mass https://scienceblogs.com/ en Weighing meal options https://scienceblogs.com/lifelines/2015/07/02/weighing-meal-options <span>Weighing meal options</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><div style="width: 590px;"><img src="http://cdn4.sci-news.com/images/2015/05/image_2841-Mexican-Jay.jpg" alt="" width="580" height="434" /> Image of a Mexican Jay selecting peanuts from <a href="http://www.sci-News.com">www.sci-News.com</a> </div> <p>I just listened to a neat podcast from Scientific American's Karen Hopkin in which she described a new study published in the <em>Journal of Ornithology</em> that suggests Mexican Jays (<em>Aphelocoma ultramarina</em>) pick which peanut to eat only after literally weighing their options. The researchers modified some peanuts to remove the contents. The Mexican Jays were then offered unmodified nuts along with the empty shells. Perhaps not surprisingly, the birds snubbed the empty shells. Rather, they only chose shells that contained nuts. In fact, when the researchers added clay to some shells to increase their mass by 1 gram, the birds chose the heavier nut. The birds made their selections only after picking up several nuts and shaking them. These observations suggest that the birds may be judging the relative weights of the nuts or at minimum just listening for the rattle of the contents inside.</p> <p><strong>Source:</strong></p> <p>Scientific American</p> <p>Piotr G. Jablonski et al, <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10336-015-1193-6">Proximate mechanisms of detecting nut properties in a wild population of Mexican Jays (Aphelocoma ultramarina)</a> <em>Journal of Ornithology</em></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/dr-dolittle" lang="" about="/author/dr-dolittle" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dr. dolittle</a></span> <span>Thu, 07/02/2015 - 05:58</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/life-science-0" hreflang="en">Life Science</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mass" hreflang="en">mass</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/meal" hreflang="en">meal</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mexican-jay" hreflang="en">mexican jay</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/peanut" hreflang="en">peanut</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/weigh" hreflang="en">weigh</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-2510154" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1437101312"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Very educative story..............thanks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=2510154&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tlnf4bFw2M3LNekWBh9yuG17BKr6MbP52BrA6LAPLRY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">juliana (not verified)</span> on 16 Jul 2015 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-2510154">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/lifelines/2015/07/02/weighing-meal-options%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:58:43 +0000 dr. dolittle 150315 at https://scienceblogs.com The second most abundant particles in the Universe are undetectable! https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/17/the-second-most-abundant-particles-in-the-universe-are-undetectable <span>The second most abundant particles in the Universe are undetectable!</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>"These neutrino observations are so exciting and significant that I think we're about to see the birth of an entirely new branch of astronomy: neutrino astronomy." -<em>John Bahcall</em></p></blockquote> <p>You've been around here long enough to know about <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/12/what-is-the-big-bang-all-about/">the Big Bang</a>. The vast majority of galaxies are speeding away from us, but more than that, the farther away they are from us, the <em>faster</em> they appear to be receding.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/potw1017a1.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28661" alt="Image credit: ESA/Hubble, NASA and H. Ebeling." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/potw1017a1-600x620.jpeg" width="600" height="620" /></a> Image credit: ESA/Hubble, NASA and H. Ebeling. </div> <p>But it's more than that; when you look at a distant galaxy, because the speed of light is finite, you're actually looking at it in the distant past. Since all the galaxies are expanding away from one another, and galaxies that are farther away are expanding away at a faster rate, this led to the idea that the Universe was <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/12/what-is-the-big-bang-all-about/">smaller, denser, and also <em>hotter</em> in the past</a>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/redshift-expansion.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28662" alt="Image credit: James N. Imamura of U. of Oregon." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/redshift-expansion-600x378.jpeg" width="600" height="378" /></a> Image credit: James N. Imamura of U. of Oregon. </div> <p>Going backwards in time, because the Universe was hotter, it was once so hot that neutral atoms couldn't even form: everything was a sea of ionized plasma, filled with nuclei, electrons, and radiation. (When the Universe cooled to form neutral atoms, that's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/19/5-facts-you-probably-dont-know-about-the-cosmic-microwave-background/">where the cosmic microwave background comes from</a>.) Going even further back, you can imagine a Universe so hot that even the atomic nuclei can't hold together against the intense bath of radiation; a high-enough energy photon will blast them apart into free protons and neutrons.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/deuterium_bottleneck1.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28663" alt="Image credit: me, modified from Lawrence Berkeley Labs." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/deuterium_bottleneck1-600x211.jpg" width="600" height="211" /></a> Image credit: me, modified from Lawrence Berkeley Labs. </div> <p>(And when the Universe finally cools enough to form stable nuclei, that's where <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/05/why-did-the-universe-start-off-with-hydrogen-helium-and-not-much-else/">the primordial elements in the Universe come from</a>.)</p> <p>But going even farther back than that, we can find a time where the radiation in the Universe was so hot that <em>all the particles that exist</em>, along with their antiparticles, would be spontaneously created in particle-antiparticle pairs.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/particle_equilibrium1.gif"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28664" alt="Image credit: James Schombert of the University of Oregon." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/particle_equilibrium1-600x520.gif" width="600" height="520" /></a> Image credit: James Schombert of the University of Oregon. </div> <p>This includes all the quark/antiquark pairs, all the lepton/antilepton pairs, all the gluons and photons and the weak bosons, and any heretofore undiscovered particles that might exist at even higher energies than we currently understand. Back when the entire observable Universe -- now nearly 100 billion light-years in diameter -- was compressed into a space smaller than a single light-year across, these particle/antiparticle pairs all existed in great abundance, spontaneously creating and annihilating in (approximately) equilibrium.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/sizeVageV2.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28665" alt="Image credit: me. Yes, on rare occasion, I can make an image!" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/sizeVageV2-600x447.jpg" width="600" height="447" /></a> Image credit: me. Yes, on rare occasion, I can make an image! </div> <p>But -- as you can clearly see -- that state doesn't last for very long. As the Universe expands and cools, it becomes harder and harder to make new particle-antiparticle pairs, while the existing ones will continue to annihilate away into photons, or particles of light. Eventually, the chance of annihilating -- dependent on their cross-section -- will drop to such a low value that whatever exists at that time will be effectively "frozen in," and as long as that particle is stable against decay, it will continue to exist to the present day.</p> <p>We know of three such particles (and their antiparticles) that do this: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino">the neutrinos</a>!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/3nus.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28667" alt="Image credit: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermi Lab), modified by me." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/3nus-600x535.jpg" width="600" height="535" /></a> Image credit: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermi Lab), modified by me. </div> <p>Coming in three flavors to match the three types of lepton -- electron, muon and tau -- these are the lightest, lowest-mass particles known to actually have a non-zero mass. The upper limit on the mass of the heaviest neutrino is still <strong>more than 4 million times lighter</strong> than the electron, the next lightest particle.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/masses.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28666" alt="Image credit: Hitoshi Murayama of http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/masses-600x230.jpg" width="600" height="230" /></a> Image credit: Hitoshi Murayama of <a href="http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/">http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/</a>. </div> <p>And yet, neutrinos have an energy-dependent cross section that becomes <em>extremely</em> small at lower energies. By time the Universe is about a single second old, the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos stop interacting with one another, and simply continue to lose energy and cool with the expansion of the Universe. You may remember that this is the same thing that photons do once neutral atoms are formed, and that's where the cosmic microwave background comes from.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/hubble1.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-28668" alt="Image credit: COBE / FIRAS, retrieved from Fermilab." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/hubble1.png" width="600" height="501" /></a> Image credit: COBE / FIRAS, retrieved from Fermilab. </div> <p>Only, neutrinos are slightly different than photons. Even though they have the tiniest masses of anything we know, because we know where they come from (and what the Universe was like when they stopped interacting), we know they don't do <em>exactly</em> the same thing. The cosmic microwave background (CMB) of photons has an energy spectrum like the one above, with a peak at a temperature of 2.725 Kelvin.</p> <p>The cosmic <em>neutrino</em> background should have a slightly lower temperature at 1.96 Kelvin (because electrons/positrons hadn't annihilated yet; that's why the CMB is slightly hotter), but remember the important difference: unlike photons, <strong>neutrinos have a mass</strong>!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/15fi14.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-28669" alt="Image credit: Hiroshi Nunokawa, of Braz. J. Phys. vol.30 no.2 São Paulo June 2000." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/15fi14.gif" width="600" height="507" /></a> Image credit: Hiroshi Nunokawa, of Braz. J. Phys. vol.30 no.2 São Paulo June 2000. </div> <p>That mass, tiny though it may be, is still <em>large</em> compared to the amount of energy that corresponds to the thermal energy that's left over from the early Universe. Depending on their mass (remember, there's still some uncertainty), they're moving at no more than a few thousand km/s today, and probably at just a few hundred km/s.</p> <p>This is a really, really interesting number.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/fig0206_1.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-28670" alt="Image credit: Jenkins et al. 1998, Astophysical Journal, 499, 20-40." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/fig0206_1.jpg" width="600" height="600" /></a> Image credit: Jenkins et al. 1998, Astophysical Journal, 499, 20-40. </div> <p>The mass-and-energy of these neutrinos tell us that they've fallen into the large-and-small-scale structures in the Universe, including in our own galaxy. They tell us that they're a <em>small</em> percentage of the dark matter -- about 0.3% of it -- but cannot be all of it. (There's about as much mass in neutrinos as there is mass in the form of stars currently burning through their fuel today. Not a lot, but still interesting!)</p> <p>But what's maybe most amazing about these neutrinos is that we have no idea how to experimentally detect them!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/PH20-water-withboat-apr23.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28671" alt="Image credit: Ben Still of http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~still/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/PH20-water-withboat-apr23-600x401.jpg" width="600" height="401" /></a> Image credit: Ben Still of <a href="http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~still/">http://pprc.qmul.ac.uk/~still/</a>. </div> <p>We <em>can</em> detect neutrinos, but only neutrinos with about a <em>billion</em> times the energy of these cosmic relics. Because of how quickly the cross-section falls off, we really have no hope for how to detect something with such a small signature. This is one of the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/07/02/the-last-great-prediction-of-t/">last great untested predictions of the Big Bang</a>, but one we're unlikely to solve anytime soon. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of these neutrinos and antineutrinos per cubic centimeter, and despite the fact that they're zipping around at (at least) hundreds of kilometers per second, the only interaction they can conceivably have with normal matter is via a nuclear recoil.</p> <p>And a nucleus, compared to a neutrino, is large, to put it mildly. Detecting one of these recoils is more difficult than detecting the recoil of a supremely-heavily-loaded semi-truck when it collides with... a paramecium.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/Road_Train_Australia.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28673" alt="Image credit: Thomas Schoch of http://www.retas.de/thomas/travel/australia2005/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/Road_Train_Australia-600x450.jpg" width="600" height="450" /></a> Image credit: Thomas Schoch of <a href="http://www.retas.de/thomas/travel/australia2005/">http://www.retas.de/thomas/travel/australia2005/</a>. </div> <p>But there <em>is</em> one interesting thing we've learned about these neutrinos. You see, we've known for a long time that neutrinos are all left-handed, which is to say that their spin always <em>opposes</em> their momentum, or that they're spin -½. On the other hand, anti-neutrinos are all right handed, their spin always points <em>in the same direction</em> as their momentum, or that they're spin +½. All the other particles of half-integer-spin we know of have versions that are ±½, whether they're matter or antimatter.</p> <p>But not neutrinos. It's fueled speculation that neutrinos might actually be their own antiparticles, making them a special type of particle known as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorana_fermion">Majorana Fermion</a>. But there's <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/07/are-neutrinos-their-own-antipart.html">a special type of decay that should happen</a> if they are; so far, no dice on that decay, and because of that, the window on neutrinos being Majorana particles <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/07/are-neutrinos-their-own-antipart.html">is closing</a>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/GERDAexpt.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28674" alt="Image credit: the GERDA experiment at the University of Tübingen." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/GERDAexpt-600x449.png" width="600" height="449" /></a> Image credit: the GERDA experiment at the University of Tübingen. </div> <p>So there you have it: there are some 10<sup>90</sup> neutrinos and anti-neutrinos left over from the Big Bang, making them the second most abundant particle in the Universe (after photons). There are more than a billion ancient neutrinos out there for each proton in the Universe. And yet, all of these relic neutrinos -- making up the cosmic neutrino background (or CNB) -- are completely undetectable to us. Not in <em>principle</em>, just in practice, as we don't know how to make experiments sensitive enough (or even close) to search for this. If you want to know what you can do to win a Nobel Prize, come up with a way to detect them, and the Nobel Prize in physics will surely be yours!</p> <p>Until then, enjoy <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/09/30/neutrino-fun-facts/">some other neutrino fun facts</a>, and marvel at what's perhaps the last great unverified prediction of the Big Bang: a relic background of cosmic neutrinos!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Wed, 07/17/2013 - 11:51</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/astronomy-0" hreflang="en">Astronomy</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/big-bang" hreflang="en">Big Bang</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/physics" hreflang="en">Physics</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/anti-neutrinos" hreflang="en">anti-neutrinos</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/antineutrinos" hreflang="en">antineutrinos</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/cnb" hreflang="en">CNB</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/cosmic-neutrino-background" hreflang="en">cosmic neutrino background</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/dirac" hreflang="en">Dirac</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/majorana" hreflang="en">majorana</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mass" hreflang="en">mass</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/neutrinos" hreflang="en">neutrinos</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520839" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374078419"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Neutrinos are known to (or at least theorized) oscillate between the electron, mu, and tau forms. Since the masses are different (or thought to be different), do they change speed as they travel?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520839&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Pj4BiJDZF6kf_YVFSZ_RKevlSDk1zKLfyru9z0RcI_0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Zippy the Pinhead (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520839">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520840" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374086953"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>[I'm trying to use some HTML below; I hope it works.]</p> <p>@Zippy: that's a very good question, with a variety of different answers depending on your preferred viewpoint.</p> <p>Maybe you want to think about the particles in a pseudo-classical way, where they "actually have an identity" which changes as they oscillate. In that case, yes, the particles should change their speed along with their mass, but their momentum (E2-m2, or mv in the nonrelativistic limit) will remain the same.</p> <p>But that's not really appropriate for quantum particles. While they are travelling, the neutrinos simply are not in a well-defined state. Rather they are a superposition of the three flavor eigenstates; the three neutrinos ν1, ν2, and ν3 are each linear combinations of νe, νμ and ντ. </p> <p>When a neutrino interacts (and <i>only</i> when it interacts) the coefficients of those linear combinations tell you the probability that what you'll see is electron-type, muon-type, or tau-type. And that probability oscillates with distance from where and when the neutrino was produced, because of the mixing implicit in the superposition.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520840&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="F6vImkxaJUgo-_lreu2yzYC-X7irXYhAmmijS5y-w6U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520840">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520841" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374090021"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Do neutrinos interact enough to maintain thermal equilibrium, or do they get to 2K adiabatically from when they dropped out of the soup?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520841&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4fb2DM86TtShSccJj8cpWmPR7vUTl1ic7yA8ARQH4lQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dWj (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520841">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520842" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374094336"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@dWj: I'm a bit confused by your question. _Before_ the neutrinos became free-streaming, they were in thermal equilibrium. That's why they have a relic temperature. Once they dropped out of thermal equilibrium (became free-streaming), they maintained the black-body energy distribution characteristic of the temperature at that time. </p> <p>The subsequent cosmic expansion while the neutrinos travelled unimpeded "stretched" (red-shifted) that black-body distribution so that today we would (if we could!) see it as being 1.96 K.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520842&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Bsd7fnNSk3lyWMZI6lZBRe82jZCNpRlHBLVWeowvQ_c"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520842">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520843" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374101751"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It would be great if you can talk about this proposed alternative model to expansion of the universe - a model where redshift occurs due to everything gaining mass over time:<br /> I understand it is just a theoretical model, but very interested in hearing your take on it.</p> <p><a href="http://livasperiklis.com/2013/07/17/httpwp-mep29tmj-4ns/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ResearchBloggingAllEnglish+%28Research+Blogging+-+English+-+All+Topics%29">http://livasperiklis.com/2013/07/17/httpwp-mep29tmj-4ns/?utm_source=fee…</a></p> <p>Thanks for the excellent blogging!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520843&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fElUQZmdefYh7aHvIFXXB4zp2yknCea9G8hv67K0lW4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Inge (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520843">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520844" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374118589"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan,</p> <p>Just a quick question about your size vs. age graph for the universe. I see nothing on that graph indicating inflation. Would that have occurred at a time before that shown on the graph, or were you just ignoring inflation for simplicity? Thanks in advance.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520844&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eNcZSW7gb0b36zd02Gdg4Ipz9yKW1YdMxAuj49BfFC4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520844">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520845" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374118811"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan,</p> <p>Sorry to bother you. I think I've answered my own question. The size at the left end of the graph is roughly 10^-6 light years, which is some 9 billion meters. The time is ~10^-20 years, or roughly 10^-13 seconds. Obviously this would be after inflation had already occurred.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520845&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0YNDkUoZvncHofU3UJau1iO95tKk9QuDxByX773GM7s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520845">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520846" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374124856"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan,</p> <p>If the FURTHER BACK IN TIME we look the FASTER galaxies move away from us, that means that the universe is DECELERATING.</p> <p>Faster in the PAST means slower in the PRESENT and even slower in the FUTURE.</p> <p>If your car was going 60mph 1 minute ago and 30mph 30 seconds ago and 10mph 10 seconds ago, your car is DECELERATING.</p> <p>Was the red shift of type 1a supernovae too much or too little? Too little in the PAST would be ACCELERATION. Too much would be deceleration.</p> <p>Tim</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520846&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Es4GV4U-UbtxoZqs4yFsKyfWf-xOR29rTnRsFq85yu0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Timothy C (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520846">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520847" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374134461"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Timothy C: You are quite correct. However, astronomers cannot measure those two parameters directly. Instead, what is done in practice is to measure the redshift of a type Ia supernova, and convert that to a pseudo-"distance" using a constant expansion rate. </p> <p>Then, because type Ia SNe are "standard candles" (that is, they all have the same intrinsic brightness, or at least a light curve which is tightly correlated with intrinsic brightness), we can use their observed luminosity to compute their "true" distance.</p> <p>Comparing those two distances allows you to plot the cosmological distance scale as a function of redshift (our proxy for time). If the universe were _really_ expanding at a constant rate, the comparison would be a straight light. </p> <p>Acceleration vs. deceleration made specific predictions for the shape of the curve. The type Ia SNe data falls right along the curve computed for a universe which was decelerating up until about 5-ish billion years ago (z &gt; ~0.5), and has been accelerating since then.</p> <p>[ Note to Ethan: please don't cringe too much at my summary! I've engaged in some oversimplification, I'm sure, and have also probably not used all the correct astrophysical jargon. But I'm pretty sure I've got the mechanics right. ]</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520847&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qLtlGyFs64QvCA9AtDnGef-nIzF10lbLQhQfpsbuRU0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520847">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520848" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374136307"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So no WIMPS, no anti-neutrinos, no SUSY, no double beta-decay, etc etc. And yet dark energy had to be invented to account for a very recent speeding up of the expansion. Gee how special we are.</p> <p>I know this is heresey but Occam's Razor says that just maybe the real cause is that we're measuring the red shift incorrectly. There are hundreds if not thousands of anomalies yet it can never be the red shift values. String theory is about to be discarded after 40 years. If happens that sometimes our basic assumptions prove to be wrong.</p> <p>Anytime we have to invent things like multi-verse, dark energy etc to explain observations we should instead look at the theory and ask why?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520848&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qe9N8E3Y1RUiwbJvwW7ktbwveFDZLh9mXLfIrC3PbcE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520848">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520849" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374142014"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Urbanik: "I know this is heresey but Occam’s Razor says that just maybe the real cause is that we’re measuring the red shift incorrectly."</p> <p>That's right, it's heresy. That's why no scientist has thought of this before, or at least mentioned it out loud, much less actually tried to figure out whether the cosmic distance ladder and our red shift measurements could be wrong. They don't want to be excommunicated from science, after all.</p> <p>*gigantic eye-roll visible from space*</p> <p>Guess what? "Our measurements are wrong" is the first thing every (good) scientist thinks of when their data implies something remarkable. They key is they don't just say "Occam's Razor" and call it a day, they actually *check*. Often times, that turns out to be the case. Other times, they check and check and look for error and find none. Eventually, as more data piles up yet no source of error sufficient to make the anomaly go away appears, it becomes more reasonable to take the data as being real. Occam's Razor says to favor the simplest explanation *if and only if the more complicated explanation has no additional explanatory power*. </p> <p>Scientists want to use the simplest explanation, and are constantly trying to figure out ways to explain things with less. Sometimes, however, the universe isn't amenable to that goal and the only way to make sense of things is by going with something more complex.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520849&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QgSjHGOXRmVZLD94UPBvXL8FtQrjMrV4LdU5JIZahSs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520849">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520850" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374143745"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael Kelsey: By the way, what do you think of John declaring "no WIMPs"? Think it might be a little early to say that?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520850&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="B9IGTMugX7VKFLoPMKYohMeVtClReEZQw4UmJYf_ZTE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520850">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520851" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374144848"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So there are "10^90 neutrinos and anti-neutrinos left over from the Big Bang" but they "are completely undetectable to us."</p> <p>Really? Maybe not.</p> <p>Assuming CNB temperature of 2K or so, what is the highest energy CNB neutrinos in their black body spectrum? And are instruments sensitive enough to detect these higher energy neutrinos and antineutrinos? And I assume, that we would know that they are CNB because there would be equal numbers or neutrinos and antineutrinos. Versus, I assume that more contemporary neutrino production would produce many more neutrinos than antineutrinos. But I don't know. Please educate me.</p> <p>Well anyway, then I do a search upon this learning hypotheses and find this paper.<br /> Ultra High Energy Neutrinos: Absorption, Thermal Eects and<br /> Signatures, by Cecilia Lunardini, Eray Sabancilar, Lili Yang, June 2013 <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1808v1.pdf">http://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.1808v1.pdf</a><br /> Which has this interesting sentence, "The observation of absorption eects would indicate a population of sources beyond z 10, and favor top-down mechanisms; it would also be an interesting probe of the physics of the relic neutrino background in the unexplored redshift interval z 10 100. " (last sentence of abstract).</p> <p>Which sounds to me like there is a way to observe CNB at the high end. But I don't know; because aside from that sentence and a few other sentences (which maybe I understand or maybe not); I have no idea what this paper is about. Too complex for me. Anyone care to interpret.</p> <p>Thanks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520851&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BqGkHK8vmVdOqJip14YTLdNxJKE9AEmeiLNAYJNwrrw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520851">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520852" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374146980"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Timothy, incorrect.</p> <p>There's no need for the rate of change of expansion to be linear, constant or any other figure. Therefore it could be higher in the past, slower now and higher in the future with absolutely no problem whatsoever.</p> <p>You've made this exact same error before.</p> <p>I wonder if you're ever going to engage brain?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520852&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1AaeiPmm2ggXeDxchC2ljwLgD-xv-mjVrrRv7CGIkE0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520852">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520853" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374149119"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@OKThen: You're confusing two different (and absurdly confusingly named) "cosmic neutrino backgrounds." The subject of Ethan's post are the so-called "relic neutrinos", those which participated in interactions above the electroweak freeze-out, and which became free-streaming when the Universe was about two seconds old (vs. 380,000 years for the relic photons of the CMB).</p> <p>What you are talking about is the also expected background of _high-energy_ neutrinos which originate in cataclysmic events (supernovae, gamma-ray bursts, compact-object mergers, etc.). These neutrinos originate from a combination of high-energy nuclear reactions and particle acceleration regions (e.g., pi+ production and acceleration in shocks, followed by pi+ and mu+ decays producing neutrinos).</p> <p>Such high-energy neutrinos are free-streaming from their point of origin, but would arise from innumerable "point sources" found at all redshifts since the earliest star formations.</p> <p>If you want to calculate what fraction of the relic neutrinos are high energy, you can approximate it fairly easily. </p> <p>1) The peak of the black-body spectrum for 2 K corresponds to 172 ueV (micro-electron volts). </p> <p>2) A neutrino detector like IceCube is sensitive to GeV and higher neutrinos; lets be super generous and use 172 MeV for convenience.</p> <p>3) The high end of the black body spectrum is very roughly exponential: the intensity is exp(-E/Epeak).</p> <p>So you want to calculate exp(-10^12). I think you'll discover that no calculator you own will give you a non-zero value.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520853&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tKDndVP45MArsQBZ4baaNin_zC5U2j-_vQYxDDpxVa4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520853">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520854" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374168530"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And I wonder if you are ever going to be nice to others WOW. </p> <p>I believe Ethan is writing his blog to share his knowledge and wondering about our universe with the general public. How do you for example know you are not abusing an 11 year old little child sometimes, which gets excited about its opinion? I'm a scientist, and I have children who are excited about science, and I am worried about internet trolls like you. Please be nicer to others.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520854&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YPNZiaHpt49eM5gbOTjlEGW6IQ8kgELWwbQYXWoSD4k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Cosmophilosopha (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520854">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520855" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374188803"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I get the impression that neutrinos aren't as well-understood as people suggest. They're classed as fermions, but on brute properties a neutrino is actually more like a photon than an electron. Maybe Michael can correct me on this:</p> <p>Michael, has anybody ever detected a neutrino travelling at anything other than c, or so close to c that we can't tell the difference? Also, if we started with a fast-moving electron, would the expansion of the universe slow it down? And if so, where did the energy go?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520855&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sqz_lm1wh1uynSvlJOiOw_NGqrjMgcMNZjMcJpo7WNw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520855">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520856" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374189518"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Let me clarify something about neutrino oscillations:</p> <p>The particle called the neutrino,<br /> which flavour is it? How do we know?<br /> Electron- or tau-?<br /> A muon-, but how?<br /> A paradox worthy of Zeno!</p> <p>@Cosmophilosopha: I'll second that.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520856&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="r6aFRmjtF7iUTT2j9ude2ZbJIAv9yGaRPaWT6H7l4aY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Ray Hinde (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520856">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520857" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374199421"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael Kelsey,<br /> Thank you for that clarification. By the way, your explanations out here are always clear and appreciated, even if I don't comment.</p> <p>John Duffield<br /> Well, if, and I suppose they do, neutrinos oscillate between different types (which have different masses); then by E = mc^2 + pv^4 and all that the neutrinos' speeds must vary as they oscillate. Or so it would seem to me. I've read somewhere something like that. And also, since we've detected neutrinos at various energies, well their momentum p and hence their velocities must be changing. </p> <p>So I guess it depends on what we mean by near the speed of light, i.e. 0.99c versus 0.97c or such.</p> <p>I defer to the experts.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520857&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gyeSa19Pll9lUV5yPVwPV2WMJx_sLw9Q9mc9tV5dfFQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520857">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520858" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374204888"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Duffield,</p> <p>I am no expert in particle physics by any means, just an interested amateur. However my understanding is that to state that a neutrino is more similar to a photon than an electron is just completely off base. A neutrino has an intrinsic angular momentum (spin in partilce physics shorthand) of 1/2. A photon has a spin of 1 (both in units of h-bar). This may not seem like a big thing, but in particle physics it means everything. Integral spin particles (known as bosons) behave in a manner that's completely different than half-integral spin ones (fermions). That distinction alone is enough to demonstrate that neutrinos and photons are nothing alike.</p> <p>In general terms, the photon is a neutral, spin 1 boson with zero rest mass. If there's such a thing as a neutral spin 1/2 fermion with zero rest mass, that would be a completely different animal, even though both would necessarily travel at speed c.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520858&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="x7V8vQBLU6T_J7htQsWQCDnOczNdTfTvi2Wb7NaDIIQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 18 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520858">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520859" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374206416"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ John<br /> "Michael, has anybody ever detected a neutrino travelling at anything other than c, or so close to c that we can’t tell the difference?"</p> <p>of course.. CERN and others. We can detect neutrinos nowdays pretty well. We just need them to have high energies. All neutrinos detected so far have v=c.. or 99.999something... c.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520859&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7TqQzGPExKsT5sijET7_3r36IMcvZ-Srb7Rnj0fPpgA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520859">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520860" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374206569"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s. at least in theory (since we now know they have mass), they can't have exactly the speed of photon, but since it's mass is tiny it's almost "c".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520860&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nl6U79Xg_5pioeo1p3Ik0g4xZe9SIA5WIWdDJMXzwqs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520860">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520861" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374211970"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>By the way, Neutrino flavor flip confirmed</p> <p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23366318">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23366318</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520861&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U6YWt8oemd6zQ5U0QAgDQxAtOCvF1auH6VxVu7PiBIw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520861">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520862" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374216329"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CB I always thought Halton Arp was a scientist. And my comment about no WIMP's is accurate. Now maybe in the future we might discover WIMP's but right now the LHC has not.</p> <p>But thanks for proving my point about heresy and open minds. I've been reading a lot from string theory guys trying very hard to question those that challenge them. Not to mention that Ptolemy proved over and over again that his math was correct.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520862&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="103iSLEDC5b48JdSUo5HgYyfzEpOwIAAPCdpeSVjUlg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520862">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520863" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374218392"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Urbanik: "And my comment about no WIMP’s is accurate. Now maybe in the future we might discover WIMP’s but right now the LHC has not."</p> <p>Yes, now that you've clarified that you meant no WIMPs detected yet, though we're far from excluding them. I thought you meant 'no WIMPs' as in they do not exist, a premature statement. You seem to take it as given that everything else like Dark Energy doesn't exist. Pardon my erroneous extrapolation.</p> <p>"But thanks for proving my point about heresy and open minds. "</p> <p>How did I prove your point? By mocking your statement that questioning the accuracy of red shift measurements was "heresy"? </p> <p>Are you actually claiming that it is really a fact that nobody has actually investigated this question? Then you're wrong, and haven't even checked (that thing scientists do), and are just assuming for the sake of your pre-conceived narrative where you are Galileo and science is the Catholic Church (or whatever your particular bugaboo is; it doesn't matter).</p> <p>Or you know that in fact many investigations of the accuracy of red shift and other distance measurements have been made, and the error quantified, in which case you knew your statement was nonsense from the get-go and yet still maintained it for the sake of your narrative, which would now be closer to just trolling.</p> <p>There is no scenario in which the statement that questioning red shift measurements is heresy is accurate, and doesn't deserved to be mocked.