
by
Ruben Jönsson
|
>
> One thing I don't get is... if the particles are "volumeless", how can they
> "collide"?
>
>
One thing you have to understand about these sub atomic particles: They just "are". They don't look like anything because they can not be seen (not using light reflection that our eyes can sense, anyway). Instead they have different properties that can or can not interact with other particles. And when they do they become something else. The only way we can detect them is as results or rests of these interaction between particles.
Take the electron for instance. The classic way this is described is as a small ball that is spinning around the atomic nucleus. That is just a model that our brain can easily understand but if we could see it it would probably look more lika a cloud around the atomic nucleus. And when we try to interact with it, it may change into a real particle with other properties (wave to particle). But all this is also just a way to make a model of it that our brain can understand.
Another example is that an atom is mostly empty space. How can it be that, we think, because to us it feels and looks like a solid object. But that is just how it interacts with light and other particles (so our sensory can percieve it).
We can not possibly begin to understand how these things "look". Our brain is simply not capable of that. We can, however, make models of them that makes them more real to our mind.
What is energy? How does that "look" like?
How does dimensions work? I know about my 3 dimensional world and can describe it in detail, but how about a world with more dimensions?
What is time? Does it "look" the same in the entire universe? Has it always existed? Will it slow down or stop sometime? Do we even notic that?
How much does your consciousness weigh? And by that I don't mean the neurons and atomic and subatomic particles that it lives in but instead the interactions and connections that it is made up of. If it doesn't weigh anything how can it then accomplish so much wonderfull things (make models of subatomic particles for example)?
There are some things that our brain simply is not capable of "understanding". Just like my dog can never appreciate a good book (unless it chews it to pieces), simply because his brain is not capable of doing it. That doesn't mean that they don't exist though. By that I mean that there must also be things that a human brain never ever possibly will be capable of understanding, but they still exist.
/Ruben
===========================================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124
200 39 Malmö Sweden
http://www.liros.se
Tel +46 40142078
============================================
2012\07\06@041317
by
IVP
2012\07\06@052538
by
Ruben Jönsson
> > We can not possibly begin to understand how these things "look
>
> "A new ultra-high-resolution microscope has photographed the shadow of a
> single atom for the first time - an achievement which took five years.
>
> 'We wanted to investigate how few atoms are required to cast a shadow and we
> proved it takes just one,' say researchers at Griffin University Australia"
>
>
What we see is its interaction with light. And yes, that is how it looks like to us and our eyes (and other light sensitive sensors) but not how it really "looks like". As I said, an atom is mostly empty space but we can not see or sense that. We can perhaps imagine how it would look by making a model of it in our mind.
/Ruben
===========================================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124
200 39 Malmö Sweden
http://www.liros.se
Tel +46 40142078
============================================
2012\07\06@055143
by
IVP
> an atom is mostly empty space
I had an argument with someone, who was starting to get a
bit heated so I gave up, over an article regarding the fact
that some stellar bodies (neutron stars, magnetars etc) have
densities in the order of millions of tonnes per spoonful. I
forget the figures I quoted at him, but you're right. Only a
few billionths of an atom is 'something'. The enormous force
of gravity will squeeze all the 'nothing'*** out of an atom until
it's almost solid matter
The figures are quite impressive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
And a missing particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
*** 'nothing' doesn't exist. They reckon linearity stops at Planck
time and distance, but you wonde
2012\07\06@091247
by
Tamas Rudnai
On 6 July 2012 00:06, Ruben Jönsson <RemoveMEmaxrubenTakeThisOuTrjjournal.net> wrote:
> By that I mean that there must also be things
> that a human brain never ever possibly will be capable of understanding,
> but
> they still exist.
>
I would disagree with that. Few hundred years ago a "human brain" was not
able to understand that Earth is shaped as a globe and that is orbiting
around the Sun. Human brain was not able to understand what (or who) cause
the lightenings and what is above the clouds.
I think we just need to go from one step to another, and today we are
working on understanding sub atomic matters and their physics, maybe 100
years later we will find components that are building up these quarks and
bosons who knows? The only question in my opinion is if we are clever
enough to do something with the knowledge? Think about Romans who knew the
energy of steam, but they did not produce steam engines, did not even
realised the possibilities of it... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile)
Tamas
{Quote hidden}>
> /Ruben
>
>
>
> ===========================================
> Ruben Jönsson
> AB Liros Electronic
> Box 9124
> 200 39 Malmö Sweden
>
http://www.liros.se
> Tel +46 40142078
> ============================================
>
>
2012\07\06@102246
by
Kerry Wentworth
|
Tamas Rudnai wrote:
{Quote hidden}> On 6 July 2012 00:06, Ruben Jönsson <
spamBeGonemaxrubenspamBeGonerjjournal.net> wrote:
>
>
>> By that I mean that there must also be things
>> that a human brain never ever possibly will be capable of understanding,
>> but
>> they still exist.
>>
>>
>
> I would disagree with that. Few hundred years ago a "human brain" was not
> able to understand that Earth is shaped as a globe and that is orbiting
> around the Sun. Human brain was not able to understand what (or who) cause
> the lightenings and what is above the clouds.
>
> I think we just need to go from one step to another, and today we are
> working on understanding sub atomic matters and their physics, maybe 100
> years later we will find components that are building up these quarks and
> bosons who knows? The only question in my opinion is if we are clever
> enough to do something with the knowledge? Think about Romans who knew the
> energy of steam, but they did not produce steam engines, did not even
> realised the possibilities of it... (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile)
>
> Tamas
>
>
> Actually, the shape of the earth has been known since antiquity, although the size was unknown. The size was determined by Eratosthenes about 300 BCE as 24000 miles in circumference. Columbus did not try to convince people the earth was a sphere (they already knew that), he tried to convince people it was 3000 miles in circumference. Had he not run into an unknown continent, his expedition would have been lost, just as almost everybody expected it to be.
There is a big difference between what a person CAN understand vs. what a person DOES understand.
Kerry
2012\07\06@102650
by
John Gardner
Hmm.
"I don't understand..." & "I cannot understand..." are not
logically equivalent statements.
Last I looked, The Flat Earth Society was alive, well, and
as independent of reality as ever..
2012\07\06@112723
by
RussellMc
>> By that I mean that there must also be things
>> that a human brain never ever possibly will be capable of understanding,
>> but
>> they still exist.
> I would disagree with that. Few hundred years ago a "human brain" was not
> able to understand that Earth is shaped as a globe and that is orbiting
> around the Sun. Human brain was not able to understand what (or who) cause
> the lightenings and what is above the clouds.
There is no reason to think that everything must be accessible and explicable.
There is every reason to expect that this is not the case.
Understanding and knowledge are separate things.
Both can however be inaccessible, individually or together.
2012\07\06@154216
by
Tamas Rudnai
On 6 July 2012 07:26, John Gardner <TakeThisOuTgoflo3EraseMEspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:
> "I don't understand..." & "I cannot understand..." are not
> logically equivalent statements.
>
True!
> Last I looked, The Flat Earth Society was alive, well, and
> as independent of reality as ever...
>
They are probably friends with the Jedi Church? :)
http://www.jedichurch.org/
Tamas
>
2012\07\06@154435
by
Tamas Rudnai
On 6 July 2012 08:26, RussellMc <RemoveMEapptechnzTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:
> There is no reason to think that everything must be accessible and
> explicable.
> There is every reason to expect that this is not the case.
>
> Understanding and knowledge are separate things.
> Both can however be inaccessible, individually or together.
>
However, we expect something out of it implicit or explicit, right?
Otherwise why would we spend billions on such a research?
Tamas
>
>
> R
>
2012\07\06@165512
by
Sean Breheny
Kerry:
THANK YOU for stating this - I am SO tired of people saying that it
was recent that Europeans thought that the earth was flat. It is such
a common misconception about the history of human knowledge.
Sean
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Kerry Wentworth
<kwentworthEraseME.....skunkworksnh.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}> Actually, the shape of the earth has been known since antiquity,
> although the size was unknown. The size was determined by Eratosthenes
> about 300 BCE as 24000 miles in circumference. Columbus did not try to
> convince people the earth was a sphere (they already knew that), he
> tried to convince people it was 3000 miles in circumference. Had he not
> run into an unknown continent, his expedition would have been lost, just
> as almost everybody expected it to be.
>
> There is a big difference between what a person CAN understand vs. what
> a person DOES understand.