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520863&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BHR1X9on8_mLq-68FWsqj4BFKwkie_0UOljy1s6gYcY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520863">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520864" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374221358"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ray Hinde: Nice poem! To answer the (rhetorical?) question -- the only way we can identify a neutrino's flavor is to see it interact destructively. </p> <p>Specifically, when a neutrino has a "charge exchange" reaction, usually with a nucleus, it turns into a charged lepton, and changes either a neutron or proton in that nucleus into its counterpart. The simplest such reactions would be, for example, nu(e) + n -&gt; e- + p, or with an anti-neutrino, nu(e)bar + p -&gt; e+ + n.</p> <p>Lepton flavor is (as far as we have been able to measure) a conserved quantum number. So when your big underground neutrino detector sees an electron track, then you know it was a nu(e) coming in. When you see a muon, then you know it was a nu(mu). And so on.</p> <p>Similarly, neutrinos are produced in conjuction with their charged partner; for example, pi+ decays to mu+ and nu(mu) [and pi- to mu- anti-nu(mu)]. So in the beamline at CERN, we know we're getting a muon neutrino beam because we make pions which decay in the transfer line. But by the time those neutrinos get to OPERA (700-ish km away), a whole bunch of them have turned into nu(e)!</p> <p>Of course, I just said that lepton flavor is conserved, so how can the neutrinos change flavor. That's the cool "beyond the Standard Model" physics which we don't yet understand. Keep an eye on arXiv, and maybe someone will figure it out.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520864&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="L3uN6TD7DYieiPnQfOzwsTINoFC-d3IVCpEnV7vlJtk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520864">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520865" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374221737"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@John Duffield: You can do the arithmetic quite easily. The upper limit on the mass of any neutrino is currently 0.23 eV. The best neutrino detectors we have can get down to, maybe, a few hundred MeV energy for interactions. </p> <p>Velocity (beta) is given by p/E, where p^2 = E^2 - m^2. You'll get c for the special case of m=0 (p=E). But you can work out how many nines are involved with neutrinos.</p> <p>Now consider that the (corrected) OPERA velocity measurement was good to a few percent. I think you can answer your own question.</p> <p>As for identifying neutrinos with photons, Sean T addressed that quite clearly and simply. Neutrinos are fermions, photons are bosons. They have different quantum statistics, and obey different Hamiltonians. Thinking they are the same reveals a fairly fundamental lack of understanding of basic quantum mechanics.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520865&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oq6VrMGAxYwbEUPBUXLwxALEw0M7reQqGsxTx-iXgXI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520865">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520866" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374224718"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CB no my issue is that physics today is starting to move away from real science and open discussion. Haltom Arp for decades tried to get telescope time and was denied. His findings about quasars and annomolies were dismissed without any real discussion.</p> <p>But like the future potential of WIMP's I think we will change our view on velocity and redshift. When we have to 'invent' dark energy so the theories can fit the observations that begs for a future rebuttal. Else why has dark energy so recently become such a dominant force?</p> <p>Science has been about dolalrs and funding for sometime now. For a couple of decades the standard model Higgs was pushed to the backroom. There was just no way that the standard model version of the Higgs could really be the answer. In the mid-2000's many bets were placed and now we find that the SM version prevails.</p> <p>As for what is science that is another huge debate that is going on. See Peter Woit and Sean Carroll and how they differ. The whole concept of the multiverse has sparked debate on if this is science or not.</p> <p>In fact here is how Linde recently defended the multiverse: "The multiverse is the only known explanation so in a sense it has already been tested." </p> <p>It also seems that you took great offense to my use of the term "heresy". I picked that word because Hilton Ratcliffe used in in the title of his book "The Virtue of Heresy - Confessions of a Dissident Astronemer". The word was also used in a number of comments about the work Fulton and Arp has done.</p> <p>I'm not saying red shift as calculated today is wrong. I am saying that because physicists had to invent dark energy I have major doubts that it is correct. BTW earlier you said no scientist would ever question redshift. What about Burbridge, Hoyle, Narlikar and Sulentic to name a few more?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520866&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zPMjmhZFdubwM_DVOVAwhPoJoALpevk9IMCaKIjCkHk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520866">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520867" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374225322"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sorry for the double post but I forgot to include a link that defines the issues, including the one that you say isn't going on (scientists not actually trying to resolve issues). The link is:</p> <p><a href="http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papers0001.htm">http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/papers0001.htm</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520867&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Y8hFPrctccTCO_b6TM1w1_178cfioD9PAUo19LoIpis"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520867">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520868" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374227419"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><b>But there is one interesting thing we’ve learned about these neutrinos. You see, we’ve known for a long time that neutrinos are all left-handed, which is to say that their spin always opposes their momentum, or that they’re spin -½.</b></p> <p>But doesn't that mean its spin is frame dependent? For example if you had a motionless neutrino what would its spin be? Two observers in different frames would see its spin differently.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520868&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KXQ6qbbC2vefg5hxYxSmwicIgBgta_7V0cXeLJeepCo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ppnl (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520868">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520869" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374227439"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Urbanik<br /> "that because physicists had to invent dark energy I have major doubts that it is correct"</p> <p>I'm skeptical about dark energy but not because physicists invented it. They've hypothesized (invented) a lot of things. But then to their credit; they test those hypotheses with incredibly difficult experiments and observations. So many many kudoos to working physicists of the world.</p> <p>Oh and my the way physicists are extremely harsh about their own hypotheses. I mean probably 99 out of 100 working hypotheses get reviewed and skewered. But the hypothesis that survive this brutal scientific process; well, even if you are a skeptic you've got to be amazed and admire a hypothesis like for example dark energy.</p> <p>I mean, it has survived as the best or leading hypothesis to data. Dark energy, dark matter these things are incredibly strong hypotheses. And even if you don't like them, which I don't personally, I have to admit that there is nothing better out there.</p> <p>Now as a skeptic, I of course, have to have a learning hypotheses as to why I disagree. But.... since I am not a crackpot; I don't blatter on about my personal idea here.</p> <p>I might ask an important idea that my hypothesis needs (i.e that could break my hypothesis) or that could inform my hypothesis. But I do realize that to be skeptical means being skeptical of a big picture explanation, narrative and ultimately hypothesis or theory; NOT being skeptical of experiment or observation. </p> <p>So when Michael Kelsey above says, "lepton flavor is conserved, so how can the neutrinos change flavor. That’s the cool “beyond the Standard Model” physics which we don’t yet understand." That is appropriate and necessary scientific skepticism. And that's the kind of skepticism we need and by the way working scientists probably more of this kind of appropriate scientific skepticism than you or I. And their skepticism is the skepticism that we need to emulate.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520869&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gOguVVWfWES65ErDQMf9MM8bkdxoUi99UzY69nZeW28"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520869">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520870" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374229186"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>OKThen, thank you for the reply. But I want to correct a misconception here. It is not my theory about dark matter. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I'm not smart enough to have a theory. Want I do however is read what others write.</p> <p>I am going to borrow a response that Hilton Ratcliffe sent to Cliff Saunders on the subject of Dark Energy:</p> <p>"The Big Bang Model, and its forebear, General Relativity, require some tuneable factors in the equation to work properly in the mathematical sense, and included in these are both Dark Mtter and Dark Energy (which actually work against each other by attracting and repulsing respectively). The theory is so weak in fact, that these dark things would comprise over 96% of the model, and the stuff we observe, experiment with, and analyse in detail less than 4%. The model urgently needs observational support, and desperation sires rose-tinted spectacles. So the rotational anomaly in galaxies filled the need. By adding arbitrary, adjustable quantities of Dark Matter (a supernatural substance), and by awarding Dark Matter just the properties in needs for the job, they get galaxies to work in terms of their model, and consequently imply that their model has received observational support. It’s tragically funny."</p> <p>The link I provided earlier is to one of his scientific papers that was submitted. So while it is easy to dismiss a person such as myself I wonder why the scientific community ignores the work of these other scientists?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520870&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qMIrKTfVIeYopkW24BtH24Vk0LoN80Ce7r9M9ax8ZuE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520870">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520871" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374231126"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>ppnl,</p> <p>Quantum mechanics is counterintuitive. One thing you've forgotten is the uncertainty principle. How would you know where to look for your hypothetical "stationary neutrino"? If you know that the neutrino is stationary, you have zero uncertainty in its momentum. Therefore, you must have infinite uncertainty in its position. </p> <p>In reality, you will never have infinite position uncertainty, so you will therefore have non-zero uncertainty in momentum. For objects with large rest energies (ie mass), this doesn't really manifest itself in any significant way. Eg. we can observe a "stationary" automobile. For quantum particles, however, we usually cannot observe such a stationary particle if we are localizing its position in some way, which is absolutely something we MUST do to interact with it and make a measurement of it. </p> <p>Short answer: you can't observe the spin of a stationary neutrino because you can't really observe a stationary neutrino.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520871&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1ubGjuqdAOT87B_B8KVQShFlKAKlxDTLqb5CS1rn948"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520871">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520872" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374234681"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"is starting to move away from real science and open discussion."</p> <p>Define "real science" and "open discussion".</p> <p>Go on, dollars to donuts, your definition will be self-serving.</p> <p>"Haltom Arp for decades tried to get telescope time and was denied."</p> <p>Something I know about and it CANNOT have gotten better: the time available on telescopes is harder to get than a virgin in a Blackpool summer camp.</p> <p>"The whole concept of the multiverse has sparked debate on if this is science or not."</p> <p>I thought you were complaining that science is starting to move away from "open discussion"...?</p> <p>"It also seems that you took great offense to my use of the term “heresy”."</p> <p>It seems that you've taken great offense at people having taken offense at it. Doesn't matter where you claim to have pulled it from, it is entirely inapplicable here.</p> <p>Keep ridiculous bombast for conversations where such bombast is going to be acceptable to you too, kid.</p> <p>" I am saying that because physicists had to invent dark energy I have major doubts that it is correct."</p> <p>And you had to invent whatever blather you're on about.</p> <p>I guess that means everyone can have major doubts it is correct. Right?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520872&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="IBQZkNyMhKCjoR1mydW8fzE7w37BXLl7v-aPUtWnW5w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520872">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520873" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374237054"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow no wonder you have WOW because your condescendence is overwhelming.</p> <p>It seems you are the expert (at least in your own mind) so why not do me the favor and define science for the rest of us? Or maybe your definition will just be as self-serving as everyone else’s. </p> <p>And I thank you for letting me know that scope time is hard to come by. Gee, no one would ever have known that. But that red herring does not refute why they were denied scope time. I guess its just better just stick to ad hominem attacks then address the issue.</p> <p>I'm sure Copernicus and Galileo also had issues with heresy. It is 100% applicable. Dogma is still dogma no matter how much lipstick is slapped on it.</p> <p>But let me ask one question. Did you even bother to read the book by Ratcliffe or the link I sent? Naw it's just much easier to bash me.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520873&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="E4RtehKAgZYGWYpn1WejpdpuaEVPhXd4x_BZQVZgq1I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520873">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520874" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374237305"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>:John Urbanik: "BTW earlier you said no scientist would ever question redshift. What about Burbridge, Hoyle, Narlikar and Sulentic to name a few more?"</p> <p>*concussion-inducing face-palm*</p> <p>You said questioning redshift was "heresy". I mocked that by sarcastically saying that of course it was and that's why no scientists has ever questioned it because they didn't want to be excommunicated. Then, in anticipation of a severe deficiency in the sarcasm centers, I explicitly stated that this was of course nonsense and in reality many scientists are investigating the question of whether our red shift measurements are wrong.</p> <p>But hey, you may not have understood the sarcasm, you may not have even understood the plain statement of fact, but at *least* you understand that your own point was wrong and it's not heretical in the least.</p> <p>Even if some people find it fun to self-assign that label. </p> <p>"I'm not saying red shift as calculated today is wrong."</p> <p>That's good, because while they may be wrong so far as we can tell they are not -- not sufficiently to make the issues go away, anyway.</p> <p>"I am saying that because physicists had to invent dark energy I have major doubts that it is correct. "</p> <p>Yes well physicists also had to invent the atom, the nucleus, and a bizarre non-classical, probabilistic view of the universe to explain the data in their experiments. That's how it works. Then you come back and say "Well they also invented the Aether" and I say yes, they invented that, and kept it until experiment showed it to be wrong. The point is scientists inventing something that you think is weird "just" to explain the data isn't an argument for or against it. The argument is what data do we have, and how do we support it or refute it.</p> <p>And Dark Energy has more than just redshift measurements to support it. The CMB also shows evidence of Dark Energy, and in very close to the same proportion as our other data. If Dark Energy was just an invention made necessary because our red shift data was wrong, then how does that same invention also work so well on a completely different observation? Is Planck's measurement data also wrong, and in a way that it makes it appear as though all our data and our model were actually correct?</p> <p>It's the same with Dark Matter, only here there's even more separate observations that all suggest -- if you assume General Relativity is correct -- that there's another kind of matter out there, and they all agree on the basic properties and the quantity that must be there.</p> <p>It's a shame Ratcliffe and I presume you don't see any value whatsoever in a model having multiple different tests from observations of vastly different nature and scales that all agree. You can claim that inventing something to match one observation is just a fudge, but when that same invention also matches a completely different *kind* of observation, and then again, and again, that actually starts to be hard to argue that it doesn't mean anything. If our models are wrong, they are wrong in a way such that Dark Matter + Dark Energy exactly fills in the wrongness in many dimensions at once. So if you want to fix the model, you end up having to work very hard to get something that will very likely still end up looking like Dark Matter and Dark Energy.</p> <p>People are still trying, of course. It's not heretical.</p> <p>And of course the matter is still far from settled. Dark Matter won't be settled until we actually discover what it is. And who knows if/when Dark Energy will ever be resolved -- if it comes down to errors in the data I'll be shocked, though I can't rule it out.</p> <p>So go ahead and doubt if DE is the best answer. Nobody can say you're wrong. Just don't go saying that GR+DM+DE isn't our current best model, or that there's no observational support, or that it's just an invention to make *one* set of data work. Because that would be flat wrong.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520874&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uRt0gJwNMC7FSSxbyfM5SLm0sxewH-2uwRtcjf_-E_s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520874">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520875" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374246645"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CB thank you for your response. I appreciated it. I am very curious and read all I can. It's when I read papers and books published by those that question redshift (for simplicity as they actually question much more) but are basically ignored instead of refuted I begin to wonder why.</p> <p>Then with the most current results from the LHC putting major doubt on finding SUSY, WIMP's extra-dimensions etc and saying B-sub-s is as predicted by the SM I come to the conclusion that much of the last 20-30 years in physics just might have followed the wrong path (aka ST). I know that is a huge gross oversimplification but hopefully you get my drift.</p> <p>I would think the science world would be happy that amatures like myself show interest in science. I ask these question on forums like this because I sure can't on Yahoo.</p> <p>As for now I'll stop and not derail the conversation anymore. Once again thank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520875&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4oUok_J7BFsC_wwbUm1ZRTjUMlL6JH5_ZuyVl_qsQxk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520875">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520876" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374249033"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Urbanik</p> <p>"I’m not smart enough to have a theory... I am going to borrow a response that Hilton Ratcliffe sent to Cliff Saunders on the subject of Dark Energy... I wonder why the scientific community ignores the work of these other scientists?"</p> <p>1) Yes, you and every one else is smart enough to have a learning hypothesis; IF you want to learn.<br /> 2) Quoting someone else's theories only makes sense (in my opinion) if it supports YOUR learning hypothesis and gives you a science insight or science question.<br /> 3) "why the scientific community ignores the work of these other scientists?" that's not a physics question. The question is why is this work of science interesting or convincing to you and WHAT do you want to understand better. e.g. see my question #13, and see answer #15 Michael Kelsey of SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.<br /> 4) That's amazing, Michael is out here spending time answering our questions; helping us learn.</p> <p>But if I have a longer question (an off topic question) like read this paper and tell me why you what's wrong with it scientifically. I probably will not get a scientist to spend the time to answer my question. </p> <p>Because it takes a lot of time e.g. <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-you-are-responsible-for-what-you-say/#comment-65174">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…</a> But I've gotten off topic. </p> <p>Out here, take advantage of Ethan's blog hospitality and learn. Read and question to understand. And you will learn and people out here will try to give you answers.</p> <p>I really like Fred I. Cooperstocks ideas. He's an emeritus physics professor and written and excellent book. But his ideas have not been accepted. I'm easy to convince. But he has to convince professional physicists and astrophysicists. Out here, I have raised my questions appropriately about his ideas and have been answered to the level that I can understand. Until I can understand general relativity a lot deeper (I'm studying learning) I can't ask another question about his work. He has to argue with the professionals and defend his ideas.</p> <p>Personally, I am as excited about learning how, where and why I am wrong and learning; as I am about learning that I am correct. e.g. Well yes oops, then that is a very big problem; that pretty much torpedoes my idea unless I can get around it somehow. Damn; but I learned!!</p> <p>Read Ethan's post and the comments <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/?s=theories+wrong">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/?s=theories+wrong</a><br /> Even most of scientists theories are wrong. But they are part of the discussion. We all learn by and from discussion. Discussing is every important even when we are wrong. Maybe especially when we are wrong; because if we are really able to listen and understand why our best ideas are wrong; well then we are really open to learning.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520876&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RACDQHLGXE4_WcZSu3f1wEgh5F-AFaa5cvfhtiaet1o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520876">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520877" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374255869"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sean T.</p> <p><b>If you know that the neutrino is stationary, you have zero uncertainty in its momentum. Therefore, you must have infinite uncertainty in its position. </b></p> <p>Well yes fair enough. But imagine two observers traveling toward each other at high velocity. Now imagine a neutrino between them. Wouldn't they each see the neutrino traveling in a different direction and so see it with a different spin? If the observers are traveling fast enough then uncertainty should not come into it and spin becomes frame dependent.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520877&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="08DI9DZj4jWBAENEg8zEBCcADC9EBvmt2bnYOG77TpY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ppnl (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520877">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520878" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374264803"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ppnl: The topic you want to look up is "helicity supression." There is not a proper Wikipedia page about it (darn those grad students, just can't get off their duffs....), but there is a discussion of it as part of the pion ("pi meson") page.</p> <p>Basically, what you are saying is correct, for the case of a _massive_ spin-1/2 particle. For example, in the decay pi+ -&gt; e+ nu, the electron and neutrino must come out with opposite spin (the pion is spin 0). Since they come out back to back, that means they have to have equal helicity. That's "impossible" in a weak decay, which always produces left-handed particles (and right-handed antiparticles). So the pi-e-nu channel is forbidden.</p> <p>But wait! The electron has mass, so you can boost the decay into a frame where the electron's momentum is reversed, but the spin (a Lorentz scalar) is not. In that frame, the electron has the correct helicity. So the pi-e-nu channel, rather than being absolutely forbidden, is just very highly suppressed (by the fifth power of the ratio of electron to muon masses).</p> <p>Helicity suppression is also part of the reason the neutron lifetime is so long (the other part being the very small n-p mass difference). There is no other channel for the decay, so the suppression basically just reduces the decay rate.</p> <p>This argument doesn't apply (or didn't :-) to neutrinos, since they are (were believed to be) massless. Massless particles always travel at 'c', in every frame, and you can never boost to a frame where they reverse direction. So the whole helicity suppression issue applies only to the massive (charged) lepton in the weak decay.</p> <p>With our modern understanding that neutrinos do have some mass, the possibility to flip helicity does exist in principle, and should require some additional terms in calculating the rate for helicity-suppressed decays. </p> <p>However, with the neutrino mass &lt; 0.23 eV (compared to 0.511 MeV for electrons), that effect is going to be immeasurably small (10^6 to the fifth power) for a very long time.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520878&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DdwzEJknfAL13mlAxwfNF8jmcMMW1M4gbnJcApqstFQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520878">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520879" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374276646"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"3) “why the scientific community ignores the work of these other scientists?” that’s not a physics question."</p> <p>It's not even coherent.</p> <p>The only way that statement can be true is if "ignoring" requires anything other than "accepting".</p> <p>Theories other people come up with ARE discussed. That isn't "ignoring".</p> <p>But, like the theory of a flat earth, it is discarded after discussion as being wrong.</p> <p>That isn't ignoring either. Unless you drop ideas, you will NEVER progress. Demanding old and oft-debunked ideas be continued to be discussed is only a way to halt science.</p> <p>If someone comes up with a new theory about how to counter the evidence against, it is discussed AGAIN.</p> <p>This is not ignoring.</p> <p>And if the evidence disagrees, the idea will be discarded.</p> <p>That isn't ignoring either.</p> <p>Moreover, there are a million theories out there. If your requirement is that you should know a large group of prominent people be discussing it all the time, then you're being idiotic: this would require billions of scientists, all prominent enough to be noticed by people interested, but not into, science.</p> <p>We have some scores of thousands, maybe, but any one person would know of only a few score of those.</p> <p>So not being discussed by those you know of IS NOT ignoring it. It's you ignoring the discussion that IS going on, and being too lazy to find out where the continuing discussion is going on.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520879&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="H2k9HxJylEoEppwKpgUynV6KuSNTxevj8tuZscwDKUg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520879">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520880" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374277215"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"@Wow no wonder you have WOW because your condescendence is overwhelming."</p> <p>Only when my *condescension* [note CORRECT spelling] is to someone who is actually a light year below me, kid.</p> <p>Then it would be entirely correct and appropriate to be condescending, right? Looking down on someone who IS beneath you IS the right way to look at someone who is beneath you. Otherwise you're staring over their heads and you'd whine about you being ignored, then, won't you.</p> <p>And since it IS condescension, in what way does that invalidate the argument? You fail to do that, making it a pointless statement. You at least avoid making it an ad-hom by not making any conclusion from it in the unrelated argument, but that just makes it even MORE pointless to point it out.</p> <p>If I point out that you CANNOT SPELL, as I did in the opening here, then all I've done is insult you.</p> <p>Just like you did.</p> <p>The difference being, I don't think that insulting someone is wrong and deserves censure if it isn't gratuitous, and only if it is also CORRECT.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520880&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="b-F39zHZp81cK3_ZkOhZVNQ7aF54wLkHlk6Go7MrQ_Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520880">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520881" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374277395"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>" so why not do me the favor and define science for the rest of us"</p> <p>So you can't define science, then? You admit it?</p> <p>I also noted the WHOOSH of goal-posts being moved.</p> <p>***YOU*** claimed "real science", I asked that you define "real science". And ***NOW*** you go on about "science". No "real" qualifier, which only means that you acknowledge that your "real science" was solely to make out that you're the only "real scientist" and everyone who obeys the consensus are not "real scientists" and aren't doing it right.</p> <p>Except you can't define what "real science" is and will refuse to do so</p> <p>Emphatically.</p> <p>Indicating that you were not engaging in requiring to know or impart information, only in willy-waving and denigrating people who do this for real because you just don't like what they do.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520881&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ggypZ_qYPrgfXV9RZvXtxU6FJ6dZ4RNMlt_riJQNBeM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520881">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520882" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374277701"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I’m sure Copernicus and Galileo also had issues with heresy."</p> <p>No from science, moron.</p> <p>Heresy is the claim that a super-powerful creator of the universe is wrong.</p> <p>NOBODY thinks any scientist is the creator of the universe, never mind super-powerful. Not even Tony Stark.</p> <p>Therefore someone may dislike or even hate someone who disagrees with them or another person, but it never becomes heresy to do so.</p> <p>The claim of "heresy" is only brought up by those butt-hurt by their crackpot theories they prefer not being accepted, or to appeal to those who want those smart people in the world brought down a peg or two (god forbid they actually improve themselves rather than bring others down: that would be saying that they didn't deserve better or that they have to work to do better, UNPOSSIBLE!!!).</p> <p>Go look up the definition of heresy.</p> <p>Telling another scientist he's flat out wrong is not heresy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520882&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="aoq_FBNIFCoVYeO-dDbCNV33cMOKjti-K13PJAzohCI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520882">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520883" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374279193"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@OKthen: I agree that if neutrino mass really is non-zero, and if it really does vary, the speed really must vary too. A photon moving at c has no mass, but when you trap it in a mirror-box it adds mass to that system. It’s still moving at c, but in aggregate its speed is zero. Check out photon effective mass, and you will appreciate that there’s a sliding scale between the two extremes. You don’t have to be an expert to understand this aspect of relativity.</p> <p>@SeanT: A photon has no charge, a neutrino has no charge, an electron does. A photon has no mass, a neutrino has hardly any mass, an electron does. A photon travels at c, and neutrino travels at about c, an electron doesn’t. Yes the spin is different, photons and neutrons are different. But really, it isn’t off base to assert that the neutrino is more like the photon than it’s like the electron. Do you have a washing line? Sight your eye down it, and twang it. The transverse wave you see is an analogy for a photon. Now grip the line and twist it, then let go. The rotational wave you see is an analogy for a neutrino. </p> <p>@Michael: if you can’t slow down a neutrino, it really can’t be very similar to an electron at all. In this respect, it’s definitely more like a photon. Like SeanT said, it’s not the same as a photon, but it’s even less like an electron. With respect, I would urge you to consider this with respect to the “beyond the Standard Model” physics which you don’t yet understand. Also look at TQFT and the standing-wave nature of the electron, and gamma-gamma pair production. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics</a> which claims that pair production occurs because pair production occurs? That’s wrong. By the way, do you know of any experiments featuring neutrinos and electrons where positrons have showed up?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520883&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8azuZe0anw_8nkyxAXjLBghMwynFH-jMi1oZ5TYljWg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520883">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520884" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374283462"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That trapped photon is only going nowhere, it's speed isn't zero, it's still moving like billy-o, but just back and forth.</p> <p>A 400m runner hasn't run at zero speed because he ended back where he started.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520884&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JjPMZq5knva8fqzTQIB5XHf8Lq86o2Cme3LKEDb6taQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520884">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520885" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374283596"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"@SeanT: A photon has no charge, a neutrino has no charge, an electron does."</p> <p>A neutron doesn't. So what is your "point" supposed to prove? We already knew these were different things, but some had characteristics similar to one another.</p> <p>And an electron can travel as fast as a neutrino, it just needs a hell of a lot more energy to get there.</p> <p>"But really, it isn’t off base to assert that the neutrino is more like the photon than it’s like the electron"</p> <p>Yes.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520885&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1QSjAAy8qi8aqF4tKxJHfDkbKJ8wVe49K2mI49rj338"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520885">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520886" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374283661"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"@Michael: if you can’t slow down a neutrino"</p> <p>You can.</p> <p>It takes thousands of light years of solid lead to manage it, so the "cannot" is a technical issue only.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520886&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WNDUPe_BbiowIbBLx__dmQn37QLCDoJM_ngj8c4qbKg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520886">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520887" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374283685"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As you say : "...because the speed of light is finite, you’re actually looking at it in the distant past. Since all the galaxies are expanding away from one another, and galaxies that are farther away are expanding away at a faster rate,...."</p> <p>Distance is irrelevant, because we are not in the same time frame. Time is key. So the right conclusion should be: How farter back in time, how faster the galaxies are expanding. And that is a huge difference in concept.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520887&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="t--51uV9C-LmIK5bhRL6H15CMfu-I254msEs3w8vQp8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">j0h (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520887">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520888" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374284240"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>#41Wow<br /> Well said</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520888&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jy9GfYBsv5k6xVbIEUtS3VQJHJRdVBEotNidv04A-No"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 19 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520888">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520889" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374301753"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael Kelsey,</p> <p>Ok, as I poorly understand it helicity suppression works exactly because you can boost to a frame where the electron appears to be traveling in the opposite direction.</p> <p>But if we take this statement at face value"</p> <p><b>" You see, we’ve known for a long time that neutrinos are all left-handed, which is to say that their spin always opposes their momentum, or that they’re spin -½."</b></p> <p>Then helicity suppression cannot work on neutrinos because they will always be seen as spin -1/2 particles in any reference frame. They cannot be +1/2 particles because that would be the antiparticle.</p> <p>This seems to be briefly mentioned in the wiki article on neutrinos:</p> <p><b>"This change in spin would require the neutrino and antineutrino to have nonzero mass, and therefore travel slower than light, because such a spin flip, caused only by a change in point of view, can take place only if inertial frames of reference exist that move faster than the particle: such a particle has a spin of one orientation when seen from a frame which moves slower than the particle, but the opposite spin when observed from a frame that moves faster than the particle."</b></p> <p>So in effect the neutrino is a particle or an antiparticle depending on what frame of reference it is viewed from. In this case helicity suppression works but... I don't know. This would seem to violate the symmetry between matter and antimatter. Well that symmetry is known to be broken so maybe that's ok.</p> <p>Dark sector physics could get weird.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520889&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kdTWSZicE7QGsVP1_PAxoJ_OF0zNjvg1YJRo3ZXXfnA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ppnl (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520889">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520890" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374307163"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@WOW wrote "No from science, moron."</p> <p>Since he was so quick to basically say I'm stupid because of spelling issues then does this mean he now fits his own definition?</p> <p>"So you can’t define science, then? You admit it?"</p> <p>And a tad more reading comprehension would reviel that my definition would be no more correct then yours.</p> <p>But since you keep asking I would define real science as a system that uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. And the scientific investigations need to use the scientific method. </p> <p>"Heresy is the claim that a super-powerful creator of the universe is wrong."</p> <p>Heresy is actually defined as "1.opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine". The definition is then further expanded to religious institutions. Of course other dictionaries have a different order in their definition.</p> <p>I'll let you have the last word as I'm off to friendlier forums. But if you ever wonder why your funding may get cut then maybe ask yourself if you've done all you could to be nice to the interested taxpayers.</p> <p>Finally, I laughed at this line "A 400m runner hasn’t run at zero speed because he ended back where he started."</p> <p>See what proof is there that the runner actually moved? Maybe the runner was stationary. There is no observation to prove the runner was in motion and both theories are valid till observation can prove the runner had motion but was held in place.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520890&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Vnx4yMtyEE18ztnrMMHDvnZC-sJQEVI1fE_yigsiMYo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520890">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520891" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374311997"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Since he was so quick to basically say I’m stupid because of spelling issues then does this mean he now fits his own definition?"</p> <p>Since you're so quick to jump at that, the colloquialism of "no" is often used in the UK in place of not.</p> <p>No if you're listen' tae 't rubbish comes from y' mouth, laddie.</p> <p>Moron.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520891&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LygRSLWC227sYGh7gow3Z8JnXxC5_lJooPjFL81_7FI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520891">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520892" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374312021"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"And a tad more reading comprehension would reviel that my definition would be no more correct then yours."</p> <p>YOU NEVER GAVE ONE YOU MORONIC BUFFOON!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520892&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EHI0vLW7k6M6ch4sWocFQL1ZmerJPxrUicW29-3IrhU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520892">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520893" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374312067"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Translation: "Since I'm a moron and you're not going to let me get away with it, I'll pretend I'm leaving so I don't have to respond or defend my bullshit"</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520893&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HueUsezU-UpA8_51Ceki6pusu08KhSpaqJ3xDAmPuyE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520893">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520894" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374320467"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"See what proof is there that the runner actually moved?"