>
> Kerry
>
>
2012\07\06@183550
by
IVP
> By that I mean that there must also be things that a human brain
> never ever possibly will be capable of understanding, but they
> still exist
When it comes to The Very Big and The Very Small I think there's
some truth in that, if you substitute "comprehend" for "understand"
We are very comfortable with 3D objects in a 3D world (like
the roundness of the Earth and what orbits what), but how about
those things we can't measure or observe ?
Can you comprehend an infinite multi-verse ? Really think about
what 'infinite' means
Or, if there is only one Universe and it's not infinite, can you begin
to accept that there's no time or space beyond its horizon ?
Why do particles disappear ? Into which of possibly 11 dimensions
have they gone ? What do they do there ? Why do they come back ?
I need a cup of te
2012\07\06@202938
by
Ruben Jönsson
|
|
{Quote hidden}> On 6 July 2012 00:06, Ruben Jönsson <
EraseMEmaxrubenrjjournal.net> wrote:
>
> > By that I mean that there must also be things
> > that a human brain never ever possibly will be capable of understanding,
> > but
> > they still exist.
> >
>
> I would disagree with that. Few hundred years ago a "human brain" was not
> able to understand that Earth is shaped as a globe and that is orbiting
> around the Sun. Human brain was not able to understand what (or who) cause
> the lightenings and what is above the clouds.
>
> I think we just need to go from one step to another, and today we are
> working on understanding sub atomic matters and their physics, maybe 100
> years later we will find components that are building up these quarks and
> bosons who knows? The only question in my opinion is if we are clever
> enough to do something with the knowledge? Think about Romans who knew the
> energy of steam, but they did not produce steam engines, did not even
> realised the possibilities of it... (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile)
>
> Tamas
All of these things the human brain has always been able to understand (and learn). It just didn't know about it. I mean that there are things that the human brain simply is incapable of understanding.
I can not give an example of such things because I simply can't - These are things that my brain, or any human brain even can't imagine. Just like a bird never can comprehend the periodic table for example, there must be things that even we can't comprehend.
Just because we are the most evolved (?) lifeform on this planet doesn't mean that we have reached the final point of understanding.
/Ruben
==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
RemoveMErubenEraseMEEraseMEpp.sbbs.se
==============================
2012\07\06@204211
by
Ruben Jönsson
|
|
The sumerians knew detailed information about our solarsystem more than 6000 years ago. They didn't discover this, it was taught to them...
The early history of mankind is yet an unwritten book. There is indication that we knew quite a lot a long, long time ago. This knowledge has since been lost and it is just in recent years (the last couple of hundred years) that we get back this knowledge. Or perhaps a long time ago we knew it but didn't understand it which is why we couldn't teach it to coming generations and for every generation a little bit got lost. Now we begin to understand these things on our own.
/Ruben
{Quote hidden}> Kerry:
>
> THANK YOU for stating this - I am SO tired of people saying that it
> was recent that Europeans thought that the earth was flat. It is such
> a common misconception about the history of human knowledge.
>
> Sean
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Kerry Wentworth
> <
RemoveMEkwentworthspam_OUTKILLspamskunkworksnh.com> wrote:
> > Actually, the shape of the earth has been known since antiquity,
> > although the size was unknown. The size was determined by Eratosthenes
> > about 300 BCE as 24000 miles in circumference. Columbus did not try to
> > convince people the earth was a sphere (they already knew that), he
> > tried to convince people it was 3000 miles in circumference. Had he not
> > run into an unknown continent, his expedition would have been lost, just
> > as almost everybody expected it to be.
> >
> > There is a big difference between what a person CAN understand vs. what
> > a person DOES understand.
> >
> > Kerry
> >
> > --
2012\07\06@215107
by
IVP
2012\07\08@082209
by
IVP
radioarchive.cc/torrents-details.php?id=14521
Episode 7 - Tejinder Virdee (20 March 2012)
Jim talks to CERN physicist, Tejinder Virdee about the search for the
elusive Higgs boson, also known as the "God particle". Last December,
scientists working at the Large Hadron Collider caught a tantalising glimpse
of the Higgs; but they need more data to be sure of its existence. Twenty
years ago, Tejinder set about building a detector within the Large Hadron
Collider that's capable of taking forty million phenomenally detailed images
every second. Finding the Higgs will validate everything physicists think
they know about the very nature of the universe: not finding it, will force
them back to the drawing board. By the end of the year, we should
know one way or the other
As we do
2012\07\08@091906
by
John Gardner
....As we do
We do? Perhaps philosophical reservations about observations
made on one-of-a-kind equipment by specialists so specialized
no-one else knows what the hell they're talking about can still
be entertained...
Just long enough to see some duplication of results elsewhere.
Which may take awhile..
2012\07\08@104036
by
Sean Breheny
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:21 AM, IVP <RemoveMEjoecolquittTakeThisOuTspamclear.net.nz> wrote:
> of the Higgs; but they need more data to be sure of its existence. Twenty
> years ago, Tejinder set about building a detector within the Large Hadron
> Collider that's capable of taking forty million phenomenally detailed images
> every second. Finding the Higgs will validate everything physicists think
Twenty years ago? Was LHC under construction for that long
2012\07\08@105858
by
John Gardner
Sounds about right. Are you old enough to remember the "Super-Collider"
2012\07\08@110114
by
John Gardner
2012\07\08@130106
by
Sean Breheny
According to the great Wikipedia, the LHC was only started in 1998.
Yes, I do remember the Super-Collider (vaguely). I was born in 1980.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:58 AM, John Gardner <EraseMEgoflo3spamspamBeGonegmail.com> wrote:
> Sounds about right. Are you old enough to remember the "Super-Collider"?
>
2012\07\08@171524
by
RussellMc
> ...As we do
> We do? Perhaps philosophical reservations about observations
> made on one-of-a-kind equipment by specialists so specialized
> no-one else knows what the hell they're talking about can still
> be entertained...
>
> Just long enough to see some duplication of results elsewhere.
> Which may take awhile...
I "am comfortable" with the one of the kind equipment and specialists
who are well well well above my knowledge level or of them having
theories and processes that I don't know what they are talking about
in any detail (or even fairly broadly).
What I do have reservations about, and these are based on the firmest
of historical foundations, is the ability of such specialists to not
fool themselves, to not end up with observations
made on one-of-a-kind equipment so specialized *they* turn out to not
know what the hell they're talking about.
Which is highly likely what you were in fact saying :-).
Feynman (not verbatim (probably)) but close enough (probably): "Above
all, do not fool yourself. And, you are the very easiest person for
you to fool".
Russel
2012\07\08@174533
by
IVP
>> Just long enough to see some duplication of results elsewhere
Tevatron and LHC have results arrived at by teams using
different methods. They are competitors (for bragging
rights at least) and, given the interest and exposure, either
would be very unwise to fiddle results.
The recent Affair Of The Ben Johnson Neutrinos will be a
reminder to be ever so ever so careful with announcements,
or something the media can make into an announcement,
so as to not get a slow and public egg in the face when it
all goes TU
cf The University Of East Anglia's leaked emails about AG
2012\07\10@225937
by
IVP
>> ...As we do
>
>> We do?
Curiouser and curiouser
A week after the discovery of a particle, believed to be the elusive
particle, scientists at Cornell University have said they are not so
sure
'We show that current LHC data already strongly disfavor both
the dilatonic and non-dilatonic singlet imposters.
'On the other hand, a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter
give equally good fits to the measured event rates of the newly-
observed scalar resonance.'
Scientists at CERN are also analysing the data further to see if
their discovery corresponds to the 'standard model' Higgs boson
or to something more mysterious
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171611/Is-God-particle-impostor-Scientists-claim-signal-Large-Hadron-Collider-Higgs-all.html
2012\07\11@003609
by
John Gardner
Cornell's a pretty suspicious source... :
2012\07\20@213738
by
Sean Breheny
Why? Because they have their own particle accelerator? ;)
(hint: see my email domain - although I am only an alumnus, I don't
work or study there any more)
Sean
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:36 AM, John Gardner <RemoveMEgoflo3KILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Cornell's a pretty suspicious source... :)
>
2012\07\20@215323
by
John Gardner
....see my email domain...
Yes, I've noticed. A loong time ago I was stationed at Griffiss AFB,
now closed, near Rome.
Central/Upstate NY was (is?) a very nice place.
Jac
More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012
, 2013 only
- Today
- New search...