</p> <p>When you watched him run, idiot.</p> <p>When did you see a photon stop?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520894&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7-Ko4vWtHCSkjOwVgOV3n-pHZguX4rdILwfpK6MUUeE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520894">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520895" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374323586"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ppnl -- I think you've caught the gist of what's going on with helicity suppression. If you really want a deeper understanding, you're going to have to get through at least a first-year quantum field theory course, together with a good class on group theory for physicists.</p> <p>With massless neutrinos, there doesn't exist any inertial frame into which you can boost them to flip their spins. If neutrinos _do_ have mass (and they must have mass in order for the observed flavor mixing to occur), then such a frame can exist. </p> <p>Therefore, in principle, there could be a small probability to find right-handed neutrinos (or left-handed anti-neutrinos). However, we don't have any mechanism within the Standard Model to produce them (the weak interaction couples _only_ to left-handed leptons). Which is one of the several reasons why neutrino mixing is so interesting to the HEP community.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520895&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1wjJFlaTpn90-ZXYifnJBXRWDi2XmBU9t0xW1otXJVQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520895">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520896" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374323915"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@John Duffield: A neutrino is as completely _unlike_ a photon as you can get. It does not interact with the electromagnetic field, which means it doesn't interact with electrically charged or magnetic entities. It only interacts with the weak field (W+, W- and Z0 particles). It's interaction with the weak field is 100% parity asymmetric (while EM is 100% parity symmetric). Neutrinos are _only_ produced in particle interactions either in pairs by themselves (a neutrino and an antineutrino), or in conjuction with a flavor-matched lepton (e+ and nu(e), e- and anti-nu(e), etc.).</p> <p>If you don't know enough about the state of the art in particle physics to understand this, then you really don't know enough to competently criticize that state of the art.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520896&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LlTXrGNrEX4yUysp-_bKVegxXnwLElqaUjz5Aa2SJqA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520896">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520897" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374354723"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Michael: I know all this. Please consider what I said in comment #45, give it some serious thought, and take it as a contribution rather than a criticism.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520897&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dgko73CTF05EsoT1UKDGgi0vyZs0iFQhT4MlQanNBTg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520897">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520898" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374362474"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"@Michael: I know all this"</p> <p>So why did you compare it to a photon when it's so very different and you knew it????</p> <p>Oh, I get it: you're talking bollocks because you're trolling.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520898&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6WYwrxeMEtFyPCqUfhfbvn2hSXGZ6NfrorC-Bwy5_zU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520898">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520899" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374370639"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That trapped photon is only going nowhere, its speed isn’t zero, it’s still moving like billy-o, but just back and forth.</p> <p>"A 400m runner hasn’t run at zero speed because he ended back where he started."</p> <p>“See what proof is there that the runner actually moved?”</p> <p>When you watched him run, idiot.</p> <p>When did you see a photon stop?</p> <p>Mr. Wizard's analogy is FAIL. LOL A trapped photon can’t move by definition because it’s TRAPPED. If it can move it isn’t really trapped but CONFINED to a specific area. A very real and big difference. In addition if we observe the runner moving then that means the runner is somewhere along the path of the 400m track. We see the runner in different positions and the runner is not TRAPPED based on our observation. Yet if our only snapshots view the runner or photon in the same exact spot we cannot determine if the runner was stationary or moving. So Mr. Wizard your analogy is epic fail.</p> <p>I wonder if you’re ever going to engage brain?<br /> The above is a statement and is not a question so I guess this spotlights your inadequacies at punctuation.</p> <p>Ridiculous, kid, a light year below me, kid, moron, MORONIC BUFFOON, idiot.<br /> I would have thought someone that is a light year ahead could come up with some better insults. I’ve heard much more creative, ingenious and interesting insults walking down the street of any major city. Mr. Peabody it seems you are stuck at the Sesame Street level of insults.</p> <p>The only way that statement can be true is if “ignoring” requires anything other than “accepting”.</p> <p>Gee someone as smart as yourself should have known that there is the other possibility that I can REFUTE a statement and that would classify as not ignoring it. Please don’t tell me that this possibility escaped that steel trap mind of yours.</p> <p>Demanding old and oft-debunked ideas be continued to be discussed is only a way to halt science.</p> <p>So how soon will this be said about string theory? How ironic if that is your major field.</p> <p>I’ve been pondering why you have so much built up anger. So I’ve come up with a theory to explain it. Since anger can easily be attributed to built up sexual frustration, I’ve concluded that you’ve never been laid! It completely fits all observations to date. The corollary from this is the requirement to try and produce alpha-male acts of superiority which you attempt all the time based on your responses to others. Or are you just trying to massively over compensate for something?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520899&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fDsxt2nqrczd58MhkaBr49J-GQGx4ow77FemavxW3bM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520899">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520900" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374372469"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Hi Michael;<br /> "Then, because type Ia SNe are “standard candles” (that is, they all have the same intrinsic brightness, or at least a light curve which is tightly correlated with intrinsic brightness), we can use their observed luminosity to compute their “true” distance."</p> <p>But didn't a study by Richard Scalzo of Yale University call into question the validity of using type 1a SNe as a standard candle?</p> <p>And there was a paper released in 2011 that included 3 noble prize winners that studied the SN 2004dt, SN 2004ef, SN 2005M and SN 2005cf supernovae and concluded the lightcurve did not fit that of 1a SNe as defined for a standard candle.</p> <p>And Bradley Schaefer and Ashley Pagnotta of Louisiana State University in 2011 also found where two white drawfs were responsible for a 1a SN. This calls into question the standard portion of the standard candle.</p> <p>Ratcliffe, Arp and others have always said that metallicity of the supernovae themselves, as well as the size, density and chemistry of their host galaxy can all impact the brightness and light curve we observe.</p> <p>At some point the simple weight of all these anomolies should overcome the intrinsic resistence and I predict profound changes will happen in the world of physics. Sort of how the LHC has almost completely burst the bubble of many physicists today.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520900&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UCD7LWtlLQ8Br7uEN4jBSUlREpcCYw_JOpvUUk3POgc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 20 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520900">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520901" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374382791"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"But didn’t a study by Richard Scalzo of Yale University call into question the validity of using type 1a SNe as a standard candle?"</p> <p>Yes, but it never proved its case.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520901&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hiox0Q3Ahl1Jm2gnaP_zlnIL67lO1XDonGrw5s40cnY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520901">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520902" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374382838"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"That trapped photon is only going nowhere,"</p> <p>It's going between the two sides of the reflective box.</p> <p>It's doing so at light speed.</p> <p>It is not stationary.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520902&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vlvDaqV7M6HsGcp6Ru_WLqmSbGvIfQSch3nCw5K1z0E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520902">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520903" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374382912"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"A trapped photon can’t move by definition because it’s TRAPPED."</p> <p>Then by that definition of TRAPPED, you cannot trap a photon.</p> <p>Fuckwit moron.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520903&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sBg-WkkeajytWatolti0WurOEbOmZnWteG-31pza6ow"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520903">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520904" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374383227"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>" Since anger can easily be attributed to built up sexual frustration"</p> <p>So that explains this from you:</p> <p>"Ridiculous, kid, a light year below me, kid, moron, MORONIC BUFFOON, idiot."</p> <p>Right.</p> <p>Pop off, crack one off in your sock and get a little relief, kid.</p> <p>That is if you're old enough to complete that task...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520904&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JCqOgltzkmlxUY6ugTrMRytRFFeOnLs-_lan0-rqxRE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520904">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520905" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374390760"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@WOW you are really cracking me up. So much built in anger and frustration from you. I know you were never picked for any sports team and still looking for your first "living" and/or human girlfriend, so your comments just make me laugh.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520905&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RuDJVFkH3g1Z5kUJdBqZPoty75832lFJqgJzRfYq9ao"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520905">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520906" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374393904"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ John Urbanik: </p> <p>The problem with questions about measurements at the edge of our abilities, and the point I believe Wow was making (which unsurprisingly didn't come across well) is that you can raise lots of issues with them but by there very nature there isn't enough data to actually resolve the issue and show that we are really okay, or we're really wrong. So what is there to say? In the meantime the measurements appear to be reasonable, the results match up with other completely different observations, so most of science moves forward as though those measurements are correct within their error bars until such time as we have sufficient evidence to say otherwise.</p> <p>The issue with Type 1a SNs isn't as bad as it seems. While they're called "standard candles" which invites the assumption that they all go off with the same magnitude, the truth is closer to them being "standardizable"; only the shape of the light curve graph is the same, not the actual values. So a double-degenerate supernova is okay even though it will exceed the mass at which a single degenerate Type 1a would occur; single degenerate events vary more than you may have been lead to believe anyway. Also, any "weird" events that don't fit the model can typically be identified and not used for distance calculations.</p> <p>John Duffield:</p> <p>The statement that neutrinos are more like photons doesn't contribute anything. The only sense in which they are similar is that their typical velocities are close to c, and can't be slowed down.</p> <p>Well right away there's a problem as the photon's velocity is always exactly c, while a neutrino's velocity is *never* c, and can in fact be anything -- this very article is about (predicted) neutrinos with velocities as low as 100km/s. </p> <p>And then there's "slowing down". Neutrinos can be slowed down in an actual physical sense, but it is ridiculously impractical to do so as they interact so rarely. Photons, on the other hand, can never be actually slowed down such that they propagate at less than c, but can *trivially* be slowed down in a practical sense via passing them through a medium, as they interact readily with matter.</p> <p>What insight, then, does this "they both go really fast and are hard to slow down" comparison give? The comparison of "fast" is a special (if common) case and not an essential point of similarity between the particles, and the sense in which they "can't be slowed down" are completely and utterly different and therefore meaningless. So photons and neutrinos are at best *metaphorically* similar and that metaphor breaks down the second you look closely at the actual behavior.</p> <p>What points of comparison remain? The actual quantum mechanical properties of the particles. And in this sense neutrinos and electrons are vastly closer than neutrinos and photons. Just by saying that both neutrinos and electrons are massive leptons, I've just described about half a dozen different properties that are shared between electrons and neutrinos, in an actual non-metaphorical sense, and which are not shared by photons.</p> <p>The only thing shared by neutrinos and photons in a non-metaphorical sense is that they are quantum phenomenon obeying the Uncertainty Principle. This doesn't tell us anything other than Quantum Mechanics is a good theory for describing lots of different phenomenon.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520906&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lWIpV9DnQWxwlV8op0k5nYrjjPVNP-1V_dDsmTbwUhE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520906">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520907" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374394974"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ John Duffield</p> <p>Oh I forgot about the whole "they're both neutral" comparison, but that's because it's arguably the worst. See, a neutrino is neutral (and not afawk a composite of charged particles like a neutron) and therefore has no interaction with the EM field at all. On the other hand, the photon IS a disturbance in the EM field, so it has EM interactions with charged particles despite being neutral. If the photon was charged, then it wouldn't just change which EM interactions occur and what nuclear processes were allowed, it would change the very nature of the electromagnetic force and make QED look a lot more like QCD.</p> <p>So even the property that is actually physically the same is still completely different in kind.</p> <p>I know you said you know all this, and that we should think really hard about this in light of that, and, well, I did and I came up with "useless red herring". Why don't you help us out. Why don't you tell us in what way this metaphorical-at-best physically-completely-false "similarity" between photons and neutrinos suggests physics beyond the Standard Model?</p> <p>To me, the only thing the neutrino-photon comparison suggests as far as looking for new physics beyond the SM is to find a reason for the unexpected neutrino mass. As in it's the difference, not similarity, that is interesting.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520907&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fkzy-GYC5Ie-45jgepqbgVl1EhK_SPLuhqvmEt5A4iQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520907">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520908" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374399294"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>On another note, I'm not afraid to define science*. Here it is:</p> <p>Science is a method of understanding nature through the following iterative method:<br /> 1) Guess how nature might work.<br /> 2) Calculate the consequences of that guess.<br /> 3) Compare those consequences to observation to see if the guess may be correct.</p> <p>That's it. You can define it however you want. If that's at the core of your definition, then I agree, and if it isn't, then I disagree.</p> <p>Now of course there's lots of details in the process of figuring out what the consequences of a guess are, and whether it matches with nature. Trivialities as far as the definition is concerned. And of course your guess could be directly inspired by observation; it's a cyclical process with lots of feedback.</p> <p>The more interesting case is when we have a guess but have yet to get through all the steps. Is String Theory science? Well it took a while before they computed any consequences that weren't precisely the prediction of either GR or QM (not that this is a bad place for a theory to be). Now they have them, and unfortunately the necessary experiments either are or easily could be outside our ability to perform for the foreseeable future.</p> <p>I say that it is still science, because they are following the above process. Nothing in the definition ever said making the necessary observations would be *easy*. Nature need not accommodate us in that way. However if you want to say that isn't science then that's just fine with me -- excepting that you mean it isn't science *yet*, not that it isn't science in the same way astrology is not science and therefore should not be pursued by scientists. If we stopped every line of inquiry that hadn't reached step 3 yet as "not science" we wouldn't have gotten very far.</p> <p>And to be clear, I don't favor String Theory. I admire the mathematical achievement of unifying GR and QM in a single framework, but that admiration means bupkis as far as physical reality goes. I think it's quite likely that at the *very least* those who hoped String Theory would solve some of the major questions in physics today have spent their careers in vain. But is it really in vain to find a promising idea and follow it through, only to find out it is wrong?</p> <p>Well I'd so no, but either way you're talking about the majority of scientists throughout history, for at least some part of their career.</p> <p>* I'm not ashamed to admit that my confidence comes from the fact that I'm cribbing.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520908&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7glaNrdoNeW1rrolMssp67MKLD6fxZTzV22gpzPKnLY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520908">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520909" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374399647"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Okay I had an editing error I can't let go. I meant to say:<br /> 3) Compare those consequences to observation to see if the guess may be correct or if it disagrees and is therefore wrong.</p> <p>In truth, the "may be correct" part is unimportant. Not sure how I edited out the last part and kept that but it's not what I intended.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520909&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jFdqvBMiyxLhlmjwVsKesyGjCskJpx5rINan7a3Gq5o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520909">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520910" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374404619"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I vaguely recall a story about somebody finding a seasonal variation in the radioactive decay of some nucleus or other.</p> <p>Is there an annual variation in the flux of solar neutrinos and can neutrinos help the decays of radioactive nuclei?</p> <p>Or am I misremembering and there's actually no seasonal effect to explain?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520910&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="c4GcGbFjsxI0OHGhjZVgjBCYlA1TClymN1FoqA0lezY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sili (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520910">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520911" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374408079"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Someone did find one, but the correlation was poor and it was a good many years ago now.</p> <p>There were multiple methods of causing this that had nothing to do with the physics of neutrinos, however, so I can't remember if it ever got officially debunked or just ignored because it really wasn't going anywhere.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520911&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="y2sF7jSGOOz-tz422talh7vVdVUX6s5TOSaQ9QQHwsw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520911">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520912" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374408257"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"On another note, I’m not afraid to define science*."</p> <p>Remember: the bozo claimed people were not doing "real science", but has been 100% unable to define what they themselves meant when they said that.</p> <p>Moreover, has moved those goalposts over to just "science".</p> <p>However, their sneering wasn't "moving away from science" but "moving away from real science".</p> <p>A term that, if "real science" is undefined, means absolutely F-ALL.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520912&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sauRYGdkwnRfLJa_emCuHyWZ15YjIvgCVnl1dLZB-lE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520912">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520913" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374408337"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"July 21, 2013</p> <p>@WOW you are really cracking me up. So much built in anger and frustration from you."</p> <p>Projection or distraction are the tired old tools of fools and charlatans over the ages.</p> <p>Do you really absolutely have nothing to say of value?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520913&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sE_GRWfBDwRIf_q__Q5-LKdnD755zlhc5idrROuf0hY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520913">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520914" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374408570"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"the truth is closer to them being “standardizable”; only the shape of the light curve graph is the same, not the actual values"</p> <p>It's more that the shape of the light curve shows the physics going on and, since the physics has to be the same to give the same shape of curve, the same physics gives the same light magnitude.</p> <p>The biggest error is estimating the extinction of light by the intervening gas and dust. A star of 2% metal and a star of 0% metal changes the values by a vanishingly small percentage of the error interstellar dust fraction errors give.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520914&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yX1z6Kb4fDcdidxnNlWIujfHF6SfPwiMlA1njac-YbI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520914">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520915" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374428626"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow #76, regarding type Ia SNe light curves: In fact, CB was more precise than I was (yes, I simplified for the sake of argument). There do turn out to be multiple characteristic light curves involved, which makes the "standard candle" argument more complex. </p> <p>First, there is some extinction involved, as you say, but that is fairly easily calibrated using nearby sources along the line of sight.</p> <p>Second, the width of both the initial peak and the long tail are affected by the source's motion, both cosmological and peculiar. So you have to apply a temporal scale factor to "correct" the light curve back to its own rest frame. It's a bit touchy (but justifiable with good numbers) when the result of that correction is then used to infer a cosmological distance.</p> <p>Third, the metallicity of the progenitor WD does have a noticeable effect on the initial peak shape. That in turn can influence both the scale correction above as well as the computation of absolute luminosity.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520915&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0Nv-a80_N-waVpIEnwUV6gSp3waeWyTJY12-hnoWTIE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520915">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520916" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374446624"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well, looks like things changed in the past 10 or so years.</p> <p>Would that be because of the improvements in discerning the effect of extinction? At some point, the errors that introduces is going to drop low enough for something else to become relatively significant.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520916&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yq2a7U-hBFnuCbFnormm0uYpicw5aJlJBZfiqvzuhzE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520916">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520917" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374453155"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CB: regardless of how you classify neutrinos, there is an issue wherein neutrino "typical velocities are close to c, and can’t be slowed down", along with "this very article is about (predicted) neutrinos with velocities as low as 100km/s". It would be nice if Michael could assist us with this.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520917&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oOUTE0DgWH07S2_pq2CfHxovZnTNrD5hNiaiLMlk6K8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520917">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520918" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374463840"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"CB: regardless of how you classify neutrinos"</p> <p>But not regardless of how YOU classify them?</p> <p>"there is an issue wherein neutrino “typical velocities are close to c, and can’t be slowed down”"</p> <p>There is no such issue.</p> <p>There IS an issue of "typical velocities are close to c". But no issue of that conjoined with "and can’t be slowed down”".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520918&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lPmOldMXuoSO2rkffv98uzf5twzO4_SHaHGhyKxHA4c"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520918">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520919" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374473287"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Has anyone given consideration as to what is the purpose of neutrinos in respect to the grand scheme of things?</p> <p>In a book ‘Neutrino’ by Frank Close he states that “the Sun produces ~2 x 10^26 neutrinos every second.” This is such a vast number if it is considered there are, on average, 100 billion stars in a galaxy and 350 billion galaxies amounting to ~3.5 x 10^22 stars within the universe. All these stars produce vast quantities of neutrinos and this has been going on continuously for most of the lifetime of the universe. The lifespan of neutrinos are expected to be stable so it can only be presumed, as there is no redundancy within nature, nature has intended a practical utilization for all these neutrinos!</p> <p>Using @CB’s notion (or was it Richard P. Feynman?) “1) Guess how nature might work.” Is the same approach I have used in my paper, although, with a bit more methodological reasoning involved:</p> <p> <a href="http://www.scienceau.com/docs/Theoretical_principle_model_of_forces.pdf">http://www.scienceau.com/docs/Theoretical_principle_model_of_forces.pdf</a> [pdf]</p> <p>Thanks Ethan for an interesting and provoking blog.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520919&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="K8i7RMwvIAabQEZ3lUY2umuASHQeMjS29ckQAjYJAao"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">David Gold (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520919">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520920" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374474000"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Duffield:</p> <p>Classification is irrelevant except as a tool for our brains. Actual properties are relevant, and photons/neutrinos share essentially none.</p> <p>So if I understand you the "issue" you mean is an apparent contradiction between the difficulty of slowing down neutrinos via particle interactions and the predicted CNB neutrinos being relatively slow. That correct?</p> <p>Assuming so, that's not a contradiction at all. The statement that neutrinos "can't be slowed down" is a *practical* statement about the difficulty of slowing them down via particle interactions since those are so rare but does not imply that neutrinos with lower velocities are forbidden. The CNB neutrinos weren't slowed by particle interactions, but by the expansion of space.</p> <p>Just like how the CMB photons were also cooled by the expansion of space. But because photons are massless and REALLY can't be slowed down in an actual physical sense, they still travel at c but have a longer wavelength.</p> <p>This is precisely what one would expect if you had two different particles, one with mass, one without, that were emitted everywhere early on in an expanding universe. It's their differences that make the difference.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520920&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bnrm0ZFgaugNa2ZQUBBgHU9ViPJyKEiQ8WaIMOGYEEM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520920">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520921" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374478365"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>David Gold:</p> <p>Yes indeed it was Feynman. :)<br /> You can see the rest of the lecture, the last of a 7-lecture series, here <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIN_-Flswy0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIN_-Flswy0</a> because we live in an amazing time.</p> <p>Sorry I didn't have time to do more than peruse the first few pages of your paper, so pardon if this is answered later. It appears as though you are predicting that the electric and magnetic forces can be separated below a certain energy like the electroweak separates into electromagnetic and weak in our common experience. At what energy level does your theory predict this occurs?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520921&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="67mjnEhJGLDJ3-yLwmAKKknkHDpyX8x9CtSUIoLOblw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520921">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520922" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374479001"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Deep space observations have profoundly changed our view on the universe. This has resulted in what is referred to as the standard model of cosmology, the Lambda-CDM model. According to this model current times are absolutely unique. It tells us that the recently observed acceleration of the cosmic expansion just kicked in, and that it is only around the current age of the universe that this acceleration can be observed. At earlier times the acceleration would have been too small to be observable, and at later times distant galaxies will have accelerated out of view and thereby rendering the cosmic acceleration again unobservable. The cosmic acceleration happens to be observable around the time cosmologists populate planet earth.</p> <p>Copernicus taught us something profound: if you think your situation is special, you should probably think deeper.</p> <p>Accelerated expansion does not just make late deep space observations impracticable, but rather poses strict fundamental limits. According to the Lambda-CDM model, ultimately all distant galaxies will permanently accelerate out of sight beyond a cosmic horizon that can effectively be considered 'the edge of the observable universe'. It doesn't matter how big a telescope future generations will be able to construct, if all distant galaxies have accelerated out of the observable universe, those future generations will not be able to even get a hint of the cosmic acceleration.</p> <p>The net effect of all of this is that we are here just at the right time. Neither earlier astronomers nor later astronomers would be able to correctly predict the dynamics and ultimate fate of the universe. It is only us who can accomplish this feat.</p> <p>How come we, scientific heirs of Copernicus, end up with such a strangely anti-Copernican standard model of cosmology? Are we really living at the very right moment in a mediocre location? Or is Lambda-CDM ready for revision?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520922&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="S3C7Z2fpqV16tLG37eU9uG9xNkJFlakGceMFouSX7A0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520922">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520923" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374479501"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@John Duffield: You seem to have some confusion about basic physics, namely, the momentum/energy relationships in special relativity. First, we'll cover the basic numbers, and show that neutrinos do not travel _at_ the speed of light; then we'll answer the question of how to change the speed of a neutrino.</p> <p>The fundamental equation, which applies to all particles everywhere, is E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4. Particle physicists, like myself, hate carrying around pointless constants, so let's work with a system of units where we can drop all the 'c's in casual conversation: Energy has units of eV (or MeV, GeV, ueV, etc.), momentum has units of eV/c, mass has units of eV/c^2, and we'll let c=1, so that the special relativistic parameter beta = v/c is equivalent to speed. </p> <p>With those conventions, *ALL* *PARTICLES* *EVERYWHERE* obey the fundamental equation E^2 = p^2 + m^2. From the definition of the Lorentz boost gamma = 1/sqrt(1 - beta^2), we have E = gamma*m, p = beta*gamma*m, so v = p/E. Massless particles, like photons, gluons, and gravitons, are a special case. Gamma is undefined for them (since v=beta=1), but for m=0, the fundamental equation simplifies to E = p, which is perfectly well defined.</p> <p>The fact that gamma is undefined is basically why helicity suppression (see one of my much earlier comments) applies to the charged (massive) leptons but not to neutrinos. Without gamma, you can't apply a boost (massless particles travel at the same speed, c, in vacuum in all frames).</p> <p>So now, John, let's do the arithmetic to work out the speeds of the cosmic relic neutrinos, and let's compare that to the speeds of neutrinos from radioactive decay, and from neutrino-beam experiments. We'll do the last one first.</p> <p>0) The mass of the most massive neutrino is known, from cosmological limits, to be &lt; 0.23 eV. We'll take that upper limit as the value, for convenience.</p> <p>1) Neutrino beams from accelerators have energies in the GeV range (from about 0.5 GeV or so up to 10-20 GeV). We want to compute the velocity = p/E, for those neutrinos. So going back to the fundamental equation, v = sqrt(E^2 - m^2) / E = sqrt(1 - (m/E)^2). Let's be generous, to get the slowest neutrino we can from our beam, and use a beamline with E = 0.23 GeV. Plug in the numbers, v = sqrt(1 - (0.23 eV/0.23 GeV)^2) = sqrt(1 - (10^-12)^2) = sqrt(1 - 10^-24). I leave it to you to count the nines.</p> <p>2) Radioactive decay. Beta decays are three-body decays, so the electrons and neutrinos have a broad spectrum with a cut-off at a few MeV, and a peak just a little below that. So let's be generous and suppose we have a neutrino from beta decay with an energy of 0.23 MeV. Plug in the numbers, same as before, and v = sqrt(1 - (0.23 eV/0.23 MeV)^2) = sqrt(1 - 10^-12). Again, I leave it to you to count the nines.</p> <p>3) Relic cosmological neutrinos. As discussed in Ethan's post, these have a black-body spectrum which today has a temperature of 1.96 K. As noted in my earlier posting, that corresponds to 172 ueV at the peak of the spectrum. Since this is far below the rest mass of the neutrinos (0.23 eV) we know that we're talking about kinetic energy (Ek = E - m), and we can work in the non-relativistic limit. Ek = mv/2, so v = 2*Ek/m = 2*172 ueV/0.23 eV = 0.001496 = 448 km/s (multiplying by c to get back to conventional units. That's for the peak of the black-body spectrum. The low energy tail certainly includes a non-trivial rate of neutrinos at Ethan's quoted 100 km/s level or below.</p> <p>We've just shown that they do _not_ travel at 'c', but at a velocity which depends on their energy and momentum, just like every other massive particle in the Universe. How do you slow the neutrinos down? The cosmic relic neutrinos "lost energy" due to the cosmological expansion, just as the photons (and presumably relic gravitons) did. But what about terrestrial neutrinos, with a nice fat momentum? </p> <p>Well, you shoot them through material, just like shooting bullets through water to slow them down. A neutrino can interact in two ways -- elastically (like a billiard ball bouncing off something) or inelastically (changing into something else, i.e., a charged lepton, and producing fragments from whatever it hit). Let's ignore the inelastic collisions, since the neutrino disappears and isn't interesting any more.</p> <p>In an elastic collision, the neutrino hits a nucleus (which has a much higher cross section, than hitting an atomic electron), and transfers some of its energy to that nucleus. The energy transferred is approximately inversely proportional to the mass ratio (delta E ~ m(nu)/m(A,Z)), which, if you followed the math above, is about 10^-11 (assuming something like tungsten or lead as your target). So it will take a lot, a lot, a lot of interactions to get the neutrino's energy down by a factor of two, let alone down by a factor of 10^12 (compare (1) and (3) above).</p> <p>So there is no reason in _principle_ why neutrinos "can't slow down" (as you have misconceived things), it is merely that the relative energies and cross-sections involved are so tiny that on practical, experimental scales, we don't see it happening.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520923&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mhTchU9Db1jqyXqrudZGgYMLhfGE7vs-D3gFMQwsxT0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520923">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520924" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374480215"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow #78: As I understand it, the extinction (scale height along the line of sight) can be calibrated using quasars and other very bright objects, by comparing multiple spectral lines from a single source. I am *NOT* an astrophysicist, so I cannot speak to methodology, and trust that when the authors of peer-reviewed papers say this works, it does (to whatever level is quoted in their error bars).</p> <p>You are absolutely right that as observational techniques improve, the uncertainties on each SN data point will go down. Also, improved observations will (and have already!) allowed us to extends the reach of type Ia SNe out to relatively high redshift (as I recall, there are now points out at z~6 or 7).</p> <p>The point is that the expected curves for flat vs. always decelerating, vs. accelerating deviate more and more as you get out to higher redshift. If your data points get (a) smaller uncertainties, and (b) more lever arm out to higher z, then your fitted curves become a better and better match to "reality," whatever that is.</p> <p>It *could* have turned out that the data taken in the 90's and early 2000's could have contradicted the very early 1980's acceleration results, regressing to the mean of simple deceleration. But that's not what happened in practice. Instead, the SNe data, along with other observations, including CMB, weak lensing of distant clusters, and more, regressed to a mean that corresponds to an accelerated expansion which began 5-6 billion years ago (z somewhere around 0.5). </p> <p>If you use the simplest equation of state for whatever-might-be-driving-that-expansion (specifically, a single constant number corresponding to Einstein's Lambda), then you end up with the total mass-energy budget of the Universe having 70-ish percent whatever-that-is, 23-ish percent non-baryonic matter, and the rest stuff we know and love.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520924&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="t0B0_Iy8OGfKXlAQ9dWR_jFDU31rv-FtMIYx25H8w5s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520924">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520925" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374482842"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ John Urbanik:</p> <p>I think you have misunderstand the Copernican Principle. It does not say that there should be nothing at all interesting, convenient, fortunate, or in its particulars unique about your situation -- otherwise the fact that earth is almost certainly unique in its fine details would disprove it. It certainly does not say that the evolution of the universe must be static so it makes no difference when you are observing. It just says that your location should not be special as regards the operation of the universe.</p> <p>Compare with the pre-Copernican view which put the earth at the literal center of the universe with the sun and planets, plus all the fixed stars, rotating around earth. That's how you give the earth a special position. </p> <p>Now what's so special about the time we live in? Well nothing as far as we know. "The point where humans started studying the cosmos" has been granted no special place in the laws of nature. Now are we *fortunate* that we live in a time where the effects of Dark Energy are measurable but have not yet rendered the rest of the universe invisible? Er, well, in a sense, but not very. We're talking about a window that extends billions of years into the past, and perhaps hundred billions years into the future, many times the current age of the universe. How "special" is our living in that time window?</p> <p>And then think of all the other ways in which our study of the cosmos could be foiled (or enhanced) by particular circumstances. In just a handful of billions of years from now, Andromeda and the Milky Way will have merged, likely forming an enormous elliptical galaxy. If we'd been born at that time, the night sky would be a nearly uniform glow and it would be very difficult to see past it at the wonders beyond. There'd be no convenient Great Nebula in Andromeda for scientists to study and eventually figure out was its own island universe at a previously unheard of distance. Or what if we were orbiting a star inside a very large nebula? We'd be able to see basically nothing of what we see from earth, and who knows if astronomy would have ever begun since there wouldn't have been much interesting to look at.</p> <p>So are we in a sense lucky that this isn't the case and we conveniently have such a fine view of the heavens? Yeah. Much more lucky than having been born in the "very right" 100 billion year "moment". But in an anti-Copernican sense? No. Earth still isn't special in the grand scheme of things, it's just one of trillions of rocky worlds in our galaxy that we happen to live on. Same with the time we live in.</p> <p>Lambda-CDM will be ready for revision when there's a compelling reason to do so. I don't know what you have against it, that you feel the need to fish for these "scientists are ignoring basic principles of science!"-type arguments, but they hold no weight. I can understand if you just don't like it because it's weird and confusing and against common sense -- but so has all of physics for over a hundred years. Time to get over it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520925&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="NFVaHTvPEmOw6LcrLhPv6E6s_JhWy5ruQe_49lt8M4w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520925">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520926" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374485396"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Michael Kelsey</p> <p>Never stop posting. Please. :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520926&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YYM5TXhUbKMPjzgM-LJgMM_BDub3xEUUTmipMkSm2zg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520926">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520927" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374491004"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I would think that the simple fact that the Lambda-CDM model ignores quantommechanics would be enough to call into serious question. The biggest problem in Lambda-CDM is the way electromagnetic fields are handled or sometimes simply ignored in the stress energy tensor of Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric (FLRW).</p> <p>Lambda-CDM has a fundamental weakness dating from the 1934 book by Richard Tolman. First he treated a static DC electromagnetic field by the method of Reissner Nordstrom where the field counteracts gravity and bends space backward, causing time to pass more quickly, and masses to repel each other. It led in later times to theories of accelerating galaxies driven by faint electromagnetic fields instead of dark energy. Then in the next paragraph, Tolman treated alternating AC electromagnetic fields as contributors to positive curvature, increasing the strength of gravity, because of the deflection of star light passing near the sun.</p> <p>It seems a bit irrational to have two different curvatures resulting from electromagnetic fields. Why can't Dark energy be eliminated from Lambda-CDM If the bending of light near the sun could be attributed to a tiny decrease of light speed in a gravitational field?</p> <p>From what I've read changes to Lambda-CDM are being rejected in favor of finding a new theory with more dimensions. Six is a common number used.</p> <p>As far as the rapid expansion is concerned it is a "special event" unlike your examples of glaxies colliding which happen all the time.</p> <p>As for the argument that this time is special let me try to put some numbers to it. What is the current age of the universe? Expressed in natural units, about 10^61 ticks have passed since the big bang. It is around this very time that we can observe the accelerated expansion of the universe. But only marginally so. It took us four centuries of telescope technology improvement before we managed to observe the cosmic acceleration. Observing cosmic acceleration is challenging, as one needs to look very, very deep into space to see any effect. This is because dark energy represents a cumulative effect. In a rough analogy, one can think of dark energy as a negative mass that increases proportional to volume. For a volume the size of our earth, the dark energy adds up to a negative mass corresponding to removing a single grain of sand from the entire earth.</p> <p>Tiny as it might be from our earthly perspective, the dark energy effect does grow proportional to volume. It keeps growing with increasing size until we reach the size of the whole observable universe. At that size, the effect has grown from taking away a grain of sand into an effect that overpowers the total mass in the universe. At the scale of the universe, dark energy beats the deceleration due to gravitational attraction, and the result is a cosmic acceleration.</p> <p>All of this applies to a cosmic age of around 10^61 ticks. Earlier on (any time till about 10^60 ticks since the big bang) the size of the universe was so much smaller that the total dark energy effect got dwarfed by the forces of gravity. Would we have lived around 10^60 ticks after the big bang, we surely would not have observed a cosmic acceleration. Later on (any time around 10^62 ticks or later) the acceleration will again be undetectable. This is not due to the relative weakness of the dark energy, but rather due to the distant objects in the universe that currently allow us to observe cosmic acceleration having accelerated out of view.</p> <p>That seems like a very small window as expressed in natural units and rather special. And I have to ask why would the universe be so kind to us to make dark energy observable just at the very time we are capable of noticing it?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520927&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3SMfBqGOAACEbnVKKFjxFj9rnyAGI_UjB6XE-jz3rRM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520927">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520928" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374491120"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And before WOW attacks me for spelling please change the first sentence to quantum mechanics. That should teach me to change things at the last second before hitting post.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520928&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="NJrS_hcI7tG2Qh4BEc2hqffErP-YrKYOIl2Y5aCpqOk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520928">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520929" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374491227"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"The lifespan of neutrinos are expected to be stable so it can only be presumed, as there is no redundancy within nature, nature has intended a practical utilization for all these neutrinos!"</p> <p>Two problems, here.</p> <p>1) Nature has oodles of redundancy.<br /> 2) Nature has no intent. It just is.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520929&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LuM-JTFi-lslx6GFstyjK693lauiK__6nKngBEUpt20"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520929">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520930" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374491318"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Awww poor widdl jon.</p> <p>Is nasty man mean to you and cawws you idiot? Mebbe not being an idiot would help?.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520930&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XmzmRQ8iR5e60kIKYytsrxYfaFiPxJc0LqIj77x2x-Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520930">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520931" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374491503"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Interesting new developments, Michael.</p> <p><a href="http://t2k-experiment.org/2013/07/new-results-from-t2k-conclusively-show-muon-neutrinos-transform-to-electron-neutrinos/">http://t2k-experiment.org/2013/07/new-results-from-t2k-conclusively-sho…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520931&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9F9PJatWrDWT0y-i-bRbTPVSBLGdQVD-RuMoCVeUNXM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520931">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520932" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374491707"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I am *NOT* an astrophysicist, so I cannot speak to methodology, and trust that when the authors of peer-reviewed papers say this works, it does (to whatever level is quoted in their error bars)."</p> <p>Well, I was. But no work in it, or not enough for a second-rater.</p> <p>It works, but the errors were pretty damn big. Hipparchos helped a hell of a lot, and there will have been improvements in sensors, but I really don't know where they were doing their improvements: in spectral/linear resolution or signal/noise values?</p> <p>It was a bit bit of uncertainty when I were a lad, and I had concluded that the improvements with newer sensors hadn't managed to reverse that situation, but I guess signal processing and computation will have helped and that's been something I've never kept up with.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520932&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LP5h8LLZuvtyFPoe81uo1DbwNpN6qDFJuVdQZdhXkkg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520932">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520933" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374492315"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael, we may be talking past each other a bit.</p> <p>I've recently been going on about the error in attributing the distance of an object by standard candle, where the error in the detailed process undergone with a high-metal vs low-metal supergiant rarified (hence metal poorer than the overall body) expanded atmosphere that produces the SN candle is a lot less than the errors in the assumptions or measures of extinction.</p> <p>"When I were a nipper..." the error introduced by the measures of extinction swamped any error available because the spectral shift clouded the information discovering the total extinction.</p> <p>But high-Z measures are no worse affected by extinction than low-Z observations, since each SN event goes through exactly two universes to get to our observation: the home one and ours. High-Z ones don't get much of a chance of passing through a third intervening galaxy to muck the picture up, or at least not often enough for the removal of such events to cause problems in too little data.</p> <p>Ta.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520933&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mZjAF5ERTCZXqvjZJRnWvgbPpMxkI6hfJvBEZkfsGyM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520933">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520934" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374492609"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"the dark energy effect does grow proportional to volume"</p> <p>Not really, to the metric, DE doesn't grow. It's everything else that shrinks, therefore becomes dominant.</p> <p>x^2+1 is very little different from x^2 when your value for x is high.</p> <p>Around x=1, the effect of the tiny (at high x) constant is as high as the variant. 50% at x=1 comes from the constant, not the x. 1% at x=10 comes from the constant.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520934&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="M92wSaeLccCgP381fjgKlTECHLi7pqkN7XmsR0C1Z7s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520934">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520935" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374494811"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Urbanik:</p> <p>Your re-expression of the "problem" in natural units has changed nothing. The only "benefit" of expressing it this way is to take advantage of layman's misunderstanding of exponentials and the tendency to view each increment of the exponent as the same. This is not a misunderstanding I suffer from. Do you? Or were you just hoping I did?</p> <p>In any case: The time from 0 to 10^60 is only 1/100th the time from 10^60 to 10^62. The time window you are describing is much larger than the current age of the universe. </p> <p>So what you are saying is in actuality: "Isn't it bizarrely fortunate that we live in this *special* period between when the universe was a tenth its current age, and when it will be ten times older?"</p> <p>Or in the more familiar terms I used before: "Isn't it bizarre that we live in this *special* period sometime between billions of years in the past and hundreds of billions of years in the future?"</p> <p>No, no it isn't bizarre in the slightest. That's the most ridiculous definition of "special", and the most desperate appeal to the Copernican Principle, I've ever heard. </p> <p>You, or whoever told you about the "problem" in natural units, are trying to lie with numbers in order to besmirch a theory that you/they don't like for reasons that have nothing to do with this non-argument. If it's not you, then free yourself from whatever liar bamboozled you; they are doing you no service. If it is you, then I'm afraid there's no point to further discussion as that presupposes sincerity. And I thought I got through to you in some small way when I pointed out there's more to DE than just red shift measurements... :(</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520935&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KpZPy-uI0OG2CQTewVV2TWcLFr9cxOWZ20kk0xAoW8A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520935">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520936" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374496890"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CB, the natural unit argument about specialty was put forth by Johannes Koelman and was based on comments made by Ratcliffe. I do know that the expotential values are not additive. But even you "stretched" the values. If 10^61 is now then 10^60 is 1.5 billion years and 10^62 would be 150 billion, not hundreds of billions of years.</p> <p>That still doesn't invalidate that 1.5 billion years would be too soon to see the expansion and sometime around 100-150 billion years would be too late. And unless the acceleration changes overtime it is still a unique and special occurance that is going on right now. This type of argument was used to counter the "void pocket" theory where the Earth happens to exist in a low density void pocket.</p> <p>I think I've mentioned that I love to read about physics and read just about anything. Now this guy might be a crackpot, but here is something that was written about Lee Smolin not too long ago. (BTW I can't wait to read his newest book).</p> <p>"Everyone who tolerates this disgraceful liar and demagogue as a part of the scientific community is an immoral bastard. Not only the internet crackpots - the likes of "Marcus", "Peter Woit", "Sabine Hossenfelder", and similar subjects from the moral dumping ground of science - but also the very institutions whose official goal should be to support science actively do lots of things to protect this stunning degree of scientific misconduct.</p> <p>Of course that what Smolin says doesn't influence real science because every competent scientist has known that Lee Smolin is a crank for years or decades. And it is damn easy to see and prove that similar discrete models of spacetime simply cannot preserve the Lorentz symmetry."</p> <p>That guy makes WOW look like Mr. Rogers!</p> <p>And yes you did help me in regard to DE and redshift. I'm now reading some recent articles and papers about using AGN as a standard candle.</p> <p>Here is a small snipet from Lee's upcomming book where he refers to those who support the Many World's Interpretation:</p> <p>"I believe that these theorists-smart as many of them are-are making a big mistake. They are confusing a thematical construction for a radical vision of a real world. Their physics is a branch of mysticism because it leads them to believe that everything we experience is an illusion, a veil which hides what is really real from us."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520936&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TnGqvs7SHqP_PA5qi12hCkivOpU70LsswkBEj3z1_eA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520936">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520937" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374501428"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Urbanik:"CB, the natural unit argument about specialty was put forth by Johannes Koelman and was based on comments made by Ratcliffe."</p> <p>So they are the bamboozlers lying with numbers in a way that can only fool laymen. They can't make an argument that would convince a scientist so they try to stir up "public opinion" instead. What class acts.</p> <p>" I do know that the expotential values are not additive."</p> <p>So you knew your reformulation was identical to what I originally claimed, a hundred-billion-year stretch many times the age of the universe, yet still claim that we are in a "special" time and attempted to use your identical statement only with different units to bamboozle *me* into agreeing. Awesome. Now I feel like a schmuck.</p> <p> " But even you “stretched” the values. If 10^61 is now then 10^60 is 1.5 billion years and 10^62 would be 150 billion, not hundreds of billions of years."</p> <p>You mean you have claimed a false precision. As if it only being 10 times vs 14 the age of the universe makes any difference to the failure of this point anyway.</p> <p>"it is still a unique and special occurance that is going on right now. "</p> <p>'Right now' meaning anywhere in a range ten times the age of the universe, like claiming it's a great coincidence we both live 'right here', where 'right here' is defined as within ten earth diameters from each other.</p> <p>Anyway, yes it's a unique really-long period, but so what? I reiterate: The Copernican Principle does not state that the universe cannot evolve, that there cannot be events that occur once and do not repeat. </p> <p>Recombination will only occur once; does the CMB violate the Copernican Principle?</p> <p>Star formation only started occurring after a finite amount of time, and can only continue for a finite time before all hydrogen available for star formation is used. Does that violate the Copernican Principle?</p> <p>Heck,the window of time in which solar-mass or larger stars can form in the Milky Way (+ Andromeda) is likely shorter than the window for observing Dark Energy, does *that* violate the Copernican Principle? Just living around a Class G star means living in the DE-visible time-frame is practically inevitable, so it's really *that* bizarre coincidence you should be talking about.</p> <p>Eventually the last of the red dwarfs will burn up it's fuel. This will take several orders magnitude longer still (not that duration seems to matter), but for a civilization that arose then wouldn't even know that stars existed! The Era of Stars is a unique, one-time event. Does *that* violate the Copernican Princple?</p> <p>No. No it does not.</p> <p>Alternatively, you could remain consistent and claim that all of these things DO violate the Copernican Principle. And since we have overwhelming evidence that the universe does in fact change and evolve and that different epochs in the universe are different, this means the Copernican Principle is trivially false. That'd be based on a misinterpretation of the principle, but at least it'd be consistent.</p> <p>But NOPE. Instead, the Copernican Principle is true, that means Dark Energy is probably false for violating it, yet none of the other things which are less speculative but equally vulnerable to the argument are made subject to it.</p> <p>This is the argument put forward by Koelman and Ratcliffe, complete with unit abuse, and you buy it, and repeat it.</p> <p>And when it's pointed out what nonsense this is, they just wave the persecuted heretic flag and you lap it up even *more*.</p> <p>Well then that's it for me. I just can't make progress against that mentality, and like I said I feel like a schmuck for trying to engage in honest discussion when this is the game being played. I can't play that game, and I won't try.</p> <p>I wish I could play it. I'd make a ton in book sales.</p> <p>"And yes you did help me in regard to DE and redshift. I’m now reading some recent articles and papers about using AGN as a standard candle."</p> <p>There's more to DE than that. Check out the analysis of Planck data.</p> <p>That's all I have to say. Godspeed in your travels.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520937&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dPJTl27ky2vdCfmhPLAlTKCvX_xGPhoqaZlV50gQg0E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520937">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520938" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374535942"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ 95 WOW</p> <p>" since each SN event goes through exactly two universes to get to our observation: the home one and ours."</p> <p>think you made a typo or I don't understand something :) It should be "galaxy" not "universe". Right?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520938&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hOywlQY1hJHDGKa1NCJF4SL2pwo_Pl66Lzguxf82GO4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520938">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520939" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374538418"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CB re comment #82: Photons have no mass or charge and travel at c. Neutrinos have no mass (to speak of) or charge and travel at so close to see we can't detect the difference. That isn’t “share essentially none”. You said neutrinos can’t be slowed down, and in the next breath you talked of neutrinos doing 100km/s. Yes, that’s a contradiction. And to try to wriggle out of it, you asserted that neutrinos were slowed down by the expansion of space. How does that work then? Magic?</p> <p>@Michael Kelsey re comment #85: With respect, I don’t have any confusion about basic physics. The “fundamental” equation E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4 isn’t fundamental, there’s a flip-flop between the momentum and mass terms in gamma-gamma pair-production and annihilation. You start with two E=hf massless gamma photons, you then get two E=mc² massive particles in the guise of an electron and a positron. With no excess separation energy they have no momentum, and they annihilate back to two E=hf gamma photons. The electron isn’t fundamental either, you can create an electron, and you can diffract electrons. The wave nature of matter is not in doubt. The electron can be modelled as a standing wave in a “Dirac’s belt” configuration. The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, and the electron is a body. Even a child can work out that electron mass is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a standing wave in a closed path, whilst photon momentum is a measure of resistance to change-in-motion for a linear wave in an open path. Accelerate a fermion and only then does E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4 apply. But there is no standing-wave configuration with an energy-content of 0.23eV. So you have never seen a neutrino at rest, and you never ever will. When you detect neutrinos moving at significantly less than c, please let me know. By the way, the Lorentz factor comes straight out of Pythagoras’s theorem, gluons are virtual, gravitons are hypothetical, and particles are neither bullets nor billiard-balls.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520939&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tJwsbC9vlV_u3HIQzw2jEIEjye6B2xp6tWgFz9zVE7w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520939">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520940" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374543261"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>" It should be “galaxy” not “universe”. Right?"</p> <p>I'll ask my fingers to keep in better contact with my brain in future...</p> <p>:-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520940&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="B7zLuiNdDoM4dbUfbZ3rvsYZCOKJdU5VWdCOpNqhZOs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520940">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520941" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374543653"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"You said neutrinos can’t be slowed down"</p> <p>Bullshit again.</p> <p>Where does he say neutrinos can't be slowed down?</p> <p>Making shit up because you're clueless and hiding it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520941&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xvJvNPw2cI22bORDL0mvwLaVcFrsWfxebSwu3Txzb_4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520941">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520942" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374545249"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>“there’s a flip-flop between the momentum and mass terms in gamma-gamma pair-production and annihilation.”</p> <p>This does not support the contention “The “fundamental” equation E^2 = p^2*c^2 + m^2*c^4 isn’t fundamental”.</p> <p>Logic fail.</p> <p>“You start with two E=hf massless gamma photons”</p> <p>Which have momentum:</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520942&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qp5_eE3NSTgtL4ygDvIcw54b-SI4hS6Ve447a2v1QAI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520942">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520943" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374545509"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>“With no excess separation energy they have no momentum”</p> <p>No, they DO have momentum:</p> <p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Physical_properties</a></p> <p>“The wave nature of matter is not in doubt.”</p> <p>Why not also bring up the matter of toiletry habits of an ursine population in a sylvan setting as not being in doubt?</p> <p>Frigging wall-o-text bullshitting doesn’t work when you’re the dumbest stick in the room, idiot-boy.</p> <p>“By the way, the Lorentz factor comes straight out of Pythagoras’s theorem”</p> <p>Bullshit.</p> <p>“gluons are virtual, gravitons are hypothetical, and particles are neither bullets nor billiard-balls.”</p> <p>Yet more bullshit.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520943&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="NfiEmcbkFUZ8Nn09eJIOuMaUJNfNbitfy4EyGTqQ8XI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520943">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520944" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374547024"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Duffield's confusion does not clarify basic physics; but as he says, "Even a child can work (it) out". </p> <p>Michael Kelsey, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, as usual clarify's extremely difficult physics. Thank you.</p> <p>Wow's science is strong, and his quick assessments are mostly correct. When he says your logic fails, pay attention.</p> <p>The politics of the anti-science folds is to confuse with nonsense science-speak on difficult science topics; with the purpose to discredit scientists for not understanding their own science. But the anti-science folks always hit themselves in the butt as they go out the door. They can't help themselves; they have to try to discredit the most credible person in the room. And on this post that person is Michael Kelsey, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Oh well.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520944&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SwV2bywId2LeBtFtq3IyQ6icjfWNo8yqXDQexxNRR-w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 22 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520944">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520945" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374554783"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What motivates anti-science John Duffield; besides just being anti-science? Politics, insecurity, trypophobia...</p> <p>If you look up John Duffield and psuedoscience; the first comment by John Duffield on another blog is, "What gets me about all this is that the "constants" aren't constant anyway. The fine-structure constant isn't constant, Planck's constant might not be... So you know c is merely defined to be constant. And... Lambda isn't constant either. How you go from all that to Goldilocks multiverses absolutely beats me."</p> <p>Apparently the only thing constant of nature is John Duffield's anti-science attitude. Because unlike Goldilocks, there is no constant of nature that is just right for John Duffield.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520945&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KEEchPPhYvluDjVObi84o2xocC1EZfAjXDTOeA1FC9w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 23 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520945">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520946" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374556518"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CB for what its worth I do thank you for taking time explaining this to me. I have learned my leason in regard to the Copernican Principle and won't be using it as I did here. In fact I'll probably be challenging others using your logic.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520946&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZNgV2zgs30lkzMM6sr7Bhlkb1pPkMYa0bOkcuzuIKjU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 23 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520946">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520947" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374560270"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CB #83:</p> <p>“It appears as though you are predicting that the electric and magnetic forces can be separated below a certain energy like the electroweak separates into electromagnetic and weak in our common experience. At what energy level does your theory predict this occurs?”</p> <p>Electromagnetism is a unified field consisting of the magnetic and electrical forces, which must remain in consideration as fundamental forces. </p> <p>In 1931 Paul Dirac discovered that when using Maxwell’s equations for the electromagnetic unified field and in removing electrically charged particles from the equations produced duality symmetry in that the electric and magnetic fundamental fields can be interchanged without changing their form. Adding back the electrically charged particles to the equations destroyed the duality symmetry. Dirac proposed the existence of hypothetical magnetic monopole particles and their inclusion in the equations, together with electrically charged particles, reinstated the duality symmetry. Using the fine-structure constant α Dirac established the coupling strengths for the electric and magnetic charges to the electromagnetic unified field. Electrically charged particles are weakly coupled with coupling strength α = 1/137, whereas, the duality symmetry inverts the coupling strength for magnetically charged particles and are strongly coupled with coupling strength of 1/α = 137. </p> <p>As comparison between force strengths are by relative magnitude of the coupling constants, if discovered, then these hypothetical magnetic monopoles would establish magnetism to be the strongest fundamental force! (Electric → x137 → Strong → x137 → Magnetic.)</p> <p>@Wow #91:</p> <p>“1) Nature has oodles of redundancy.<br /> 2) Nature has no intent. It just is.”</p> <p>Very good at making remarks without backing them up. These remarks are meaningless without justification.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520947&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xLLbOcDcJsm90ceQBScoNDrAfZSsGHlsvmO9AJkzieM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">David Gold (not verified)</span> on 23 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520947">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520948" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374561159"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>WOW, did you write this review of Lee Smolin's latest book Time Reborn?</p> <p>The last three chapters resemble a speech of an Islamic fundamentalist preaching before the execution of a heretic who is being stoned to death. There isn't a trace of science in those chapters. It's pure religion and screaming that everyone must act to agree with Smolin's unscientific delusions.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520948&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="smeHBoJAVy2dCJHYYfn__ZCliRoikLQEDS4V-gep2f0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Urbanik (not verified)</span> on 23 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520948">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520949" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374561328"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"“1) Nature has oodles of redundancy.<br /> 2) Nature has no intent. It just is.”</p> <p>Very good at making remarks without backing them up."</p> <p>I also didn't provide any proof that daytime is when the sun is above the horizon, nor that adding two positive numbers increases the total over either of the two numbers added.</p> <p>That is because unless you're a braindead moron, these should not have to be proven to you.</p> <p>Are you just such a braindead moron?</p> <p>If so, please move to this thread where your blatherings are not going to pollute the discourse of people looking for non-quakery discussion.</p> <p>TIA</p> <p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-you-are-responsible-for-what-you-say/">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/23/weekend-diversion-yo…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520949&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zLuPAuJDK36GvaGMUdtzdwY1hSssUGB9XbjJY0EZ0vQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 23 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520949">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520950" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374561388"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"WOW, did you write this review of Lee Smolin’s latest book Time Reborn?"</p> <p>No.</p> <p>Why ask?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520950&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="D33aGn27j56jALpZLp7UsyD3lLUa2vb2EbZqN4gZN1A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 23 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520950">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520951" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374564593"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ John Urbanik:</p> <p>I don't think you'll run into that argument much outside those whose real interest is in crafting a narrative. "Mainstream science is so far off the rails they ignore basic principles, while we heretics work in the shadows on the truth!" It's a romantic, seductive notion, sure. Which is great for a vacation in Paris, but in science maybe it's better to recognize who is trying to seduce with narrative rather than educate with reason and avoid them.</p> <p>Anyway, I'm not here to tell you what books to buy or not buy. I'm just glad to hear you weren't engaging in an deliberate attempt to trick me. Any other result of our conversation is fine with me, but that would have made me sad.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520951&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1gGg3V_YHZwxkqXPkLx0NhkbBN4mANWBpHZypEh1YzA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 23 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520951">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520952" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374705459"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>OKthen re comment #107: I'm not anti-science. I'm pro- science. Very much so. What motivates is seeing physics funding under continued pressure, arguably due to disillusionment amongst the public and politicians, and the rise of pseudoscience such as the Goldilocks multiverse.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520952&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="StFzzmQzq6bvPkhldIBcMERRt6-5_Q_s-b6uu98KJ1c"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 24 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520952">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520953" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374728577"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I'm pro-science."</p> <p>Really?<br /> Then discuss science, listen and learn from the scientists out here instead of trying to discredit them, keep your personal psuedoscience speculations to yourself, and stop shifting the discussion from science to politics.</p> <p>My opinion #106 and #107 remains unchanged.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520953&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cpuwpXPdPuaSJPh7R0nexvXytSY-3KZHGygRd1-zWx8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 25 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520953">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520954" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375058661"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I am discussing science, and I'm not trying to discredit scientists. If you check back you can see me asking questions of Michael in comment #17, and his partial response in comment #27. Note his final line. And note your own comments. Irony isn't your strong suit, is it? </p> <p>Now please, let's stick to the physics and cosmology.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520954&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FntlUIK2ciTFgD1r-a-w3Ipc4JTKBRQ-LCIFWAEoX6o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 28 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520954">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520955" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375429670"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Stupid question: If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, how can the diameter of the universe be 100 billion light years? If space was expanding at the speed of light, the diameter could only be 27.6 billion light years, no?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520955&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="P5pphpOlsKB7g8tp7VnjSK30Sntkt9aeDfD_xqhhWMc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ACORN (not verified)</span> on 02 Aug 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520955">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520956" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375484234"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Because what we see out there is what was there 13.8 billion years ago. And those things have moved from there in that time.</p> <p>Think of skeet shooting. You have to lead your target, so where it APPEARS to have traveled, by the time your shot gets to it, it has moved on, so you aim as if it were EVEN FURTHER along its travel.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520956&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OeOvbTlLpbxIRlZIglz5DDA6v0_UPOGSNIQ3ojuMMpo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 02 Aug 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520956">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520957" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375691942"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow<br /> Hmmm. I'm sure your answer is correct but I'm still not seeing it. I've "led" the target by an additional 13.8 billion years in doubling the diameter to 27.6 billion light years. I just don't see how you need to "lead" by the amount to get to 100 billion LY. Can you point me to a blog that illustrates this? Thx</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520957&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DdEDBJCM2oZ48YEmsWIlSAeUaieuQvKQeUYBQTz2GBY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ACORN (not verified)</span> on 05 Aug 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520957">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520958" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375692182"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Or is it because the space "in the middle", as it were, has also been expanding throughout time pushing out the "edge", as it were, faster than just the edge space is expanding?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520958&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="AhoqqEnwe0x8SB4fZ_PG5XonnvvgcLy7z2Q02fqVKQA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ACORN (not verified)</span> on 05 Aug 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520958">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520959" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375693407"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Because it's moving really fast and it's a long way away.</p> <p>If you shot a clay pigeon going at mach 1.2, your bullets going at mach 1.5 will have to have a hell of a lot of lead.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520959&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="G7icddOV4fZATvD96gFI2GLF2zAi7nGrPdcJf65rDKc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Aug 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520959">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520960" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375696203"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Try here.</p> <p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/01/how-big-is-our-observable-universe/">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/01/how-big-is-our-obser…</a></p> <p>Yes, this blog.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520960&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WariDYuzTvCPDBWkit8pTQDeTFkh5kqJ3toERlpnVS4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Aug 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520960">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2013/07/17/the-second-most-abundant-particles-in-the-universe-are-undetectable%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:51:58 +0000 esiegel 35660 at https://scienceblogs.com How Einstein's most famous equation affects you https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/07/10/how-einsteins-most-famous-equation-affects-you <span>How Einstein&#039;s most famous equation affects you</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind." -<em>Albert Einstein</em></p></blockquote> <p>You've heard and seen it plenty of times: Einstein's most famous equation, E = mc<sup>2</sup>. I've taken you <a href="http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/because_emc2/">inside this equation before</a>, which lays out how much energy is stored in matter-at-rest, and tells you how much energy you need to create matter in the first place.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/antimatter-hydrogen-antihydrogen-created-detector_28934_600x450.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-28595" alt="Image credit: Niels Madsen, ALPHA / Swansea / CERN." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/antimatter-hydrogen-antihydrogen-created-detector_28934_600x450.jpg" width="600" height="400" /></a> Image credit: Niels Madsen, ALPHA / Swansea / CERN. </div> <p>That's right, you can create matter <em>directly</em> from energy; we do it all the time, in fact. In particle accelerators, in stars like the Sun, around black holes and neutron stars, and in cosmic catastrophes, we're constantly creating new matter purely out of energy. It's pretty simple: take two protons with enough energy, smash them together, and you get out three protons and one antiproton. (This is the exact process that used to take place at the old Fermilab accelerator!)</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/images.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-28594" alt="Image credit: Scott Kirchner of University of Alaska, Fairbanks." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/images.jpeg" width="600" height="449" /></a> Image credit: Scott Kirchner of University of Alaska, Fairbanks. </div> <p>This is how we've made the vast majority of antimatter here on Earth, and if you add up all the kinetic energy of the four particles that come out, you'll find that it's smaller than the kinetic energy of the two protons you started with by exactly... the mass of a proton and an antiproton, times the speed of light squared.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/2.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-28596" alt="Image credit: Riken Research of http://www.rikenresearch.riken.jp/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/2.jpg" width="600" height="374" /></a> Image credit: Riken Research of <a href="http://www.rikenresearch.riken.jp/">http://www.rikenresearch.riken.jp/</a>. </div> <p>That's what E = mc<sup>2</sup> tells us: that mass is just <em>one form of energy</em>, and that mass can be created or destroyed very easily, so long as you convert that mass into another form of energy. (There are other conservation rules that you may need to obey as well, but you must <em>always</em> conserve the total amount of energy, as far as our experiments can tell.)</p> <p>But there's a far more common and even mundane application of Einstein's most famous equation: every single nuclear and chemical reaction, <em>ever</em>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/binding_energy.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-28593" alt="Image credit: © Woodbank Communications Ltd 2005." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/binding_energy.gif" width="600" height="481" /></a> Image credit: © Woodbank Communications Ltd 2005. </div> <p>You've heard of a nuclear reaction: it's where we either take lower mass nuclei and combine them to make one or more higher mass nucleus (that's fusion), or we take heavy nuclei and split them apart into lower mass ones (that's fission). In both cases, the amount of energy that comes out is <em>huge</em>, even though the changes in mass are relatively tiny. The most powerful nuclear explosion in history -- the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba">Tsar Bomba</a> -- which released nearly 60 MegaTons of energy, converted less than <strong>50 grams</strong> (under 2 ounces) of mass into energy.</p> <p></p><center> <iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/V6BspF9Ie9M" height="450" width="600" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0"></iframe><p></p></center>But E = mc<sup>2</sup> comes into play in much less spectacular places than that: the paltry chemical reactions that underlie all the biological (and inorganic) processes of everyday life are all based on how electrons are bound to atoms and molecules. There are different energy levels and configurations that electrons transitions between; bonds are formed, broken and re-formed, and energy is either absorbed or emitted to balance each individual reaction out. <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/10-20-PhotosynthesisRev-L.gif"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28597" alt="Image credit: Pearson Education, Inc. / Benjamin Cummings." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/10-20-PhotosynthesisRev-L-600x445.gif" width="600" height="445" /></a> Image credit: Pearson Education, Inc. / Benjamin Cummings. </div> <p>The crazy part? When a plant absorbs a photon for photosynthesis, it <em>increases</em> in mass in direct proportion to the energy of the photon it absorbed, following the law of E = mc<sup>2</sup>. When a human burns through his-or-her chemical fuel in order to maintain their body temperature, they lose mass in direct proportion to the energy released from the breaking of those chemical bonds. In fact, if I did something as simple as weighed a free electron and a free proton on one end of a scale, and weighed a neutral, ground-state hydrogen atom on the other end, I'd find that the free electron and proton weighed more by 13.6 eV/c<sup>2</sup>, exactly the mass-equivalent of the energy needed to ionize a neutral hydrogen atom!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/ionization.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28598" alt="Image credit: Contemporary Chemistry, via http://contemporarychemistry.com/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/ionization-600x222.jpg" width="600" height="222" /></a> Image credit: Contemporary Chemistry, via <a href="http://contemporarychemistry.com/">http://contemporarychemistry.com/</a>. </div> <p>When you combust hydrogen gas with oxygen gas to make water, it gives off energy, as made famous by the Hindenburg disaster.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/Hindenburg-disaster.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28599" alt="Image credit: AP Photo/Philadelphia Public Ledger, HO." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/Hindenburg-disaster-600x452.jpg" width="600" height="452" /></a> Image credit: AP Photo/Philadelphia Public Ledger, HO. </div> <p>Yet the water that's the product of the reaction actually is slightly lower in mass than the hydrogen and oxygen that came before. How much lower in mass? By the exact amount of energy that was released, divided by the speed-of-light squared. (Because if E = mc<sup>2</sup>, then it's also true that E / c<sup>2</sup> = m.)</p> <p>So every time you do something that releases energy, you're <em>losing mass</em> in direct proportion to the amount of energy that's released.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/northern-hawk-owl-takeoff-9834.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28600" alt="Image credit: Greg Schneider Photography, via http://www.gschneiderphoto.com/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/northern-hawk-owl-takeoff-9834-600x400.jpg" width="600" height="400" /></a> Image credit: Greg Schneider Photography, via <a href="http://www.gschneiderphoto.com/">http://www.gschneiderphoto.com/</a>. </div> <p>And similarly, every time you absorb energy, you <em>gain mass</em> in direct proportion to the amount of energy that's absorbed.</p> <p>So what this means is that mass is a form of energy, and that these two quantities, no matter what you do to a system, are proportional to one another. In terms of an equation, E ∝ m.</p> <p>But to turn that proportional symbol (∝) into an equal sign, you need to get the conversion factor right. The conversion factor is what tells you <em>how</em> energy is related to mass, <strong>quantitatively</strong>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/einsteinphoto3.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28589" alt="Image via David Topper and Dwight Vincent of the University of Winnipeg." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/einsteinphoto3-600x337.jpg" width="600" height="337" /></a> Image via David Topper and Dwight Vincent of the University of Winnipeg. </div> <p>And that conversion factor is the speed-of-light, squared. Figuring all of this out was just one of Einstein's <a href="http://www.relativitycalculator.com/pdfs/einstein_1934_two-blackboard_derivation_of_energy-mass_equivalence.pdf">great contributions</a> to our understanding of the Universe.</p> <p>And that was 108 years ago, already, believe it or not. Even though you probably never think about it, E = mc<sup>2</sup> (or E / c<sup>2</sup> = m) affects practically everything that occurs in our world; each time you bat an eyelid, flex a muscle, breathe in or out, think a thought or beat your heart, you're converting mass into energy, and each time you digest a meal, you're converting energy back into mass. Everything that adds or subtracts energy from a system causes its mass to change, and we can even figure out, down to the tiniest amounts measurable, by how much.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/7229651-albert-einsteins-famous-matematical-equation-e-mc2-written-on-a-chalkboard.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28592" alt="Image credit: Stock photo by Matthew Benoit, via http://www.123rf.com/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/07/7229651-albert-einsteins-famous-matematical-equation-e-mc2-written-on-a-chalkboard-600x402.jpg" width="600" height="402" /></a> Image credit: Stock photo by Matthew Benoit, via <a href="http://www.123rf.com/">http://www.123rf.com/</a>. </div> <p>How?</p> <p>Through E = mc<sup>2</sup>.</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Wed, 07/10/2013 - 14:58</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/physics" hreflang="en">Physics</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/relativity-0" hreflang="en">Relativity</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/emc2" hreflang="en">E=mc2</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/einstein" hreflang="en">Einstein</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/energy-0" hreflang="en">energy</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/equivalence" hreflang="en">equivalence</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mass" hreflang="en">mass</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520761" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373496646"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The “creation” of a particle antiparticle pair doesn’t occur with every head on proton to proton collision at an energy level above 6 GeV, a level achieved by the Bevatron in 1954. From what I’ve read, only one new proton-antiproton appears in every three million proton to proton collisions at 6 GeV.</p> <p>The Large Hadron Collider attained an energy level of 7 TeV in 2011, that’s one million times the energy level reached by the Bevatron in the 1950s, yet only one new proton accompanied by one new antiproton, and with a similar relative frequency, is all that still appears per head on proton to proton collision at an energy level one million times higher than that achieved by the Bevatron.</p> <p>Why only a single pair?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520761&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ThOLwrFxu08Calmd7Po5rE-I9uDkEwtTALYk1m2Ik1s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Alan L. (not verified)</span> on 10 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520761">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520762" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373515002"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>Why only a single pair?</i></p> <p>You noted that a proton-proton collision only gives you a newly created proton-antiproton pair in one out of three million tries. The naive way to estimate the probability of creating two pairs is to square the probability of creating a single pair. That would be one out of every ten trillion collisions. I don't know how many proton-proton collisions they have actually done, but it may be that they haven't done enough to detect the double-pair-creation pathway at the customary 5σ level. IOW, I don't think that double-pair creation is forbidden, but it is so rare that you would need to be working at a precision of about 13 decimal places to worry about it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520762&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ImK9CGj6iIB6hCmED35nM4RzLtUZA2tJP8ccDjPZtOk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 10 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520762">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520763" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373516609"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It should probably be noted (in case in isn't obvious from the tiny mass converted in the Tsar Bomba) that the amount of mass gained or lost by these processes is NOT the pounds or kilos that show up on one's bathroom scale.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520763&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8f3XY4quT7AeZC9-SgGnPqK5RxI76a2gZ6W8rWTAKMg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">BenHead (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520763">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520764" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373526256"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>BenHead: Lol, yeah. I find it really funny when people say they don't believe normal chemical reactions etc. result in mass changes because they can't see the change on whatever scale they happened to use which was at best a college lab scale with a few digits of precision. Everyone knows that E=mc^2 means there's a lot of energy tied up in matter, but somehow the reverse doesn't occur to them.</p> <p>Also, I'm trying to get away from using the "conversion"-type terminology that suggests mass is a "kind" of energy, and instead say what it really is: Literally the same thing in different units. *Matter* is a type of energy. Mass is energy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520764&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mPLWfT7FL964SiFr4JLht8AxnysHu7ep2AgbRHzfHdM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520764">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520765" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373528590"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Does the same relationship hold between the mass of dark matter and dark energy? (What I've read seems to imply that we don't see conversions between normal x and dark x; so I'm wondering whether they obey very different kinds of laws.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520765&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oKK7qHuyeTQasRHA1EL9LDNula3XUoiFfew9XfFsN8A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bill (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520765">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520766" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373529528"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bill: Yes. Whatever Dark Matter is -- even if it's not a new type of particle but some other phenomenon -- if it has energy, then it has mass, because they're the same thing just with a c^2 unit conversion factor. Assuming it is a particle, and that it might annihilate when it interacts, we should (eventually) be able to see signs of this and the energy of the radiation we see will let us figure out what the mass of the dark matter particle is. There are experiments looking for this right now.</p> <p>Dark Energy would also follow the same rule, and the mass of the universe is 4x bigger than it would be without DE. It's weirder with DE because the kind of energy it is has an effect that's different from what you expect from "normal" mass (where normal in this case includes dark matter).</p> <p>But E=mc^2 always holds.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520766&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1XleJypW_ujMg7rnPXUGDsIxKHJzH49e6bfwd0_lprc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520766">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520767" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373538963"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Nice article. Nice to hear mention of the mass of the ground-state hydrogen atom being less than the mass of the separate proton and electron. In similar vein when you raise a brick or an electron, you do work on it and give it what's called gravitational potential energy. This is in the brick/electron. Its mass increases. When you drop it, it's converted into kinetic energy. Once you've dissipated this, the mass is reduced. Invariant mass varies! Oh by the way, the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc². This is worth a read: <a href="http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm">http://www.tardyon.de/mirror/hooft/hooft.htm</a> . NB: it's not THE 't Hooft, it's some other 't Hooft.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520767&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="u_4_177Tu7Q7PndXGMeHtLhMTeZkzs03URXspxkvqvM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520767">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520768" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373546037"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>No, the Higgs mechanism does not contradict E=mc^2. It (like everything else in modern physics) depends on it being true. It is the potential of a particle wrt the Higgs field that results in them having rest mass. Guess what the proportionality constant of potential energy to mass is?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520768&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4TfmV0hEoPed60GwPNLoF_ftgVSNF-HNfkrw0OR3RD8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520768">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520769" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373548192"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Also, potential energy is stored in the field. If you lift a brick, the gravitational potential energy is stored in the gravitational field between it and the earth. Therefore you only see the additional mass if you consider the whole earth/brick system. If this was not the case you'd have the question of why the potential energy isn't stored in the earth when it, too, had its potential wrt the brick increased by the same amount. The potential is between the two. The system as a whole is what has increased energy, and therefore mass.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520769&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6y19oy_CVMs94_FW9F_Dqtztv3t3PSH0et1tlxjTriE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520769">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520770" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373577840"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>CB: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, not a measure of its interaction with a cosmic-treacle field. And the gravitational potential energy is in the brick. If you give the brick 11km/s worth of potential energy it escapes the system. A brick "at rest" in free space has more mass-energy than the same brick at rest on the ground. You know this because when you throw a 1kg brick into a black hole, the black hole mass increases by 1kg. Just before the brick disappeared into the black hole it had considerable kinetic energy, but the "relativistic mass" or total energy of the fast-moving brick was still 1kg.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520770&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7ThIRk1AKTL3vBbgYp7EAzMukzhMMMot8mWuDiByc5M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520770">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520771" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373583597"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>As always, an interesting read. But.</p> <p>"So every time you do something that releases energy, you’re losing mass in direct proportion to the amount of energy that’s released. And similarly, every time you absorb energy, you gain mass in direct proportion to the amount of energy that’s absorbed."</p> <p>Not true.</p> <p>State changes. Crystal structure change. There is a delta E for each, and there is no associated change in mass in these processes. For example,when water turns from liquid to gas.</p> <p>Also, any given chemical reaction is going to have delta H's for the making and/or breaking of bonds. There does not need to be a correlating loss or gain of mass for there to be a change in energy (which is either released or absorbed).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520771&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EegP4NJDO7oLz9uKG1DdYfFC2pzW_DAKQJsrfP47mlU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">William Hendrixson (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520771">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520772" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373584644"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Eric Lund</p> <p>Here’s a link to an article on the proton-proton collisions at the LHC. From the first paragraph:</p> <p><a href="http://www.newswise.com/articles/lhc-proton-run-for-2011-reaches-successful-conclusion">http://www.newswise.com/articles/lhc-proton-run-for-2011-reaches-succes…</a></p> <p><i>Newswise — Geneva, 31 October 2011. After some 180 days of running and four hundred trillion proton proton collisions, the LHC’s 2011 proton run came to an end at 5.15pm yesterday evening.</i></p> <p>That’s forty times the square of the frequency you mentioned in post #2 and does not take into account the trillions of proton to proton collisions that took place previously.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520772&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-CxdWExavUNIr7K9lTKf9GYPuiYrQlvUV5Qy3yHtnWY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Alan L. (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520772">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520773" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373585378"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"CB: the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, not a measure of its interaction with a cosmic-treacle field."</p> <p>Wrong.</p> <p>Mass is defined by its resistant to change in motion.</p> <p>There's nothing in the "energy content" that would bring that about, but there IS something about an interation with a Higgs field that WOULD bring that about.</p> <p>Please stop telling people who are right that they are wrong and in doing so making a complete and utter arse of yourself, it wastes my time correcting your asinine mistake and confuses people who know more than you but not enough to know you're talking bollocks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520773&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rjtanuaVYYXSm3WPx503AYHhlAs8LBycZBup1cFJYLw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520773">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520774" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373585577"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Alan, there was nothing there about the rate of pair production there, never mind the rate of pair production, so unless you're trying to say Eric overestimated the rate of this (which was based on the proviso that the figures *he* had been given were accurate, so complaining to HIM about the error in calculation is entirely uncalled for) or you're missing a hell of a lot of information there and therefore have nothing to make the condemnatory implication valid.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520774&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bU-iwdr9w_kifZe7wjrmoJM3UoRmwX0eNLIBAx-BWPg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520774">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520775" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373585620"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>(remove the "or", in ") or you're missing", the sentence lasted longer than my short-term buffer).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520775&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3_VpkSfNq9OZaC4fFLonMAp2EN-oCgMhYIM5jHayU7c"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520775">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520776" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373585882"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"State changes. Crystal structure change. There is a delta E for each, and there is no associated change in mass in these processes"</p> <p>Not in actual fact.</p> <p>The condensation of a gas to a liquid will cause a loss in **MASS**. As will reorganisation from one crystal lattice of Diamond to the energetically favoured graphite will also cause a loss in mass.</p> <p>That would be then lost to the system by, for example, the heating of the resultant and the loss of that heat energy as photons to the surround, meaning that the mass would not be there to be calculated any more.</p> <p>Weighing the element "fire" was easy in comparison to this change in mass, however.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520776&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vUaOwsLVphwryfC7RdWmPLKRgN4qvLthrKMb8IUvIyc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520776">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520777" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373586521"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Wow</p> <p>I was not “complaining to HIM” about anything.</p> <p>Piss off, you obnoxious fuck.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520777&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="l7sEp-fvv8n4eXKP21rFDovVLdqjBePV5YylWj8YShI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Alan L. (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520777">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520778" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373599957"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Postulaatide absolutiseerimine (erirelatiivsusteoorias) ja "lihtsa" valemi E = mc^2; "materialiseerimine - koos mõlema kooskõlastatult kuulutamisega HEURISTILISTEKS - see on, mis on takistanud juba pärast II Maailmasõda Füüsika edasiarengut. Loomulikult on seda abrakadabrat süvendanud mass/osakeste duaalsuse "lubamine" + osakeste ristlainetus "mittemilleski".<br /> 1. "Väike viga": Lorentz-teisenduste`le bijektiivse kuju andmine, mis viib (alati!) väärale arusaamale: vastandteisendustest kui pöördteisendustest (teisenduste endi nii multiplikatiivsel kui ka additiivsel kujul?).<br /> Keelelis-intuitiivselt: "Einsteini rongi" Pikkust mõõdetakse peegelteisendusega (POSTULEERIDES geomeetrilise keskmise teisendusfunktsiooni f*(ct) = f(+)(f(-)) = k - olemasolu!?)<br /> 2. Valemi E = mc^2 õigsuses pole vaja kahelda, KUID milleks "kaotab" selline energia/massi (vrdl. osake/laine!?) kokkukleepimine - KEHADE VÄELISUSE?<br /> VÄGI = mistahes monaadse keha võimelisus subjektsuseks relatiivses liikumises (ka: teisenenud ruumi MÕÕDISTAMISEL). VÄGI - ei ole (otseselt?) materiaalne mõiste, kuid (kasutades kaugmõju printsiipi!) - on nimelt VAIMSE VÄE primaarsuse-nõue!<br /> Ettepanek:<br /> Mingem "veidi" tagasi - Galilei teisendusteni erirelatiivsusteoorias; ja "edasi" - üldrelatiivsusteooria subjektsuse määratlemisega!<br /> Tänan tähelepanu eest!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520778&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ohgjLPRcopXooB24OMFIwcNra-q_L66K8W2JJJVktcU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Tõnu Eevere (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520778">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520779" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373604143"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Then your post was that of a flailing moron you impotent twat.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520779&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PUy7zVrM0lvm8VKMsrN6kJOQS0cBzxfbZk3n-iARHAA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520779">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520780" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373607234"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ William:<br /> "State changes. Crystal structure change. There is a delta E for each, and there is no associated change in mass in these processes. For example,when water turns from liquid to gas."</p> <p>Yes there absolutely is, whenever there is a change in energy. However that change in mass is equal to delta-E/c^2. Ergo it is very small. Most of the time, therefore, you can ignore it, because you can't even measure it (i.e. on your college lab scale). That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and can never be measured. It can.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520780&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="56pGWsNY1iOMJRb5vRfHCjyQe_UDKRoHFjj18xZHK2E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520780">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520781" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373607861"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>'MegaTons of energy' might confuse some people. Need to put the TNT reference in.</p> <p>As you point out, it was actually just 50 grams of energy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520781&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eGUv-aJE2AzdauERr46paj5J6joOWB9Glol4tbfx3lo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Mark McAndrew (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520781">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520782" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373608373"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Duffield: Still hanging your hat on your completely wrong description of a brick falling in a black hole, I see. Good job ignoring the paradox inherent in this incorrect view: Why is the extra mass-energy stored in the *brick* and not the *earth*? The earth's potential with respect to the brick increased by the exact same amount! So did the earth's mass also increase by the same amount, violating the Conservation of Energy that you love but don't understand? Or did each get 1/2 the mass, or some other proportion? Or did you just not think about this and that's why you're wrong?</p> <p>Fields can store energy. Electric potential energy is stored in the electromagnetic field between two charged objects, just like gravitational potential energy is stored in the gravitational field between the brick and earth, or brick and black hole. It's not "in" either object, so weighing them both separately, then collectively after you let them fall together, will show a net increase equal to the gravitational potential energy that was present before. Only if you weigh the entire brick-earth or brick-BH SYSTEM before hand will you see no mass change.</p> <p>The idea that energy can only be stored in "objects" is a supremely naive view. This is especially obvious when considering that what you call a "brick" is, itself, just particular kinds of energy stored in various fields.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520782&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zA9ehbKE1a2-Jxce7BkNCY163yW6FHOZmrnHvJ9XzrU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520782">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520783" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373609125"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Duffield: "the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, not a measure of its interaction with a cosmic-treacle field."</p> <p>Because field potentials aren't a type of energy. Got it. "It" being how ignorant you are.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520783&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0Qb6Ri77758K4up93_y5tLs1ypVyNzgkpLCzRKqz-YM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520783">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520784" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373610351"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"However that change in mass is equal to delta-E/c^2. Ergo it is very small."</p> <p>I literally woke up today thinking exactly this, and realized why it would be something ignored by University Chemistry. I do feel slightly cheated though. I suppose P-Chem is already hard enough, but still... should I ask for a refund?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520784&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wZXvk6t0ag_SupoD_1ny5Vs0Aprff9VSWy_3-mGJ7J8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">William Hendrixson (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520784">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520785" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373614311"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>William: Heh, good on you!</p> <p>It certainly would be nice if they'd at least mention how E=mc^2 applies but that you'll be ignoring it for the rest of the semester because the change is so small. Kinda like it'd be nice if they'd mentioned that the model of the atom du jour was just an approximation or outdated model, but enough for now.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520785&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZMAexaFdmog2J4IJl9aN8tF2mx_CqlZX5ur4WstDgFk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520785">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520786" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373624359"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John Duffield,</p> <p>Think of it in terms of work and use the relativity principle: (let m be the mass of the brick, M the mass of the earth, and r be their separation)</p> <p>From a reference frame in which the earth is stationary, if we raise the brick to height r and let it go, the force exerted on the brick is GMm/r^2. The brick travels through a distance r (assuming for simplicity that the earth and brick are point masses, which does not affect the conclusion). Therefore the earth does work equal to GMm/r on the brick and the brick must increase in mass by GMm/(rc^2). The earth has done work, so its mass must decrease by the same amount. If the brick stops moving and dissipates its energy in some other form, its mass decreases by this amount also, meaning that the earth/brick system's mass has decreased by GMm/(rc^2), the mass equivalent of the gravitational potential energy.</p> <p>Treating the same situation from a reference frame in which the earth is moving and the brick stationary:<br /> The brick exerts a force GMm/r^2 on the earth. The earth moves through a distance r. The brick therefore does work GMm/r on the earth. The earth's mass therefore increases by GMm/(rc^2). The brick has done work and its mass must decrease by this same amount. Assuming the earth stops moving and dissipates its energy, its mass decreases by this same amount, again leading to the conclusion that the total mass of the system decreases by GMm/(rc^2). </p> <p>These are both physically equivalent and equally valid descriptions of the process. The only point of agreement they have WRT the mass is that the total mass of the system decreases by GMm/(rc^2) once the components have stopped moving. Therefore, the only absolute thing we can say is that the system gains mass when the components are separated and loses mass when they are brought together. We cannot say in physically valid absolute terms that the brick gains mass when the earth and brick are separated; it's equally valid to say that the mass of the brick remains unchanged and that the mass of the earth increases in that situation.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520786&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nOFeEitqFGeiGg1fXqjZZ5auDLeC1WIxmYI_83GcdF0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520786">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520787" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373668036"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So 1 kilogram water has more mass than 1 kilogram ice ?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520787&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Mtk08B5xDKRxgIqcsJRXi7Ynns-LH1p07cK-VpfNupI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">M (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520787">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520788" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373669091"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sean: with respect, your description is incorrect. You do work on the brick when you raise it. The Earth doesn’t do work on the brick as it falls. There is no magical mysterious mechanism by which the Earth loses mass to a falling body. Gravity is not a force in the Newtonian sense. Yes when you dissipate the kinetic energy of the falling brick its mass decreases, but its mass increased when you raised it. It isn’t valid to claim symmetry between the brick and the Earth. Imagine you raise the brick using an explosion which exerts equal and opposite force on both the brick and the Earth. They each acquire the same |p|=mv momentum but the KE=½mv² is not shared equally. The brick gets the lion’s share of the kinetic energy. If that explosion is sufficient to give the brick an 11km/s escape velocity, the brick takes that kinetic energy away with it, and it's never coming back. It’s lost to the system. </p> <p>CB: I'm not wrong about this. Go and find a relativity expert. He will confirm that I'm right.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520788&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="P4g9f-M9ATdqkxkyJ3SFH70fXC355BrfwzHfKaMlmuA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520788">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520789" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373670874"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"with respect, your description is incorrect. You do work on the brick when you raise it. The Earth doesn’t do work on the brick as it falls."</p> <p>With all due respect, that's a load of gobshite, John.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520789&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="b8uNqeYbT30Bd_uO97AHW4dlVRu_TnAc5YkrzFgyZzY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520789">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520790" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373699603"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>M: "gram" is a unit of mass, unlike "pound" which is a unit of force. So if you freeze a kilogram of water you end up with less than a kilogram of ice. </p> <p>Hope I got that right. It's getting to where it's worth your clean shirt to make a comment or ask a question in here any more. No wonder Ethan doesn't stick his head in that often. Jezzus, people.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520790&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jUQcxIEzyll64ierAJTJ0UCNsDmvTFSkk0NoNTWlUYw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Marshall (not verified)</span> on 13 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520790">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520791" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373700607"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ M</p> <p>the density of ice and water are not the same. And since there is a relation between mass, volume and density.. your question needs some refining, because not all of those 3 properties will be the same for 1kg of water and ice.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520791&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="x9wcXG7YSgCaayyZ7L2nNZ-uOW_b3wNCDtrD2sSdBns"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 13 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520791">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520792" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373701394"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s. it depends what you are getting at. Mass on it's own doesn't exist. It is always connected to some force or other physical property. </p> <p>If you just speak of weight.. than 1kg of anything is same to 1kg of anything else.. that's what weight is.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520792&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="J8istYdTIA6K-bJpT2ESNjVXoCF658t9_PBFO_ZChZ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 13 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520792">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520793" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373776184"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sinisa: what Marshall said sounds right to me. In his E=mc² paper* Einstein said a radiating body loses mass. So your 1kg of water radiates away its heat. So when it's turned to ice, its mass is slightly less than 1kg. The same applies if you drop a 1kg brick and radiate away the kinetic energy. </p> <p>* <a href="http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/">http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520793&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rGThgPjoDnMKs4G8m-z-wHTn4bBCZbDJ4A88mA-evQg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">John Duffield (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520793">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520794" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373786109"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ 34 John</p> <p>your reply is exactly why I said "the question needs refining".</p> <p>There are other things that need to be taken into consideration. You approach it from E=mc^2, but there are many different ways in which mass relates.. i.e. through volume and density, momentum and velocity, relativity etc..</p> <p>You introduced radiation as an additional element in the system. So it's not just 1kg of two things. There is an additional element. And so on...</p> <p>You, or rather "M" needs to specify the parameters. Is it at room temperature, is it a closed system, are there, and what are the forces acting upon it.. etc. etc.. Without all that 1kg of ice has the same mass as 1kg of water. 1 kg of water will not make 1kg of ice. That's another thing. But if you already have 1kg of each.. their masses, strictly speaking are same... 1kg</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520794&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rCrrdnHOYa7Gfp73frzRklRnZQ5tk1srhOuqJLNP1Kw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520794">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520795" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373857970"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John,</p> <p>With all due respect, please learn some basic high school level physics before you come on here and spout your crap. Work is defined in physics as occuring when a force acts on a body and that body moves in response to that force. In equation form W = F dr, where F is the force vector, dr is the change in the position vector, and the product involved is the standard dot product (sorry I couldn't properly render the "dot" on here). When you lift a brick, you certainly must exert a force on it, and by definition since you are lifting it, it moves in response. Therefore, as you correctly recognized, you do work on the brick when lifting it. Now, why does it fall? It falls because the earth exerts a force on it. When it does, the brick moves in response. Therefore, the earth does work on the brick when it falls, just as I stated.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520795&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0_v6i0HlqW37V9R5n3l3TQWT6ikEktbeLkbRA6xlq9U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520795">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520796" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373858126"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>John,</p> <p>Further, while this description seems counterintuitive and unfamiliar, it is physically valid. The brick does work on the earth when the earth falls toward the brick. It is perfectly valid to consider a reference frame in which the brick is stationary and the earth moving. Further, Newton's gravitational law (which is certainly valid in the weak field of the earth-brick system) is symmetrical. The earth exerts a force on the brick, but the brick exerts the same force on the earth. Therefore, the brick is exerting a force on the earth, and the earth moves in response. Thus, the brick does work on the earth in that reference frame.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520796&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xsdC7F2QDnDXInrWWBNRL3wVWFOgGmWpafp2uXb3KHg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520796">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520797" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1373868155"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/07/binding_energy.gif">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/files/2013/07/binding_energy.gif</a><br /> Binding energy is negative. 1.74 solar-mass 465.1 Hz pulsar PSR J1903+0327 has -15.3% binding energy. it masses 15.3% less than its unbound summed baryonic composition (AP4 model). Fusion is much more efficient for releasing energy, absolutely per mole and especially per gram.</p> <p>"<i> Tsar Bomba...converted less than 50 grams (under 2 ounces) of mass into energy.</i>" The number of Tsar Bomba electrons, protons, and neutrons immediately pre- and -post-detonation were identical. The immediate energy release was reshuffling nuclear binding energies. Neither fission nor fusion immediately transforms or destroys electrons, protons, or neutrons. Daughter decays then follow, that do. Russians boasted of a lead bomb jacket (inerital confinement), leading to the cleanest nuclear detonation re fallout. A depleted uranium jacket would have given 100+ megatons and planet-searing fallout. However... Each D-T fusion emitted averages 1/2 neutron. That astounding neutron blast did N(14) + n to C(14) + p, adding a huge load of carbon-14 into the world.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520797&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1CDaYhWM4TpRxa0TTLZiICyB4ebwsFyiMH1Hz4tMJ_U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Uncle Al (not verified)</span> on 15 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520797">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520798" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374088524"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It is proven by Chou et. al., 2010 that your head ticks faster than your feet. Using atomic clocks. But you can substitute one elctromagnetic process for any other. So what is the case for a faster oszillating field? It contains more energy = more mass. This is the case at your head. Mind you incoming and outgoing light is a different issue because it has to fight the potential when leaving, we however lift our head up and thus do work.<br /> So for a brick falling, it looses energy/mass - and of course this doesn't get lost but remains contained within the field. It is well known that when two objects come together they have a combined lower mass than the two on their own.<br /> So I think this energy/mass difference getting returned to space into the grevitational field is correct.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520798&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zAoeqNmomnFBnJuOnHihHfgY-vZD5uARl8GuYIULawA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Cosmophilosopha (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520798">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520799" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1374090589"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So I agree with you Wow (or CB?). But why are you so unnice to people. Why trolling on someone's blog and abusing others rather than guiding them with provision of facts if you are that superior? They might not know better and be greatful for facts and evidence. I sometimes get things wrong but always change my opinion when I see new facts.</p> <p>I read you little passage about DM here and you might be surprised to find that my hypothesis which comes up with the 83.44% invisible, realy bases on not much else but E=mc^2 ... applied to something that I thought had been neglected ... good luck catching any radiation though...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520799&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gV531fXh27K_RLyswUC4frNd-NXI50ZrEC8QWbpP_yc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Cosmophilosopha (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520799">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520800" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1375063356"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I just had to make a late comment to this thread. I appreciated Ethan writing it. This concept of mass varying with total energy content is something I encountered a few months ago. I thought it was an error at the time and was startled when someone casually affirmed it, like it was obvious.</p> <p>Before I fully accepted it I wanted to a reasonably reliable source reinforcing it. I guess this qualifies. And as a bonus, a question I had about the ramifications of this has been answered in the comments. That mass will change if you lift something off the ground.</p> <p>I'm still really annoyed. I was taught specifically that E=MC^2 only described nuclear reactions. It's not that no one ever said anything about chemical reactions, I was specifically taught in science classes that mass does not change in chemical reactions. Now I find out that this is wrong, and it was known to be wrong at the time.</p> <p>I get that the total change is impossibly small, but that's not the point. The point is that not only was I not told all there was to it, I was taught the wrong things in a class that was supposed to be informing me about the nature of reality. I feel pretty angry and betrayed, I liked my science classes, I enjoyed learning about that kind of thing. The idea that I was working to learn things that were wrong leaves me feeling almost violated.</p> <p>Incidentally they screwed up evolution too. Yep, all I got was the trite "random mutation plus natural selection equals evolution" picture. Not a single word of neutral drift. Pure adaptionism. I've spent years trying to correct the false assumptions that had me making. It's going to take quite a while before I really have accepted that a chemical reaction can alter mass as well. It's still ingrained in me, the idea that nuclear reactions are special because they translate mass into energy. That chemical reactions specifically cannot do that. Unlearning that is not going to happen fast.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520800&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tKv7VXyGXYeRtBSkUVK0is0OJvJB9ERGxZEpRaMPkaY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Nomad (not verified)</span> on 28 Jul 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520800">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520801" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1378937458"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Please examine the latest publication on Einstein's equation:</p> <p>M.A. Padmanabha Rao, Discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays and Bharat Radiation challenging the validity of Einstein’s formula E= mc^2, IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP), .Volume 4, Issue 4 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 08-14 DOI: 10.9790/4861-0420624<br /><a href="http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id=3522">http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/papers/Vol4-issue4/B0440814.pdf?id…</a></p> <p>Abstract: The current paper reports discovery of superluminal velocities of X-rays, and Bharat Radiation in 12.87 to 31 nm range from solar spectra. The discovery challenges the 100 year old Albert Einstein’s assertion that nothing can go faster than velocity of light c in vacuum while formulating E = mc^2 in his special theory of relativity reported in 1905. Several solar spectra recorded at various wavelengths by Woods et al in 2011 demonstrated GOES X-rays arriving earlier than 13.5 nm emission, which in turn arriving earlier than 33.5 nm emission. Finally, the investigators faced difficulty in concluding that short wavelengths traveled fast because of lack of information whether all the three emissions originated from the same source and at the same time. Very recently the author has reported GOES X-rays (7.0 nm) cause 13.5 nm (Bharat Radiation), which in turn causes 33.5 nm Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) emission from same excited atoms present in solar flare by Padmanabha Rao Effect. Based on these findings, the author succeeded in explaining how the solar spectral findings provide direct evidences on superluminal velocities of GOES X-ray and 13.5 nm Bharat Radiation emissions, when 33.5 nm EUV emission is considered travelling at velocity of light c. Among X-ray wavelengths, the short wavelength 7.0 nm X-rays traveled faster than 9.4 nm X-rays, while X-rays go at superluminal velocities. Among Bharat radiation wavelengths, short wavelengths showed fast travel, while Bharat Radiation goes at superluminal velocities as compared to 33.5 EUV emission.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520801&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U37LRNoSOwPNVrb-dSp2vtqEv5EWMdICbvvlpdmqpZE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="M.A. Padmanabha Rao, PhD (AIIMS)">M.A. Padmanabh… (not verified)</span> on 11 Sep 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520801">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520802" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1391316992"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>- for all who enjoy a good Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson yarn. How they discover who really came up with L=mV² (E=MC²)</p> <p>First review, from Serbia: <a href="http://inserbia.info/news/2014/01/sherlock-holmes-and-the-mystery-of-einsteins-daughter-review/">http://inserbia.info/news/2014/01/sherlock-holmes-and-the-mystery-of-ei…</a></p> <p>Sherlock Holmes And The Mystery of Einstein's Daughter by Tim Symonds</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520802&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="K3wOwNO2SDkio_sPxm1XNYmsLicBqMmR9At7vz5zoeY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Tim Symonds (not verified)</span> on 01 Feb 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520802">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2013/07/10/how-einsteins-most-famous-equation-affects-you%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Wed, 10 Jul 2013 18:58:15 +0000 esiegel 35656 at https://scienceblogs.com Messier Monday: Messier's First Globular Cluster, M2 https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/17/messier-monday-messiers-first-globular-cluster-m2 <span>Messier Monday: Messier&#039;s First Globular Cluster, M2</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“God put me on this earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now I am so far behind that I will never die.” -<em>Bill Watterson</em></p></blockquote> <p>Welcome back to another <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/?s=messier+monday">Messier Monday</a>, only here on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang</a>! With each new Monday, we take an in-depth look at a prominently visible random object from Messier's catalogue of 110 deep-sky curiosities, objects that range from stellar corpses to star-forming regions, to open clusters, globular clusters, distant galaxies, and even a few anomalies!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/messierstarchart_m2.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28368" alt="Image credit: Wikimedia Commons users Jim Cornmell and Zeimusu." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/messierstarchart_m2-600x300.jpg" width="600" height="300" /></a> Image credit: Wikimedia Commons users Jim Cornmell and Zeimusu. </div> <p>The objects in Messier's catalogue are relatively fixed, at least on the timescale of a human lifetime, with star clusters and star-forming regions found mostly in the plane of our galaxy, galaxies found clumped together in groups and clusters, and globular clusters -- collections of hundreds of thousands or even millions of stars in a dense, spheroidal region -- distributed irregularly in all directions.</p> <p>For today's object, we're taking a look at <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_2">Messier 2</a>, the second object (and first globular cluster) to be catalogued by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Messier">Charles Messier</a> and his assistant, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_M%C3%A9chain">Pierre Méchain</a>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/Poster-0.99a-PF_M2.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28369" alt="Image credit: © 2008 by Patrick Freeman of http://www.astro-pat.com/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/Poster-0.99a-PF_M2-600x900.jpg" width="600" height="900" /></a> Image credit: © 2008 by Patrick Freeman of <a href="http://www.astro-pat.com/">http://www.astro-pat.com/</a>. </div> <p>During the summer months -- from June through September -- the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Triangle">Summer Triangle</a> is a prominent asterism of three stars far brighter than all others in a rather large area of the sky. If you can wait until after midnight, on the eastern horizon, the constellation of Aquarius will begin to rise directly beneath the triangle. And with it, today's object of interest, <a href="http://messier.seds.org/m/m002.html">Messier 2</a>. Here's how to pinpoint it in earnest.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_far.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28370" alt="Image credit: me, using the free software Stellarium, via http://stellarium.org/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_far-600x375.jpg" width="600" height="375" /></a> Image credit: me, using the free software Stellarium, via <a href="http://stellarium.org/">http://stellarium.org/</a>. </div> <p>While not as bright or prominent as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deneb">Deneb</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vega">Vega</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair">Altair</a>, the three stars of the Summer Triangle, there are three relatively bright stars that make a right triangle that stand out in their own region of the sky: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epsilon_Pegasi">Enif</a>, closest to the Summer Triangle, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Aquarii">Sadalmelik</a>, the "right angle" of the right triangle, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Aquarii">Sadalsuud</a>, the closest of these bright stars to <a href="http://www.universetoday.com/31095/messier-2/">Messier 2</a>, which is just five degrees away.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_mid.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28371" alt="Image credit: me, using the free software Stellarium, via http://stellarium.org/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_mid-600x375.jpg" width="600" height="375" /></a> Image credit: me, using the free software Stellarium, via <a href="http://stellarium.org/">http://stellarium.org/</a>. </div> <p>Invisible to the naked eye but easy to find in binoculars or even a low-power telescope, Messier 2 will appear to be no more than a large fuzzball unless you've got a very impressive telescope (10" or bigger), or a lot of time and a good quality camera. It's nested just to the west of three stars at the limit of averted human naked-eye vision.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/m2_near.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28372" alt="Image credit: me, using the free software Stellarium, via http://stellarium.org/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/m2_near-600x375.jpg" width="600" height="375" /></a> Image credit: me, using the free software Stellarium, via <a href="http://stellarium.org/">http://stellarium.org/</a>. </div> <p>But Messier 2 is a remarkable object in its own right. Globular clusters are some of the oldest objects in the Universe; our Universe is some 13.8 billion years old, and Messier 2, some 150,000 stars strong, has an estimated age of about 13 billion years, meaning it likely formed when the Universe was just 6% of its current age!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_1059x800.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28373" alt="Image credit: © 2013 Louis P. Marchesi of Marchesi Observatory." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_1059x800-600x453.jpg" width="600" height="453" /></a> Image credit: © 2013 Louis P. Marchesi of Marchesi Observatory. </div> <p>Globular clusters are curiosities, because no one's 100% sure how they formed. They have a <em>very</em> suspicious mass that's just about equal to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans_instability">Jeans' instability mass</a> (about 10<sup>6</sup> solar masses), or the smallest independent structure that could have existed (without getting washed out) at the time that neutral atoms first formed, when the Universe was some 380,000 years old.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/64635741_0199a80065_o.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28375" alt="Image credit: Chris Lasley of flickr." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/64635741_0199a80065_o-600x404.jpg" width="600" height="404" /></a> Image credit: Chris Lasley of flickr. </div> <p>Formed from the collapse of a gas cloud, something that's going to form a globular cluster could easily take many hundreds of millions of years (or even a few billion years) to finally collapse and form stars; we find anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of globular clusters around galaxies in the Universe. Messier 2 is a rather large one -- at 175 light years in diameter -- and has one of the densest cores.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2-Poster.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28376" alt="Image credit: Andy of http://nightcamera.blogspot.com/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2-Poster-600x375.jpg" width="600" height="375" /></a> Image credit: Andy of <a href="http://nightcamera.blogspot.com/">http://nightcamera.blogspot.com/</a>. </div> <p>Globular clusters are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley%E2%80%93Sawyer_Concentration_Class">classed</a> on a scale of I to XII, with I being the densest at the center and XII being the most diffuse. Messier 2 is, fittingly, class II, with a very dense central region. The reason you need such a large telescope to resolve individual stars is twofold: <em>one</em>, because it's some 37,000 light-years away, some 150% as far away as the center of our galaxy, and <em>two</em>, because all of the stars are so old, only the rare <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_straggler">blue stragglers</a> and the Sun-like stars going through the final stages of their life will appear prominent. That's why the brightest star in M2 is <em>only</em> of magnitude 13 or so, or about the maximum brightness of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto">Pluto</a>!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/5219345767_3763f1f573_o.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28377" alt="Image credit: flickr user rtugral, of http://www.flickr.com/photos/56543523@N08/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/5219345767_3763f1f573_o-600x716.jpg" width="600" height="716" /></a> Image credit: flickr user rtugral, of <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/56543523@N08/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/56543523@N08/</a>. </div> <p>These stars, by-and-large, because they're much older than our Sun, they have very few heavy elements, or anything beyond Hydrogen and Helium in the periodic table. Compared to our own star, they have just <strong>2%</strong> of the heavy elements that we do, making Earth-like planets (not to mention Earth-like life) nearly certain to be a rarity in these clusters.</p> <p>In very large telescopes (16" and above), you might even be able to see that there's a faint dust lane running through this globular!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_CDK-R0.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28378" alt="Image credit: Rick Beno of Conferring with the Sky Observatory, http://www.conferringwiththesky.org/." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/M2_CDK-R0-600x452.jpg" width="600" height="452" /></a> Image credit: Rick Beno of Conferring with the Sky Observatory, <a href="http://www.conferringwiththesky.org/">http://www.conferringwiththesky.org/</a>. </div> <p>Observations in other wavelengths, such as the infrared, don't reveal very much more about globular clusters than visible light images, since practically all the stars are relatively cool and low-luminosity. But, as is my wont to show you, when there's a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Messier_2_Hubble_WikiSky.jpg">Hubble Space Telescope</a> image available, you can <em>really</em> get a glimpse into the sheer stellar density of these globulars!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/1024px-Messier_2_Hubble_WikiSky.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-28379" alt="Image credit: NASA / ESA / HST / STScI." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/1024px-Messier_2_Hubble_WikiSky-600x600.jpg" width="600" height="600" /></a> Image credit: NASA / ESA / HST / STScI, via WikiSky. </div> <p>I've grabbed the highest-resolution image available and taken a cut through the center; the Hubble image is so saturated that the central portion appears as just a star-infested blur!</p> <div style="width: 613px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/Hubble_Strip.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-28380" alt="Image credit: NASA / ESA / HST / STScI, via WikiSky." src="/files/startswithabang/files/2013/06/Hubble_Strip.jpg" width="603" height="4200" /></a> Image credit: NASA / ESA / HST / STScI, via WikiSky. </div> <p>And that'll do it for another <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/?s=messier+monday">Messier Monday</a>! Including <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/17/messier-monday-messiers-first-globular-cluster-m2/">today’s entry</a>, we’ve taken a look at the following Messier objects:</p> <ul><li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/22/messier-monday-the-crab-nebula-m1/">M1, The Crab Nebula</a>: October 22, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/17/messier-monday-messiers-first-globular-cluster-m2/">M2, Messier's First Globular Cluster</a>: June 17, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/20/messier-monday-a-hyper-smooth-globular-cluster-m5/">M5, A Hyper-Smooth Globular Cluster</a>: May 20, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/05/messier-monday-the-lagoon-nebula-m8/">M8, The Lagoon Nebula</a>: November 5, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/12/31/messier-monday-the-great-globular-cluster-in-hercules-m13/">M13, The Great Globular Cluster in Hercules</a>: December 31, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/12/messier-monday-an-ancient-globular-cluster-m15/">M15, An Ancient Globular Cluster</a>: November 12, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/06/messier-monday-the-youngest-star-forming-region-the-trifid-nebula-m20/">M20, The Youngest Star-Forming Region, The Trifid Nebula</a>: May 6, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/08/messier-monday-a-dusty-open-cluster-for-everyone-m25/">M25, A Dusty Open Cluster for Everyone</a>: April 8, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/03/messier-monday-a-young-open-cluster-in-the-summer-triangle-m29/">M29, A Young Open Cluster in the Summer Triangle</a>: June 3, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/26/messier-monday-a-straggling-globular-cluster-m30/">M30, A Straggling Globular Cluster</a>: November 26, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/25/messier-monday-the-triangulum-galaxy-m33/">M33, The Triangulum Galaxy</a>: February 25, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/12/03/messier-monday-a-rich-open-star-cluster-m37/">M37, A Rich Open Star Cluster</a>: December 3, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/29/messier-monday-a-real-life-pi-in-the-sky-cluster-m38/">M38, A Real-Life Pi-in-the-Sky Cluster</a>: April 29, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/01/messier-monday-messiers-greatest-mistake-m40/">M40, Messier’s Greatest Mistake</a>: April 1, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/07/messier-monday-the-dog-stars-secret-neighbor-m41/">M41, The Dog Star’s Secret Neighbor</a>: January 7, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/12/24/messier-monday-the-beehive-cluster-praesepe-m44/">M44, The Beehive Cluster / Praesepe</a>: December 24, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/10/29/messier-monday-the-pleiades-m45/">M45, The Pleiades</a>: October 29, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/11/messier-monday-a-lost-and-found-star-cluster-m48/">M48, A Lost-and-Found Star Cluster</a>: February 11, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/15/messier-monday-the-whirlpool-galaxy-m51/">M51, The Whirlpool Galaxy</a>: April 15th, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/04/messier-monday-a-star-cluster-on-the-bubble-m52/">M52, A Star Cluster on the Bubble</a>: March 4, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/18/messier-monday-the-most-northern-galactic-globular-m53/">M53, The Most Northern Galactic Globular</a>: February 18, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/02/04/messier-monday-the-gateway-galaxy-to-virgo-m60/">M60, The Gateway Galaxy to Virgo</a>: February 4, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/25/messier-monday-the-first-messier-supernova-of-2013-m65/">M65, The First Messier Supernova of 2013</a>: March 25, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/14/messier-monday-messiers-oldest-open-cluster-m67/">M67, Messier’s Oldest Open Cluster</a>: January 14, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/18/messier-monday-a-diffuse-distant-globular-at-the-end-of-the-marathon-m72/">M72, A Diffuse, Distant Globular at the End-of-the-Marathon</a>: March 18, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/03/11/messier-monday-the-phantom-galaxy-at-the-beginning-of-the-marathon-m74/">M74, The Phantom Galaxy at the Beginning-of-the-Marathon</a>: March 11, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/12/10/messier-monday-a-reflection-nebula-m78/">M78, A Reflection Nebula</a>: December 10, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/19/messier-monday-bodes-galaxy-m81/">M81, Bode’s Galaxy</a>: November 19, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/13/messier-monday-the-cigar-galaxy-m82/">M82, The Cigar Galaxy</a>: May 13, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/21/messier-monday-the-southern-pinwheel-galaxy-m83/">M83, The Southern Pinwheel Galaxy</a>, January 21, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/06/10/messier-monday-the-most-blueshifted-messier-object-m86/">M86, The Most Blueshifted Messier Object</a>, June 10, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/04/22/messier-monday-the-second-greatest-globular-in-hercules-m92/">M92, The Second Greatest Globular in Hercules</a>, April 22, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/01/28/messier-monday-the-owl-nebula-m97/">M97, The Owl Nebula</a>, January 28, 2013</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/12/17/messier-monday-a-great-galactic-controversy-m102/">M102, A Great Galactic Controversy</a>: December 17, 2012</li> <li><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/27/messier-monday-the-sombrero-galaxy-m104/">M104, The Sombrero Galaxy</a>: May 27, 2013</li> </ul><p>Come back next week, where we'll introduce you to another one of the spectacular, deep-sky wonders of the Messier catalogue. Only here, only on Messier Monday!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Mon, 06/17/2013 - 11:30</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/astronomy-0" hreflang="en">Astronomy</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/gravity" hreflang="en">gravity</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/stars" hreflang="en">Stars</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/cluster" hreflang="en">cluster</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/globular" hreflang="en">globular</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/globular-cluster" hreflang="en">globular cluster</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/instability" hreflang="en">instability</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/jeans" hreflang="en">jeans</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/m2" hreflang="en">M2</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mass" hreflang="en">mass</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/messier-2" hreflang="en">messier 2</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/messier-monday" hreflang="en">messier monday</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/metallicity" hreflang="en">metallicity</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/stars" hreflang="en">Stars</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520526" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1371486492"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Very cool post. I'm fascinated by your comment about Jean's Instability Mass. What's the distribution of masses of globular clusters, and does it cut off above a certain limit?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520526&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZC3_dgublDCaoGywrimyNqmiTkE-bcuE1HYIALW3h_w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">David (not verified)</span> on 17 Jun 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520526">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520527" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1371492942"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow! Other than the low heavy metals... It's surely a great place to start an interstellar empire with the suns so densely packed</p> <p>This type of star cluster ~ does an average &amp; rare life-sustaining planet [say 2/3rds of the way out from the centre like Earth] experience more frequent [&amp; closer] GRBs compared with our situation?</p> <p>I imagine the equivalent Oort clouds are destabilised more frequently &amp; sooner than in Sol system's case ~ this might mean the period of inundation of planets with comet material finishes earlier</p> <p>Or am I talking rubbish? :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520527&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KE-cgA_U5xIakm9rd-31qn24IV_nS4yJKgP6qqmP6Qw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Fisher (not verified)</span> on 17 Jun 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520527">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520528" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1371529870"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Michael @2: GRBs are not the issue (I believe those are extragalactic), but having lots of nearby supernovae would be. Orbital stability in the habitable zone is also an issue with all of those stars around. And I expect that the low metallicity is a dealbreaker, because that means you don't have much carbon and oxygen around (remember that to an astrophysicist, any element heavier than helium is a metal).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520528&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="p7E-vJagUo8DxsAqpaG3_F-86qfO4NGqBogNbjMy3Wg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 18 Jun 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520528">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520529" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1371536304"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>No iron core: no magnetic field too.</p> <p>The stars are still quite distant from each other, the night sky would be bright, but nowhere near the earth with a full moon, or even quarter moon.</p> <p>It would also take less time for chaos to throw a monkey in the works of a planet trying to survive long in the habitable zone to produce life of even vaguely advanced status.</p> <p>Our attempt to contact the universe by beaming a message to M13 wasn't really a smart move scientifically.</p> <p>But it probably helped get the science funding.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520529&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Va_WrqIFBHQPiCs9m9xYaYB5UHTd-rsbaQ_WQoALnSE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 18 Jun 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520529">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1520530" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1371544031"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>No iron core: no magnetic field too.</i></p> <p>You can get an internal magnetic field without an iron core. Any conducting fluid will do, as long as you have enough convection to create a dynamo. The Sun does it with the plasma inside. Jupiter's core is under enough pressure to push hydrogen into what chemists call a metallic phase, and that seems to be enough. True, you need an iron core (or something involving an even less common metal) if you are talking about a rocky planet, but low metallicity means you don't have any rocky planets--you don't have enough silicon around, either.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1520530&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_zsl4IfZy91tHJKcaIjsJE2OhDdC64hPfL-euCKjZXU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric Lund (not verified)</span> on 18 Jun 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1520530">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2013/06/17/messier-monday-messiers-first-globular-cluster-m2%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:30:02 +0000 esiegel 35644 at https://scienceblogs.com So just what is out there beyond the Standard Model? https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/16/so-just-what-is-out-there-beyond-the-standard-model <span>So just what is out there beyond the Standard Model?</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>"Other than the laws of physics, rules have never really worked out for me." -<em>Craig Ferguson</em></p></blockquote> <p>Earlier this week, evidence was presented measuring <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/14/is-there-any-particle-physics-beyond-the-standard-model/">a very rare decay rate</a> -- albeit <a href="http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/11/16/remember-that-blow-to-supersymmetry-and-other-theories/">not incredibly precisely</a> -- which point towards the Standard Model being it <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/14/is-there-any-particle-physics-beyond-the-standard-model/">as far as new particles</a> accessible to colliders (such as the LHC) go. In other words, unless we get hit by a big physics surprise, the LHC will become renowned for having found the Higgs Boson <em>and nothing else</em>, meaning that there's no window into <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/11/14/is-there-any-particle-physics-beyond-the-standard-model/">what lies beyond the Standard Model</a> via traditional experimental particle physics.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/FNAL_ESiegel1.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-26310" title="FNAL_ESiegel" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/FNAL_ESiegel1-600x535.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="535" /></a> <p>Image credit: Fermilab, modified by me.</p> </div> <p>But that by no means is the same thing as saying "the Standard Model is all there is." There are a large number of observations that tell us quite clearly that there's <em>very likely</em> more to the Universe than just the quarks, leptons, and bosons of the Standard Model. While experiments are telling us that low-energy supersymmetry and extra dimensions probably don't exist (and the LHC will either turn them up or even further constrain them towards the point of irrelevance), there are plenty of pieces of evidence that there is <strong>more</strong> to existence than these particles and their interactions.</p> <p>What else is out there? Let's take a look at the <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Top 5 clues to physics beyond the Standard Model</span></strong>:</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/opo1210d.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-26311" title="opo1210d" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/opo1210d-600x385.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="385" /></a> <p>Image credit: NASA, ESA, CFHT, and M.J. Jee (University of California, Davis).</p> </div> <p><strong>1.) Dark matter</strong>. From structure formation to colliding galaxy clusters, from gravitational lensing to Big Bang nucleosynthesis, from baryon acoustic oscillations to the pattern of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background, it's clear that normal matter -- the stuff made out of standard model particles -- is only about 15% of the mass in the Universe. The rest of it simply doesn't have those strong or electromagnetic interactions, and neutrinos are of insufficient mass to account for more than about 1% of the missing stuff.</p> <p>If dark matter is a particle -- and the way it appears to clump and cluster strongly suggests that it is -- it <em>must</em> be a particle beyond the standard model. Just what its properties turn out to be are currently an open question in physics, and though many candidates have emerged, none of them are particularly compelling.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/scientificamerican0705-40-I3.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-26313" title="scientificamerican0705-40-I3" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/scientificamerican0705-40-I3-600x283.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="283" /></a> <p>Image credit: Bryan Christie Design / Scientific American &amp; Gordie Kane.</p> </div> <p><strong>2.) Massive neutrinos</strong>. According to the Standard Model, particles can either be massless -- like the photon and gluon -- or could have a mass determined by their coupling to the Higgs field. There's a range of what these couplings are, and so we get particles as light as the electron -- at just 0.05% of a GeV (where 0.938 GeV is the mass of a proton) -- and as heavy as the top quark, which tips the mass scales at around 170-175 GeV.</p> <p>So during the last decade, when <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/01/16/neutrinos-to-ring-in-the-new-y/">neutrino masses</a> were <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/09/27/the-new-nu-news/">constrained for the first time</a> (via neutrino oscillations), it surprised many that they were found to be very low in mass, but to have definitively <em>non-zero</em> masses. <strong>Why is that?</strong> The general way of explaining this -- the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw_mechanism">see-saw mechanism</a> -- typically involves additional, very heavy particles (like, maybe a billion or a trillion times more massive than the Standard Model particles) that are extensions to the standard model. Whether these particles exist or there's some other explanation, these massive neutrinos are almost definitely indicative of physics beyond the Standard Model.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/I15-25-CPviolation1.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-26314" title="I15-25-CPviolation1" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/I15-25-CPviolation1.jpeg" alt="" width="600" height="350" /></a> <p>Image credit: Universe Review, from <a href="http://universe-review.ca/R02-14-CPviolation.htm">http://universe-review.ca/R02-14-CPviolation.htm</a>.</p> </div> <p><strong>3.) Strong CP problem</strong>. If you switched all the particles involved in an interaction with their antiparticles, you might expect the laws of physics to be the same: that's known as <em>Charge Conjugation</em>, or C-symmetry. If you reflected particles in a mirror, you'd probably expect the mirrored particles to behave the same way as their reflections: that's known as <em>Parity</em>, or P-violation. There are examples of where one of these symmetries is violated in nature, and in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction">Weak interactions</a> (the ones mediated by the W-and-Z bosons), there's nothing forbidding C and P from being violated together.</p> <p>In fact, this CP-violation does occur for the weak interactions (and has been measured in multiple experiments), and is very important for a number of theoretical reasons. Well, along the same vein, there's nothing in the Standard Model forbidding CP-violation from occurring in the <strong>strong</strong> interactions. <strong>But there isn't any observed</strong>, to less than 0.0000001% of the anticipated value!</p> <p>Why not? Well, pretty much any <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peccei%E2%80%93Quinn_theory">physical explanation</a> (as opposed to the non-explanation, "that's just the funny way it is") results in the existence of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion">a new particle</a> beyond the Standard Model, which may be a good candidate for solving problem #1: the dark matter problem!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/anim1_0272.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-26315" title="anim1_0272" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/anim1_0272-600x480.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="480" /></a> <p>Image credit: John Rowe Animation.</p> </div> <p><strong>4.) Quantum Gravity</strong>. The Standard Model makes no effort nor any claims to incorporate the gravitational force/interaction into it. But our current best theory of gravity -- General Relativity -- makes no sense at extremely large gravitational field or extremely small distances; the singularities it gives us are indicative of physics breaking down. In order to explain what goes on there, it will require a more complete, or <em>quantum</em>, theory of gravity.</p> <p>We do not know how to make a working <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity">theory of quantum gravity</a>. String theory is a possibility (and maybe the only viable game in town), but one thing <em>all</em> possibilities have in common is the existence of a new particle: a <strong>massless, spin-2 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton">graviton</a></strong>. This may be the most elusive and the most fundamental of predictions beyond the Standard Model, and there's <em>at least</em> one (and possibly more) new particle out there if gravity can, in fact, be quantized.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/leftover.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-26316" title="leftover" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/leftover-600x450.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> <p>Image credit: Me, over an actual picture of the Sun in an H-alpha filter.</p> </div> <p><strong>5.) Baryogenesis</strong>. There's more matter than antimatter in the Universe, and while there's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/03/27/why-is-there-something-instead/">a lot we can say about why and how</a>, we're not sure exactly what pathway <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2010/03/01/the-greatest-story-ever-told-4/">the Universe took</a> to wind up this way. There aren't <em>necessarily</em> any new particles that <em>must</em> exist to explain the matter-antimatter asymmetry, but of the four most common ways to produce it (GUT, Electroweak, Leptogenesis, and Affleck-Dine), only one (Electroweak baryogenesis) <em>doesn't</em> involve the existence of new, beyond-the-Standard-Model particles.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/Particle-collision-via-Shutterstock.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-26317" title="Particle-collision-via-Shutterstock" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/Particle-collision-via-Shutterstock-600x336.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="336" /></a> <p>Image credit: <a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/">http://www.shutterstock.com/</a>.</p> </div> <p>There are also a whole slew of extra possibilities for new particles, including that there's one (or more) possibly associated with dark energy, there may be magnetic monopoles, grand unification, preons (smaller particles making up quarks and leptons), and the door is still open for particles from either extra dimensions or supersymmetry.</p> <p>I'll leave you with two more things to consider.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/proton-smaller-than-thought_23015_600x450.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-26318" title="proton-smaller-than-thought_23015_600x450" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/proton-smaller-than-thought_23015_600x450.jpeg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> <p>Image credit: Dorling Kindersley, Getty Images.</p> </div> <p>The electron is a completely stable particle. While a free neutron will decay, a free proton is assumed to be completely stable. But it <em>isn't</em> necessarily completely stable. Through giant experiments involving astronomical numbers of atoms, we've determined that a proton's lifetime is greater than <strong>at least 10<sup>35</sup> years</strong>, which is amazing.</p> <p>But that's not infinite. If a proton <em>does</em> eventually decay, and have a half-life that is anything less than <em>infinity</em>, that means there are new particles beyond the Standard Model.</p> <p>And one last thing...</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/1-s2.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-26319" title="1-s2" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/11/1-s2.gif" alt="" width="600" height="250" /></a> <p>Image credit: Matthew J. Strassler, Kathryn M. Zurek.</p> </div> <p>Even if there's <strong>nothing beyond the Standard Model</strong>, one fun prediction is the existence of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glueball">glueballs</a>, or bound states of gluons. They <em>ought to be found</em> in upcoming particle collider experiments, although possibly not at the LHC. If they <em>don't</em> exist, or fail to show up where they ought to, that's a big problem for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics">quantum chromodynamics</a>, or the theory of the strong interactions that's part of the Standard Model.</p> <p>Keep an eye out for this one: no glueballs = something else is wrong with the Standard Model!</p> <p>So that's where we are right now, and <em>even if</em> there's no supersymmetry and no extra dimensions, we've still got a lot more to discover. Keep your eyes and ears open, and let's all keep looking together!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Fri, 11/16/2012 - 12:32</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/big-bang" hreflang="en">Big Bang</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/dark-energy" hreflang="en">dark energy</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/dark-matter" hreflang="en">Dark Matter</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/gravity" hreflang="en">gravity</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/physics" hreflang="en">Physics</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/antimatter" hreflang="en">antimatter</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/asymmetry" hreflang="en">asymmetry</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/baryogenesis" hreflang="en">baryogenesis</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/cp-violation" hreflang="en">CP-violation</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/glueballs" hreflang="en">glueballs</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/graviton" hreflang="en">graviton</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mass" hreflang="en">mass</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/matter" hreflang="en">matter</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/neutrinos" hreflang="en">neutrinos</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/particle" hreflang="en">particle</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/proton-decay" hreflang="en">proton decay</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/quantum-gravity" hreflang="en">quantum gravity</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/stability" hreflang="en">stability</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/strong-cp" hreflang="en">strong CP</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515897" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353090658"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>How viable a model of quantum gravity can string theory be if supersymmetry is constrained into irrelevance? Don't string theory models predict or require supersymmetry?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515897&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ajPEwS1NJxDtuoCwIrSQdevG-J9LFeV_uZYfFWyGmsQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">laconicsax (not verified)</span> on 16 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515897">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515898" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353115138"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"But that’s not infinite. If a proton does eventually decay, and have a half-life that is anything less than infinity, that means there are new particles beyond the Standard Model.<br /> "</p> <p>Why? Why shouldn't it just decay into its constituent quarks?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515898&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HlMD5sh_wp1tHTa5_dlJEx-WB318BUDRfuYyDTcYKZ0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">davem (not verified)</span> on 16 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515898">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515899" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353135082"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Its funny how this blog entry completely destroys Ethan's previous blog entry, where he claimed there is no new physics beyond the standard model, nada, zip, zero. Does Ethan understand the irony and contradiction in all this?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515899&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="a173k4MCmhn-6EypXFbl0z1cQQua1PGdgHLE6SKWoKY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515899">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515900" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353139176"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I don't see contradiction here. What Ethan said was that we don't have access to equipment that can go past the standard model, because the energies required are beyond all our physics and there is no way to constrain let alone create the processes. Basically then, we have no idea how to go beyond the standard model. That is different from saying there is nothing beyond the standard model. This blog points to directions to go considering we ever find out how to go there. So we do know something about where to go just not really how to get there or even how to think about how to get there.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515900&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cJNQQq_YN5cS3e1X7VS4_xa9bn9aGn4qz2pjf89U8gQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Christopher (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515900">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="33" id="comment-1515901" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353142130"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>laconicsax,</p> <p>The constraints that we place on SUSY are on the masses of the supersymmetric particles. You can always push masses in a theory up to arbitrarily high energies to cause them to couple less-and-less to the standard model particles. In the case of SUSY/string theory, you can push them all the way up to the Planck Scale, meaning you can construct a model where they exist, but are completely irrelevant for the physics of our Universe. In other words, it could be right, and have absolutely no impact on the physics of anything, ever.</p> <p>davem,</p> <p>For the same reason a grain of sand at the bottom of a pit won't spontaneously rise up and escape from it: a proton is a stable, bound state. Unless, that is, there's something new, like a sufficient source of external energy (in the sand's case) or a pathway that allows, say a proton to decay into a pion and an anti-lepton (such as a grand unified gauge boson). That's forbidden in the standard model, but allowed in many extensions to it.</p> <p>Bob,</p> <p>Reading comprehension is your friend. All of the physics beyond the standard model is not the same as non-SM physics evidence accessible at particle colliders.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515901&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vY92DkfKwfB7-_b2h-AzCo7L6GNibZzMMvUsDf7Y5c0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515901">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/startswithabang"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/startswithabang" hreflang="en"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/pictures/pastey-120x120_0.jpg?itok=sjrB9UJU" width="100" height="100" alt="Profile picture for user esiegel" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515902" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353145574"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In the previous post, Ethan stated in bold print "there is no need for any new physics beyond the standard model". This statement is simply in direct contradiction with the examples od dark matter, quantum gravity, etc, that are the subject if this post.<br /> Facts please, not spin and bias.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515902&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Nz8bGeEJMA53E2Hu2S4RIVlQXrfIyxIcHxTgmIn-f6k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515902">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515903" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353146985"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>regarding the graviton - is there any conceivable experiment that would detect it (meaning, detect quantization of gravity)? Thanks. Also, great recent series of blog posts about post-SM physics. Much appreciated, as always.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515903&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="km-p9OJ16_Q42i7T53dUwsHKh10VBIalfbMfUaoDQQM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">david (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515903">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515904" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353151888"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yeah, lets attack this guy for helping us to expand our base of knowledge!! Grumble....grumble....grumble.....</p> <p>Great Post, Ethan! Thank You!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515904&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kRhrPk--53bvN_AdFyLQ6XHm7BrZwkadlATA2holwE4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Jon (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515904">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515905" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353153735"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bob, there's no NEED for a ton of different things in the universe that are there nevertheless. Humans? Not needed - here anyway.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515905&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kFrlMwpiL4nSQGeCpCx4hmDhzuoB_-KFrEvkKxqWbMc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">IasasaI (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515905">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515906" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353166237"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>How well would glueballs fit the characteristics required for dark matter?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515906&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BdKCbAF1vYkrEWkQBmFZ264rwMVGA5t-j8TcuEXZ03k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">qbsmd (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515906">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515907" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353168466"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@david:</p> <p><i> is there any conceivable experiment that would detect it (meaning, detect quantization of gravity)? </i></p> <p>No, at least according to wikipedia:</p> <p><i>Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector. The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole.</i></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515907&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QpRqdu9tHBH3jPHmplATx3ML94NHgQz_9O-s996VZ08"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Lotharloo (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515907">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515908" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353177847"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The simplest scenario possible could be supersymmetry at high energies, at worst outside the range LHC can probe indirectly. </p> <p>The upshot is that it would give a dark matter candidate from simply having eternal inflation on a string background physics freeze out first a supersymmetric sector and then the standard model sector. (This is Douglas et all variant of eternal inflation.) </p> <p>Much of physics would then just be “just the funny way it is” prediction* of anthropic theory, something that dark energy has hinted at since 1998. That would include the neutrino masses and baryogenesis. (I think, IIRC there are mechanisms of "bubbles" of matter respectively anti-matter proposed in inflation physics.)</p> <p>Quantum gravity would then be string theory.</p> <p>* The ability to make a testable prediction, as here, is of course the hallmark of a physical explanation.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515908&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Tc1IgjMfG5kR9kVaLrErXnH33ui9G1cysje1MkBwHt4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Torbjörn Larsson, OM (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515908">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515909" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353178343"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I forgot to ask - isn't inflation also a "top clue" to new physics? </p> <p>Since it should be a scalar field like the Higgs field, wouldn't inflation have particles as well? Do they become too diluted for us to observe, or is the field never excited enough to make any?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515909&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uUW7wLGHfYx4qPA0ttRNtg74p4OHqW4FVegStkokoT0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Torbjörn Larsson, OM (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515909">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515910" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353212339"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ David</p> <p>one way would be to engineer equipment that could gather precise data on processes that happen in the Universe which have huge energy - thus mass - thus gravity output. Such as black hole mergers. Of course, then you still have to find one, but still. </p> <p>The other would be to "really" measure gravitational waves, and some other properties about them directly, if possible, from those you could infer gravitons properties. </p> <p>But getting it in the accelerator is impossible for us.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515910&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MDfiDN6oecW7Wllv8cik7f98cY2lKdK4SJfQMx4MPGQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 17 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515910">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515911" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353261379"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Please forgive any ignorance here, but isn't gravity the effect of space changing shape when it encounters matter or energy? If so then the warped shape defines the path that matter/energy follows. If this description is accurate then space would seem to be the "container" that matter and energy flow through. Why then the need for a graviton?</p> <p>If I'm off the rails, please reel me back in! ;)</p> <p>Mark</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515911&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GTLk1NLKaH3PnPSRwcpitXWiD-YclG7kTqYIcRPgC_s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Mark (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515911">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515912" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353290725"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>In the previous post, Ethan stated in bold print “there is no need for any new physics beyond the standard model”. ...<br /> Facts please, not spin and bias.</p></blockquote> <p>You missed out the really important bit. Ethan preceded the bit in bold with "the results are in, and what they basically state is that ..."</p> <p>So let's try to understand this, not spin it? One experiment, with a critical parameter measurement for constraining the Standard Model and its various alternate has come in and supports the basic Standard Model. Which makes no difference to all of the other experiments, facts and suppositions about the Standard Model. </p> <p>It might mean that all of our current alternates to SM are wrong - in a way that the SM is not (if we accept that it is incomplete or a useful approximation - cf Principia versus General Relativity on gravity) because they are constrained away. Which means that reality is something we haven't thought of yet.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515912&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Lrs4kMdd2yrCm01ct-mq5Tt-o4Ooyd3naszv0nXYhPA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Surreptitious Evil (not verified)</span> on 18 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515912">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515913" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353304600"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Very good summary Ethan.<br /> I've have to read it carefully later.<br /> Physics must wait.<br /> Packing for a holiday week, family and friends.<br /> Have a happy Thanksbiving.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515913&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XbXPASFHYX73mqju0-YG8xt6xHJaTC1BO8_iz1wG118"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515913">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515914" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353341766"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Here's another speculation about a possible null result: what if LIGO II doesn't detect gravitational waves (quite possible), but LISA or its successors don't either?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515914&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9WmJ-XRT7pqVXgX8KAR-PZVRlj3IOEsC3OnjZwywqP4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ScentOfViolets (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515914">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515915" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353380503"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ScentOfViolets</p> <p>we have indirect confirmation of grav. waves already. Not from LIGO or LISA, but from observing binary neutron starts. Orbital decay is consistent with grav. waves predictions. So in a way we know they are there, measuring them is another story.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515915&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OLAm3mmneFkc1QnqE5uqbHakk6On2kGchoLKhYTtT7A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 19 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515915">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515916" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353403452"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You may take it as a given that I'm very aware of this ;-) Don't you see where this line of speculation goes?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515916&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KSrfznj92n1BUWQ6zMepCCI2T1MTe6Kk6gtCZC-z9Nw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ScentOfViolets (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515916">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515917" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353424883"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ScentOfViolets</p> <p>not sure what you are aiming at. And to what speculation are you referring to? If you want to say something, say it. Don't sidestep around it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515917&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dXLwuqjVqKCpenCEhxOb63XFYlBOzcHSqlsdBufM3Ko"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515917">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515918" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353428672"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Lotharloo<br /> Wikipedia is great but it will never be the last word in physics.</p> <p>Regarding the possibility of directly detecting a graviton, here is one possible way.<br /><a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cdf_discovers_graviton">http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/cdf_discovers_graviton</a><br /> (I don't think the graviton has been found this way yet; but it is a possibility way) And I expect theorist to think of other possible ways. (Note: I am not an expert and I defer to expert opinion on this matter)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515918&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EH3P9EFOE5aRYwesnJsAPvL3FZdITQn10ZR_bVDATdc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515918">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515919" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353428867"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan. Very nice summary.<br /> Nothing else to say.<br /> Ditto.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515919&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6YzoBw7LHl8077XnLEXmd2a7LtC0mTX_Ui9zvYY0AC4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515919">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515920" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353429155"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>not sure what you are aiming at. And to what speculation are you referring to? If you want to say something, say it. Don’t sidestep around it.</p></blockquote> <p>I didn't think I was being particularly cryptic, but okay - suppose we see the sort of in-spiralling of gravitationally-bound partners that GR predicts as a consequence of gravitational waves, but that those waves are never predicted? What are the implications?</p> <p>This is in the spirit of the implications of null results that annoyingly persist, despite ever larger amounts of money and effort being thrown at them.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515920&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="sCum0uNP8d9kekxNtWXbNPduTft6U3l4qMcmZ6T3e8g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ScentOfViolets (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515920">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515921" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353429328"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>er, substitute "detected" for "predicted".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515921&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4xjpjcn9KZ9uxHgNMApJ-4FE0fv-7krrDBDc-Mq4gjo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ScentOfViolets (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515921">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515922" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353458593"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>One implication of no gravity waves is that the gravitational reaction is propogated at faster than the speed of light. That would mean that there isn't a graviton (at the very least in this case of cloe large objects). Gravity would have to be solely a reaction to spacetime curvature, inherent in the fabric of space.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515922&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9wX51K7AfsFhQo6D60BzUhb5nL7m3g_PK6_FvJjHx7A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515922">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515923" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353460172"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@OKThen</p> <p>mmm... sorry, but that article you linked from science 2.0 is from 1st of April... hint.. april's fool. It was a joke. All science articles there from 1st of April are just jokes. </p> <p>@ScentOfViolets<br /> " suppose we see the sort of in-spiralling...."<br /> don't need to suppose anything. It's been done. Heck, people got a nobel prize for it some 20 years ago!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515923&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wQXAryLUufxRMUOdoWcIUC79M1t59HQ68cHOw_yWtJA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 20 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515923">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515924" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353477191"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You're being deliberately obtuse, I see, since there's no way you could have missed the logical conjunction. I see no further need to treat you as if you're being sincere. That this is the best thing you can do with your time is . . . sad.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515924&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3aVAeVy0QYYQWNdtvE_wzBY5uzhayMQgRlReXeb_7FM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">ScentOfViolets (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515924">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515925" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353478634"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ScentOfViolets</p> <p>well sorry to not be able to indulge your crackpottery. My suggestion to you... and your spare time. Go read couple of books on astrophysics. Spend couple of months/years on studying different theories. Learn about gravity, and relativity. And then, come back here, and we'll talk. </p> <p>You have the nerve to call me deliberately obtuse, yet it's clear from your writing that you have no clue about what you're talking about.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515925&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7_pA_yA5-pSExe-8h9gk253ZrQlWxYitSJXNiud-RYs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515925">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515926" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353485424"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s. even if I follow your line of reasoning, it still changes nothing. </p> <p>1. we have a theory of gravity that thus far matches ALL our observations. Is it complete. No. Does the Universe really work as GR describes it. We don't know. It's all an approximation, albeit very precise one. I mean, heck, we can launch spacecraft to other planets and land them within 2km of ideal coordinate. </p> <p>2. indirect effects of gravitational waves detected. Does it mean they exist. As far as theory. Yes. </p> <p>3. What would happen if LIGO and LISA never detect them. Nothing. We will use GR as long as it suits our needs and nothing better comes along. </p> <p>So if I were to use you attitude and rudeness.. Your question is pointless. It's like asking: "well, what if we never invent a microscope that can see quarks?" Who cares. If the math fits observation, use it. If the observation's don't fit, change the math.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515926&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lliXZnVbKtuKrXwtg9jm8QjZbIF3qEfACiOH5OzTp70"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515926">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515927" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353546014"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Violets, I note that you discarded the answer that WAS given to you so that you could go all snooty snotbrace on SL here.</p> <p>That's rather proof that you weren't asking for an answer, but trolling for something to complain about.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515927&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iGHtkS9vfWQeyc9dbV35smhHD6pss2DlvOvY5Y6fJyI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 21 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515927">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515928" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1353562649"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sinisa<br /> Very funny.<br /> I guess it's my day to be the fool.<br /> But I wouldn't discount experimental physicists ingenuity.<br /> Ha ha, fooled I am</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515928&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iljS3tFXAVwP_GeyJ44kbjgYP8u4Oz9liofUuV3MtKw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 22 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515928">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515929" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1354096285"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I must add that the standard model is not complete for another reason.</p> <p>We don't understand why the standard model of elementary particles has three generations of quarks and leptons. The universe works just fine with only one generation of quarks and electrons.</p> <p>Scientist yabber all the time about "Occam's razor"; and at the heart of physics, the standard model has triple razor blades with no clear explanation of the benefit of triple blades. At least Gillette tells you why those two extra blades give you a smoother shave.</p> <p>Is the universe just being silly by having two extra generations of quarks and leptons? Does the universe have a sense of humor? The universe only needs the 1st generation of quarks and leptons. How funny is that? </p> <p>Some physicists get the universe's joke.<br /> - “If I could remember the names off all these particles, I'd be a botanist.” Enrico Fermi<br /> - "Who ordered that?" I. I. Rabi famously quipped; when the "mu meson" muon was recognized as just a "heavy electron" with an insignificant role in the universe.</p> <p>If science was as popular as politics and religion; the comedians would be joking, the auudiences would be laughing and the bookmakers would make the odds of "preons" versus "4th generation" quarks and leptons.</p> <p>Some physicists think the universe is very serious.<br /> They expect a clear headed "Occam's explanation" involving some precise preon particle physics experiment at CERN's LHC, Fermilab or an astrophysics observation.</p> <p>But The Jimmy Fineman (TJF) held a different opinion in his recent interview with Physics Entertainment Today (PET)<br /> PET, "Is there any particle physics beyond the standard model?"<br /> TJF , "That's a stupid question. The gods not only play dice; they have "love particles". Those 1st generation quarks and leptons may be legitimate, even royalty with pomp and glitze; but they got no substance. They'll show their privates in any tabloid's paparazzi experiment."<br /> PET, "What are "love particles"?"<br /> TJF, "The god's "love particles." Like the 2nd and 3rd generation quarks and leptons; they're illegitimate with no heir apparent purpose; but they got a lot of substance. They mostly keep their mouths shut in the tabloid experiments."<br /> PET, "Any predictions you care to share?"<br /> TJF, "Those prissy preon physicists got it all wrong; my odds favor the 4th generation quarks and leptons."<br /> PET, "Why?"<br /> TJF, "The 4th generation quarks and leptons will keep their mouths shut until a $10 billion experiment temps them to enter the game. They don't front page like royalty; and they got more substance and fundamental integrity than even the 2nd and 3rd generation quarks and leptons. And yes, I know the gods, so my odds favor a 4th generation of "love particles"."<br /> PET, "So what exactly are you saying?"<br /> TJF, "There won't be any "Occam's experiment" that explains 2nd and 3rd generation of quarks and leptons with prissy preon particles. No! When the CERN, Fermilab and/or astrophysics teams put up some real money; their experiments will find the 4th generation of quarks and leptons. I will be laughing with the gods and my odds all the way to the bank."<br /> PET, "So there you have it fromThe Jimmy; no prissy preons; it's "love particles" all the way down, at least to a 4th generation."</p> <p>"Preon research is motivated by the desire to explain already known facts (retrodiction), which include<br /> -To reduce the large number of particles...<br /> -To explain the three generations of fermions.<br /> -To calculate parameters that are currently unexplained by the Standard Model<br /> -To provide reasons for the very large differences in energy-masses observed in supposedly fundamental particles.<br /> -To provide alternative explanations for the electro-weak symmetry breaking without invoking a Higgs field<br /> -To account for neutrino oscillation and mass.<br /> -To make new nontrivial predictions, for example, to provide possible cold dark matter candidates.<br /> -To explain why there exists only the observed variety of particle species and not something else" wikipedia</p> <p>"What can experimentalist do to prove or disprove the existence of prions?... We are looking for a fourth generation of quarks and leptons and for some evidence that the force-carrying particles also have generations--that the W and Z bosons, which mediate the weak nuclear force, have heavier cousins... physicists are forging ahead and blazing a trail into the quantum frontier." The Universe is a Complex and Intricate Place by Don Lincoln, Scientific American, Nov 2012 pg 38-43 <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-inner-life-of-quarks">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-inner-life-of-quar…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515929&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iJaQvDyP9F5dgyAdt8ch6zd5Bwe1UeaJdd-RKkSWufA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 28 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515929">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515930" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1354102133"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Before there were quarks and QCD, there were hundreds of particles known to exist, and no clear way to categorize them or explain them. Your Enrico Fermi quote comes from this period. One could easily ask if this was a cosmic joke, because why did the universe need all these exotic and ephemeral particles?</p> <p>However then we discovered a smaller, simpler set of particles that explained the abundance of particles previously known with smaller constituents. The answer to "why does the universe need them?" is then obvious: they must exist as a consequence of the behavior of quarks.</p> <p>Then we discovered more of those types of particles, but nowhere near as many as we had before. The picture is still, relatively, much simpler conceptually, even if the math is more difficult.</p> <p>Will we discover a more fundamental rule which changes the "joke" of 3 unexplained generations of quarks into an obvious consequence of their more base nature? Maybe. Maybe not.</p> <p>Sometimes our view of the universe gets more complex. Sometimes it gets simpler.</p> <p>Physicists often desire to seek out the simpler view, in part for aesthetic reasons but also for the rather compelling reason that nature has on multiple occasions obliged us in revealing simplicity where there once appeared complexity.</p> <p>But at the end of the day the universe is what it is whether we like it or not. It's exactly as complex as it is. But lets not anthropomorphize nature on that basis as either "serious" or "silly". Nature hates that.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515930&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OdWNXJuEQMjq1v8KzM1zrvTTV5tiL3Jwl5jTBzWB-1w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 28 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515930">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515931" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1354106370"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Its ironic that CB tells others not to anthropomorphize nature, but goes on to claim that there are things that nature is so passionate about, in fact there are things that nature "hates". wow....</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515931&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bkGhdaQE4EkX0218ZKstPugyP_pBLKShyM_poZ9x9eU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 28 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515931">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515932" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1354108512"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I believe the internet goes "Whoosh" for you, Bob!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515932&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pWJ5k52jALTHZyVTfqeOCfC7gQ_y5PvytF1wBO0b4f8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 28 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515932">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515933" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1354113335"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Why yes, that is ironic, thanks for noticing.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515933&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-XzsrhQmyXt3Dc0lpiTNNZ8PYsNVJL_rxJtfdr9k-M8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 28 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515933">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515934" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1354169923"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>hundreds? are there really hundreds of different particles?</p> <p>seems like dozens is a better magnitude.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515934&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rKkcoEILrKPybOR-ATnr6p0v1RXUj0NoMxib5rR6q-s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kevin Dowd (not verified)</span> on 29 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515934">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1515935" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1354180255"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well yeah -- there's a lot of ways to combine 6 quarks (5 really since top quarks decay too fast) and their anti-particles with different spins to make hadrons, and new ones were popping out of particle accelerators like crazy in the 50s.</p> <p>I don't know exactly how many have been found or are possible. Go here:<br /><a href="http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/listings/contents_listings.html">http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/listings/contents_listings.html</a></p> <p>And click on Mesons and Baryons (the two types of hadrons, which are things made from quarks) and then imagine you didn't have any set of rules for classifying or understanding why they exist.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1515935&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xbGopJUlZekQFgSwaHzlU3Zonx9WRt7l6Qn2SLj2dLs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 29 Nov 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1515935">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2012/11/16/so-just-what-is-out-there-beyond-the-standard-model%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 17:32:03 +0000 esiegel 35517 at https://scienceblogs.com Explaining the Higgs: on TV last night! https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/05/explaining-the-higgs-on-tv-last-night <span>Explaining the Higgs: on TV last night!</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>"We knew that we had indeed done something that was very different and very exciting, but we still didn't expect it to have something to do with physical reality." -<em>Gerald Guralnik, co-developer of the Higgs mechanism</em></p></blockquote> <p>Might as well make this entire week "Higgs week" here on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang</a>, given how important yesterday's discovery/announcement was! It isn't every day, after all, that you see a theoretical physicist on the 7PM news. (<a href="http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Hot-Box-Explaining-the-Higgs-boson-161390285.html">Video here</a>.)</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/explainit.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-17822" title="explainit" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/explainit.png" alt="Ethan on KGW explaining the Higgs" width="600" height="491" /></a> <p>Image credit: KGW.com.</p> </div> <p>(So proud of Portland, OR's local TV station, <a href="http://www.kgw.com/">KGW NewsChannel 8</a>, for being willing to promote science to the whole city and have me on last night!)</p> <p>Let's just take a little time today -- now that we've confidently announced the discovery of the Higgs -- to recap what we now know.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/atom_zoom_b.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17789" title="atom_zoom_b" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/atom_zoom_b.jpeg" alt="Inside matter" width="600" height="264" /></a> <p>Image credit: ETH Zurich, Institute for Particle Physics.</p> </div> <p>All the matter we know of is made out of quarks and leptons of various types, with the most common being the up-and-down quarks (that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/06/27/the-strong-force-for-beginners/">bind together</a> to make protons and neutrons) and electrons (that bind with nuclei to make atoms). There are heavier fundamental quarks and leptons that will decay into the light ones with very short lifetimes, but they're just as fundamental to the Universe as the ones that make us up. All quarks and leptons have an intrinsic angular momentum -- <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)#Elementary_particles">known as spin</a> -- equal to Planck's constant (ħ) divided by 2.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/fundamental_forces.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17808" title="fundamental_forces" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/fundamental_forces.jpg" alt="Fundamental Forces" width="600" height="374" /></a> <p>Image credit: Fundamental Forces, via hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.</p> </div> <p>There are also the gauge bosons: the fundamental particles responsible for the fundamental forces. There are the gluons, responsible for <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/06/27/the-strong-force-for-beginners/">the strong force</a> holding atomic nuclei and individual nucleons together, the weak bosons, responsible for radioactive decay and neutrino interactions, and the photon, responsible for electromagnetic interactions, radiation, and light. All of these gauge bosons have a quantum mechanical spin of Planck's constant (ħ), double the value for quarks and leptons.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/311742_com_spacetim.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17809" title="311742_com_spacetim" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/311742_com_spacetim.jpeg" alt="Curved spacetime" width="600" height="266" /></a> <p>Image credit: curved spacetime, courtesy of <a href="http://einstein.stanford.edu/">http://einstein.stanford.edu/</a>.</p> </div> <p>On the level of individual particles, we do not have a complete understanding of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton">how gravity works</a>. Our best theory for that is Einstein's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity">general relativity</a>, which treats space-time as a fabric, and where matter and energy are responsible for curving this fabric. The matter and energy in the Universe determine the shape of the fabric, and then the particles in the Universe follow the path determined by that fabric.</p> <div style="width: 643px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/I15-49-Hawking.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17810" title="I15-49-Hawking" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/I15-49-Hawking.jpeg" alt="Hawking Radiation" width="633" height="450" /></a> <p>Curved spacetime is necessary for understanding quantum effects like Hawking radiation. Image credit: <a href="http://universe-review.ca/">http://universe-review.ca/</a>.</p> </div> <p>The shape of the fabric is also <a href="http://universe-review.ca/R15-17-relativity.htm#Hawking">important</a> for quantum field theory; all of these particles we know of exist and interact in this curved spacetime, and the shape of this spacetime must be taken into account to get the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory_in_curved_spacetime">correct predictions for the behavior of particles</a> in the Universe. That's our best understanding of gravitation.</p> <p>And finally, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/04/how-the-higgs-gives-mass-to-the-universe/">as of yesterday</a>, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/03/the-biggest-firework-of-them-all-the-higgs/">there's the Higgs</a>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/FNAL_ESiegel.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17812" title="FNAL_ESiegel" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/FNAL_ESiegel-600x535.jpg" alt="Standard model particles" width="600" height="535" /></a> <p>Image credit: The standard model by Fermilab, modifications by me.</p> </div> <p>The first and only fundamental particle <em>with no spin</em>. The particle that comes from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism">the mechanism responsible</a> for the masses of all the other fundamental particles, including <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson">the Higgs boson</a> itself. The final piece of the standard model puzzle required to explain the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces and all of the particles therein.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/images-111.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17813" title="images-11" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/images-111-600x533.jpg" alt="CERN with detectors CMS and ATLAS" width="600" height="533" /></a> <p>Image credit: © 2012 The School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Edinburgh.</p> </div> <p>It took us decades of recreating temperatures and energies here at particle accelerators on Earth not found anyplace else to figure this out. The conditions we create in our most powerful accelerators are not found in the center of the Sun, nor in the central core of the Milky Way galaxy, nor around neutron stars and black holes, nor in the cosmic supernova explosions that give rise to all the heavy elements.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/hs-2007-10-a-full_jpg.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17815" title="hs-2007-10-a-full_jpg" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/hs-2007-10-a-full_jpg-600x469.jpg" alt="Supernova 1987a" width="600" height="469" /></a> <p>Image credit: SN 1987a by NASA, ESA, P. Challis and R. Kirshner, by the Hubble Space Telescope.</p> </div> <p>These conditions have not existed* in the Universe, in fact, since the very early stages of the Big Bang, when the Universe was less than a <strong>microsecond</strong> old!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/quark_gluon_plasma.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17816" title="quark_gluon_plasma" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/quark_gluon_plasma-600x418.png" alt="Quark-Gluon plasma" width="600" height="418" /></a> <p>Image credit: CERN.</p> </div> <p>But yet, here we are, having successfully accelerated protons up to a record 299,792,450 m/s, just <strong>8 m/s</strong> shy of the true speed of light, and collided them with protons moving the same speed in the opposite direction. Do this billions upon billions of times with a giant particle detector around the collision point, and on very rare occasions, you'll be fortunate enough to create a Higgs boson, whose decay remnants we can detect.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/6a01287671918d970c0162fdc87878970d-800wi.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17814" title="FSM in the LHC" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/6a01287671918d970c0162fdc87878970d-800wi-600x354.png" alt="Flying Spaghetti Monster, is that you?" width="600" height="354" /></a> <p>Image credit: the CMS detector at CERN, 2009.</p> </div> <p>And now, at long last, the Higgs boson -- the last undetected particle from the standard model -- has been discovered. We've measured its mass and its spin, but not its width or its lifetime, yet, and there are still a bunch of unanswered questions. But for now, at least, I'm still celebrating the one question we did answer: the Higgs mechanism is correct, the Higgs boson (a fundamental, spinless scalar particle) does exist, it has a mass of 125-126 GeV, and the standard model is now complete!</p> <p>We'll take a look at the unanswered questions -- and what's next for physics and the LHC -- very soon, but in the meantime, enjoy the continue Higgs-celebration, and if you've made it this far, enjoy my appearance on yesterday's evening news!</p> <script src="http://www.kgw.com/templates/belo_embedWrapper.js?storyid=161390285&amp;pos=top&amp;swfw=470"></script><object id="bimvidplayer0" width="470" height="264" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"> <param value="true" name="allowfullscreen" /><param value="always" name="allowscriptaccess" /><param value="high" name="quality" /><param value="true" name="cachebusting" /><param value="#000000" name="bgcolor" /><param name="movie" value="http://swfs.bimvid.com/bimvid_player-3_2_7.swf?x-bim-callletters=KGW" /><param value="config=http://www.kgw.com/?j=161390285&amp;ref=http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Hot-Box-Explaining-the-Higgs-boson-161390285.html" name="flashvars" /><embed src="http://swfs.bimvid.com/bimvid_player-3_2_7.swf?x-bim-callletters=KGW" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="470" height="264" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" cachebusting="true" flashvars="config=http://www.kgw.com/?j=161390285&amp;ref=http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Hot-Box-Explaining-the-Higgs-boson-161390285.html" bgcolor="#000000" quality="true"></embed></object><script src="http://www.kgw.com/templates/belo_embedWrapper.js?storyid=161390285&amp;pos=bottom"></script><p> * -- Okay, so <em>occasionally</em> there are ultra-high-energy cosmic rays that are energetic enough to produce a particle such as this. But they're extremely rare and their origin is not understood, so for all intents and purposes, these conditions don't exist in the Universe today.</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Thu, 07/05/2012 - 09:57</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/big-bang" hreflang="en">Big Bang</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/physics" hreflang="en">Physics</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/video" hreflang="en">Video</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/atlas" hreflang="en">ATLAS</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/boson" hreflang="en">boson</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/cern" hreflang="en">cern</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/cms" hreflang="en">CMS</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/higgs" hreflang="en">higgs</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/large-hadron-collider" hreflang="en">large hadron collider</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/lhc" hreflang="en">lhc</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mass" hreflang="en">mass</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mechanism" hreflang="en">mechanism</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510936" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341520314"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"... These conditions don’t exist in the Universe today."</p> <p>Woody Woodpecker uses a high frequency of 'pecking' to hammer through wood, cause one rare 'peck' now and than wouldn't get the job done. So one question regarding the safety of this project, how can one honestly compare this machine that creates these unique disturbances in the fabric of spacetime at an amazing high rate with one rare 'peck' here and there generate by cosmic rays, isn't there a dicrepancy in the LSAG-report?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510936&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6jXPtcVCAfAufY5o5uWZJC16vSMdAslqo83zYTwE0eg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chelle (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510936">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510937" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341528129"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Chelle - one thing that you're missing is that the LHC <i>isn't</i> hammering away at the same small area of space-time. Along with the rest of the solar system, it's moving through space at around 250 km/s relative to the centre of mass of the milky way, which is itself moving at somewhere in the hundreds of kilometres per second.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510937&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="NmzsX1e3wd2vrUjXsOh8NOCvdu3i24YbCa-0X3vhK94"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Tristan (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510937">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510938" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341530551"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And the conditions are recreated throughout the galaxy far far more frequently and therefore if the chance for something terrible happening were not practically zero, we'd have seen evidence of it now.</p> <p>The chance of a problem could be likened to chelle quantum tunnelling 40ft into the ground, thereby appearing encased in solid rock.</p> <p>Yours is another case of "OMG I don't understand, but I've seen many SF movies where the lab coat wearing scientist brings about the apocalypse, so that must be what's going on here!!!!"</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510938&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SVlDaIya2YL67a0v8DidXeLboD1PiLVm8AUG9ppxh_E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510938">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510939" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341532547"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>A couple of questions come to mind: 1) How do you detect spin, and how does it affect the particles? 2) Why do some forces act over an infinite range, and some only a short distance? Is there some kind of boundary (force shield! :0) )that stops the force operating?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510939&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="k15tUYgVaeuLKlHLJ6kz8Ds7JHq0ENg2hw-YsEf0A94"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">davem (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510939">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510940" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341534101"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>wow<br /> What part of ".... these conditions don't exist in the Universe today" (Ethan) is consistent with "the conditions are recreated throughout the galaxy far more frequentely" (you)? bc</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510940&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="VEYrvVoSWK53KPYKzp9EgzipIly0Z4C88x5LZXahk3I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bc (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510940">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510941" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341534676"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Tristan,</p> <p>The <i>"moving through space at around 250 km/s"</i> is a valid argument, for not pecking a hole in one specific place IN the fabric of space-time. But it is clear and proven since yesterday, that there is a Higgs-field trough which we all are moving at 250 km/s. The question now is; is a part of this Higgs-field moving along with us? Second, as described in that Newscientist video that OKThen yesterday linked to; "the Higgs boson is simply a particle which is an excitation of the everywhere permeating Higgs-field". Now lets look at the analogy that Ethan yesterday brought up that the Higgs field is like water, and parts of atoms absorb this water or at least it attaches itself to the particular parts giving it weight. So one could say that by continuously having a high frequency and density of collisions at one specific place (cause they are also moving along at 250 km/s) that we are continuously boiling up the water that surounds that place the place of impact, and there are two such places at the LHC: ATLAS and CMS. The question is could this continuously shaking up of matter in the surrounding area of those collision points be like boiling potatoes or whatever until the point that they are done, weakening the structures of the atoms, so they all start losing mass, causing de-composure, or basically combusting a whole bunch of matter at once?</p> <p>@Wow,</p> <p>- "And the conditions are recreated throughout the galaxy far far more frequently and therefore if the chance for something terrible happening were not practically zero, we’d have seen evidence of it now."</p> <p>That is correct, globally these conditions happen more frequent, but not at on specific spot, there is a density difference, that is huge (10¨9 per cm^2), this is what I mean with the 'discrepancy'. On could compare it with a magnifying glass, it also bundles light that is normally 'safe' in one specific spot generating heat much higher than normal, just like the LHC does, and generating turning it into the fire-starter tool that it is.</p> <p>- "Yours is another case of “OMG I don’t understand, but I’ve seen many SF movies where the lab coat wearing scientist brings about the apocalypse, so that must be what’s going on here!!!!”</p> <p>Huh, no sir. My motivation is quite clear, I see a lot of sparks so I wonder couldn't this experiment ignite something?! So I look how a fire starts, and the process of combustion is often started by shaking up matter due to friction and/or heat. I search for similarities, and I can find here a thing or two. I know that it's perhaps too far fetched (SF) … but still a hazard worth considering imho, that's why I'm asking. :mrgreen:</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510941&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FLP--lxr0sViF2tRdtYh7YLq7ioVhvjCzzGs2_xY8Yw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510941">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510942" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341536925"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>daven:</p> <p>1) First Question, First Part: </p> <p>Short answer: It's similar to how the Higgs and other fundamental particles got detected - that is, by building particle colliders, plugging them in, causing particle collisions, and observing and analysing those collisions for secondary phenomena, the production of which leads to the inference of spin. In the case of Higgs, the scientists involved in ATLAS and CMS were looking for decay products in a certain distribution. In the case of spin, scientists look for the secondary phenomena of magnetic resonance.</p> <p>Longer answer: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment</a></p> <p>First Question, Second Part:</p> <p>Short answer: Go ask Flip Tanedo.</p> <p>Long answer: Read Flip on Feynman diagrams here:</p> <p><a href="http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/02/14/lets-draw-feynman-diagams/">http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/02/14/lets-draw-feynman-diagams/</a></p> <p>2) Second Question, First Part:</p> <p>Answering A Question With A Question: Where did you get the idea that "some forces act over an infinite range"?</p> <p>Second Question, Really The Third:</p> <p>Shortish Answer: I assume by "forces", you mean 'forces that operate on particles', because If there are no particles, that limits the reach of any such force. Now, if there is a particle for such a force to act on, that particle still has to be such that the given force is able to 'interact' with that given particle; and for us to know that's happening, then that interaction has to be detectable by us (see WIMPs) or conceivable (see Bell's Theorem of Localities).</p> <p>Snidish Answer: Look above at Ethan's post, and think "event horizon".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510942&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZVnPLLUeNwTmLwwxV9xoqt1yEFQhsLbSJy6UUWdDB4Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Avattoir (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510942">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510943" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341539689"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Davem</p> <p>Particle spin affects certain other properties of a particle and when the particle interacts with some magnetic or electric field it causes measurable changes to it. Working in reverse through equations you can get the spin. </p> <p>As for range of forces, it goes directly to guage bosons which are carriers of the forces in question and their masses. Photon is massles (doesn't interact with the higgs field) and therefore it;s range is infinite (or the range of em fields) while bossons that carry the weak force couple with higss and get mass, therefore it's range is very small.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510943&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1-m0cRscmWAjBECDW6gocNiFqvdaK8xMIC5n9ihaF5Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510943">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510944" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341541896"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>bc: the difference is because I understand what Ethan says whilst you don't.</p> <p>The universe isn't at 125GeV particle energy any more. But we have many many MANY particles at higher energies hitting other particles all the time.</p> <p>It's just not universal.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510944&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bOs-zFESrvtiH0al_QqVlrMJU4xHcI2urWNWPIqGFSM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510944">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510945" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341542039"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"That is correct, globally these conditions happen more frequent, but not at on specific spot"</p> <p>Every event that happens happens at a specific spot, chelle.</p> <p>Every sungle one of those conditions happened at that spot where that condition happened.</p> <p>All the LHC is doing is putting it in a reliable place where we can put expensive and difficult to maintain sensors to see what happens in detail.</p> <p>Otherwise we'd need a google of such detectors spread throughout the local galaxy and all reporting back "Nothing yet boss" apart from a very few who got "lucky".</p> <p>Probably requiring a googleplex of money to make and maintain.</p> <p>So, in the interests of financial restraint, we make them happen in a location we can specify.</p> <p>By the way, bc, chelle understood you notice?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510945&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bVxkdCpd9Iudm6YUIPIR2sijpw9ZP6ZG2YddpI1B4Qk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510945">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510946" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341543828"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow,</p> <p>- <i>"Every event that happens happens at a specific spot, ... All the LHC is doing is putting it in a reliable place where we can put expensive and difficult to maintain sensors to see what happens in detail."</i></p> <p>Yes that is what I mean with density, just like the magnifying glass that bundles all the light into one spot. For cosmic rays in nature it is at a billion (10^9) different spots (1 cm^2), while the LHC peck's them all together in one spot.</p> <p>- <i>"By the way, bc, chelle understood you notice?"</i></p> <p>I think that everyone understood 'bc' except you :mrgreen: </p> <p>Anyway, the continous concentration of such an amount of energy into one specific space &amp; time is unique.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510946&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JZJGaviK7gBZk-dmH8T9n3cJ-gWYfePbZ84_BOY9aMk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510946">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510947" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341545318"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Yes that is what I mean with density"</p> <p>And that's what Tristan meant with "that area is moving". It isn't the same spot second-to-second. The energy density in "galactic reference" space is very very low.</p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA">www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510947&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mBHtpmS4P2C4RCXQ5j8_m1P8hU1mc3Ol3id6tiuLZmw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510947">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510948" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341545431"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And I've never really understood putting ":-D" or whatever at the end of an insult. What is it meant to achieve?</p> <p>Does it mean I can say "Chelle, you're a know-nothing ignoramus :-D" and it becomes OK or something?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510948&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0rHkMMiB_NNhEZrzxkaKr2DtWbo0HKKCzRYa9I8qJnQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510948">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510949" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341554900"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow,</p> <p>"And that’s what Tristan meant with “that area is moving”. It isn’t the same spot second-to-second. The energy density in “galactic reference” space is very very low."</p> <p>Oh boy, you sound like my senile grandfather, I already gave a whole explanation to this fact in my reply to Tristan's comment :doh:</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510949&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="imdnhBhrRwbW6VlkNsaR5LeKpwdTjMEpU1ViSRQ8I5A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510949">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510950" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341555825"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Do they really call their segment "Hot Box"? I don't think they know that doesn't mean what they think it means.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510950&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jesH6tEDgaDD0Zwgf0cTiU5JmUL9DoqTRfQtaGPrFwY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Waydude (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510950">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510951" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341556813"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Gosh, celle, it must be congenital!</p> <p>(PS how can your grandfather sound like typed text?)</p> <p>You already IGNORED the point with handwavium earlier.</p> <p>For one: you posed the question but did not answer "does the field move with us". Yet you are here taking it as fact that it does, else your whining pouts are pointless.</p> <p>You also seem to have missed what scalar means.</p> <p>Given your lifelong intent to be a scientist, your inability at this point will come to stymie you forever.</p> <p>(and also: if your scewing universe hypothesis is correct, what would that do to your moving scalar field?)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510951&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="orFrgHCe9-FhAowKKZXV418GtpbNpLFEOHM4lJRLheI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510951">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510952" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341567289"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It’s not worth making comments or asking questions here no more, you don’t get replies, just people popping at each other. So I’m reading the articles only from now. Wow as become the site‘s boring troll nearly every other post is wow popping at someone.<br /> Save your time wow, as I said, I’m not reading comments anymore.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510952&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vCeZWiz7Dn5BReccb88vfz6R3Aoid--n-Qcr7uFXV2o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">lollypop (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510952">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510953" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341568503"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow,</p> <p>- <i>"For one: you posed the question but did not answer “does the field move with us”. </i></p> <p>Since when do I have to answer my own questions?</p> <p>- <i>"Yet you are here taking it as fact that it does, else your whining pouts are pointless."</i></p> <p>There is no logic in what you say here. </p> <p>Anyway, I can break a crystal glass with sound coming out of a speaker ([url=<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KuwJXMQUdc]example[/url">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KuwJXMQUdc]example[/url</a>]), and I suppose that I can do the same thing when I place a fan on the side, that blows air in-between the glass and the speaker.<br /> The analogy of the speaker stands here for the high frequency &amp; density collisions of the LHC that generate excitations in the Higgs field; the glass stands for the matter that surrounds the collision area and that is strongly coupled to the Higgs field; and the fan represent the motion of us all moving at 250 km/s through space. Can you figure that out?</p> <p>- <i>"Given your lifelong intent to be a scientist, your inability at this point will come to stymie you forever."</i></p> <p>Wtf is this, are you blackmailing me saying that I can never become a professor :mrgreen: for posting this hypothesis that makes perfect sense. Shame on you for saying such things.</p> <p>- <i>"and also: if your scewing universe hypothesis is correct, what would that do to your moving scalar field?"</i></p> <p>Get your facts right, I never talked about a sc(r)ewing universe.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510953&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="O2U3GpICGqTkoEgOkAlD_dMwAry6qTahKijd2NWnaPw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510953">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510954" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341575333"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You have to ansewr them if you're going to decide one of them is true, chelle. If you haven't answered it then you have no basis on which to decide the beam is in "the same place"</p> <p>DO try to keep up, little girl.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510954&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZSh-2HinyUrh_XfmyIQmhWkXvD-kN53AbKHVbt_Arc4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510954">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510955" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341583466"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow: Is it really necessary to be so consistently nasty?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510955&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XwBlnbzhrLpTYHNc1vn7hjqCkjRHPQ_pvAW2q_ANeDA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Tristan (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510955">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510956" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341611303"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow</p> <p><i>"If you haven’t answered it then you have no basis on which to decide the beam is in “the same place”</i></p> <p>No, you're wrong, and sorry for opposite to you again. The beam and the collision centers at ATLAS and CMS travel along with the matter that surrounds those centers, just like the magnets that keep the beam in place travel along with the beam, it is the whole setting that moves together.</p> <p>You have to picture this as a sea battle where one pirate ship in the center fires all around with; cannonballs, torpedo's and blast-waves generated by (A-)bombs on it's deck. All this output has an impact on the fleet that surrounds that one vessel. Depending on the direction of the wind, cannonballs might drift off their straight path, but if so they will hit continuously the ship that is behind the ship at which the canon was aimed at, so in practice there is no difference 'cause there is still a large amount of matter that continuously gets to be pound; same goes for a torpedoes in the water that are being dragged along by some ocean current, they will hit with a constant high frequency the ship that sails behind the target; and regarding repetitive blast-waves generated at one spot, those shock-waves will also be continuously pecking into the fleet that surrounds it. As a result the structures of the ships of the surrounding fleet, will be continuously weakened until the point that they start to lose their composition and sink. </p> <p>The difference here with cosmic rays is the high frequency and density at one specific spot, just like someone can get a hearing damage when staying too long in a very noisy environment for far too long, the air-cells start to break off; or like watching to long in the sun, the tissue of the retina gets to be damaged, even though the sun is miles away and the earth is rotating, we stay relatively in "the same place" of each other.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510956&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yPVKdsJax4J_5bKx3QI3jLRGbZCt44jGMzYp7_AkQOE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510956">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510957" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341615688"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Chelle</p> <p>"Woody Woodpecker uses a high frequency of ‘pecking’ to hammer through wood, cause one rare ‘peck’ now and than wouldn’t get the job done."</p> <p>Yeah, and if you pull the other one and it plays <i>Smells Like Teen Spirit</i>. :)</p> <p>"I can break a crystal glass with sound coming out of a speaker ."</p> <p>To destroy a glass requires transmitting enough energy to it to do so. Resonance in the glass is just a way to efficiently transmit the sound energy without cancelling itself out. The actual effect can't be any larger than the energy input itself. That's why in your video the glass only cracks, but doesn't shatter. </p> <p>With less amplification, nothing at all would have happened. Or equal amplification, but focused very tightly, for once again a small amount of total energy. Or if he'd done only a very short pulse, nothing would have happened. The effect can't ever be bigger than the amount of energy that goes into it. It helps in this case that wine glasses are fragile.</p> <p>The huge energy in the LHC collisions -- 8 Terra-eV, oooh! -- is only impressive because it is happening on a very small scale, and only impressive sounding because of choice of units. In more normal terms that's 1.3 microjoules. It can't do more than 1.3 microjoules of damage to the universe. Even billions of times that demonstrably poses no danger on more than a sub-atomic, unnoticeable scale, of the fabric of the universe ripping apart.</p> <p>Or whatever you think is going to happen exactly, I'm not sure. Personally I think the scientists looking at the detectors have a pretty good picture of what is happening: The energy of the collision rapidly dissipates as a bunch of gamma rays and miscelaneous particles most of which rapidly decay into miscelaneous other particles, and as a consequence the surrounding chamber heats up ever so slightly. </p> <p>P.S. If you're boiling up water you're exciting the water molecules, not boiling the electromagnetic field itself! Higgs Bosons are being excited into visible existence, that doesn't mean the Higgs Field itself is going to somehow break. If you want to combust a whole bunch of matter at once using the power of particle physics, we already know of a way. Looks kinda like C= </p> <p>P.P.S. I really do love your colorful analogies. I must point out though that Woody, like all woodpeckers, pecks rapidly because he's industrious. Not that they can't be lazy, and when one is, the the occasional peck still gets the job done eventually. Big Pileated Woodpeckers like Woody can take chunks of wood out with each peck and so tend to naturally take a more leisurely pace, except when hijinks are involved. As they so often are.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510957&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fJI8i8kpKHx6TVyogIY_HE55gOe6ZPmG0OlQf9a49N4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510957">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510958" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341620581"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CB</p> <p>- <i>"With less amplification, nothing at all would have happened."</i></p> <p>And that is my point about 'frequency &amp; density' that is at the LHC a billion (10^9) times higher than in than for cosmic rays in nature.</p> <p>- <i>"The huge energy in the LHC collisions — 8 Terra-eV, oooh! — is only impressive because it is happening on a very small scale ..."</i></p> <p>And that is the other part of my point about 'frequency &amp; density' that we're concentrating it into 1 very small area. Just like I talked about using a magnifying glass, it is the bundling of energy that heats ups up the mater, so it starts to burn.</p> <p>-<i>"Or whatever you think is going to happen exactly, ... and as a consequence the surrounding chamber heats up ever so slightly."</i></p> <p>The question here is what is <i>heat? On an atomic level it is quite clear what 'heat' is, but more or less interaction within the atom isn't observable to us. Just like you wouldn't notice the difference between a glass that is vibrating until the point that it burst, unless you can zoom in and/or watch it in slow motion, than you can see how the glass is wobbling.</i></p> <p>So in nature, cosmic rays could make the parts in the nucleus, of the atoms that surrounds the place of collision, wobble. But a continuos high frequency and density could tip it over a certain flexibility threshold. That is how it is for any other combustion process is ignited.</p> <p>And what could happen ...? the same thing as for any other fire, a chain-reaction that is set in motion. Can you imagine what would happen when a certain threshold is surpassed and all atoms within a certain perimeter of the of the collision point start to burst / decompose, and how much energy would be released, this is could be far more intense than just some heavy atoms that are splitting.</p> <p>One has to look at the whole process, not just the details of one collision at a time.</p> <p>- <i>"... that doesn’t mean the Higgs Field itself is going to somehow break."</i></p> <p>I'm not suggesting that the Higgs field would break, nor that there would come a hole in the fabric of Space time. I'm only alluding on the fact that atoms in the surrounding area of the high energy collisions (100000 hotter than the Sun) could start to decompose, or loose the coupling to the Higgs field and the mechanism that gives them mass, would start to break. And we wouldn't see this fungus C= but more something like a Supernova of which we can spot plenty examples in the Universe.</p> <p>-<i>"I must point out though that Woody, like all woodpeckers, pecks rapidly because ...</i></p> <p>Well I guess I could have used an other pounding Woody as example to generate a climax breakthrough ... Anyway this one seems to have done the job just fine, for getting the basic idea across.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510958&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="psyuKKOyk8xyR5qtu1BuM2ryiM9TazdcBOdipd0P7Eg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510958">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510959" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341623404"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Tristan, is it necessary to always overstate the case?</p> <p>And why not ask that of chelle?</p> <p>TBH if neither you nor lollipop have anything better to say than sneering contempt for how I approach idiots and trolls, stop posting, because you're only demonstating hypocrisy and I can't be bothered with that either.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510959&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OJGI5G1CliGAX7JJALBwQlu7SfkNHkw9gqfReTafbNo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510959">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510960" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341623495"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Chelle, ducky, the events are not happening in the same place and you have absolutely no competence in science to make claims on it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510960&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0hn9r_YmMUDyPNBEdyp9qBzdR0UqbU_RGPrTXbbfCDM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510960">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510961" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341629209"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@wow</p> <p><i>"the events are not happening in the same place"</i> </p> <p>True, so?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510961&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7eitqncxQoU7YMAxAMLN8wZWokp4DWVMld7ofoKeUYU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510961">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510962" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341631872"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh dear. I see now you were merely trolling.</p> <p>Bye bye, dearie.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510962&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="I_Ykq0QE69SoI_j1GxbpelmLOa2R7j7JL-fsM0alkoY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510962">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510963" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341634696"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow</p> <p>I have agreed from in the beginning to the fact of what Tristan mentioned in his first reply (July 6, 12:42 am), where he said; <i>"the LHC isn’t hammering away at the same small area of space-time."</i></p> <p>I have agreed to that fact over and over again, so when you say the same thing that he said (<i>“the events are not happening in the same place”</i>, I can only say once more that it's true. So what do you want me to do, change my mind and say that after 24 posts it is no longer the case, so you can be right that I'm wrong?</p> <p>You're so eager to insult someone, and call him or her a troll or an idiot, but in your rudeness you fail to read what an other person writes. Yes I'm a lighthearted person, but that doesn't mean that there's no logic in what I write.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510963&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6LXlkUU3_-IRa1eSeEzNrBLLizTZOak-nZEB9ri30bM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510963">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510964" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341639362"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You don't. Because you keep blithering on about woodpeckers.</p> <p>Which is irrelevant if you accept that the events are happening in the same place.</p> <p>But troll away luttle girl. Your retconning away your posts is easily visible except to those who don't want to see it and I couldn't give s rats arse for their opinion.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510964&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pUv3Vuwsx89Am6nWCKtdvYgOcYIZGRZylvHiCQXg-GQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510964">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510965" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341639618"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Should have had a not there, "are not in the same place"</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510965&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="r5-JJ7rSVJu3jFh8bIbgeAutDTo77nTMBipyWN2PVvM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510965">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510966" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341644800"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow, </p> <p>Apparently you're nothing but a heckler that doesn't like someone questioning the safety of the LHC. A true scientist should be a serious enough person, that can listen to criticism, and be able to evaluate whatever is said it a sensible manner, and deal with it. But you just can't seem do that, so it is clear that you are at this point not worthy of calling yourself a true scientist. Your continuous insults and paranoia to call others trolls have become a sad thing to witness. I hope that you'll realize in time how fucked up you are, and that you can correct yourself before it's too late. Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510966&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="olT73Qaj6apSnc0YpPoemeZ3r0yyNbKcGekcci__Y28"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510966">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510967" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341651928"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Nope, i hate cluless morons who fear what they don't understand if they try to make out that they're right.</p> <p>And thst would be you, dear.</p> <p>At leats you've shown that you really don't sccept we are moving .</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510967&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="85zvSgZQhKgWl1lbJbcuAJOQJP97zrX0M4DlpU2cCIc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510967">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510968" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341655894"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>"At leats you’ve shown that you really don’t sccept we are moving ."</i></p> <p>Really, well if you say so than it must be true. Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510968&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="G0RFN-9RxLZRGzjDdTgrCCKCcb2rAXKZtelCa62De-c"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510968">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510969" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341665637"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Has anyone got any ideas about how to talk to as concentrated a source of ignorance as chelle?</p> <p>She blithers on about how the concentration is high, about sea ships and cannonade and then pretends that they accept that we aren't dragging the higgs field around like the earth drags its oceans.</p> <p>Really, how are you supposed to respond to that level of putrid ignorance other than saying "shut up until you know ehst the hell you're talking about"?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510969&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Xo1rOcAPKxakAXvFBF03PO9lOTd9n31cTe4Zb0T5vXM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510969">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510970" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341704096"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So, yes then.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510970&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vqpQw-_ABBR8u_uqpDL_iAV14qIoXYINjPFo8CnQwwA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Tristan (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510970">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510971" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341705094"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow,</p> <p><i>"She blithers on about how the concentration is high, about sea ships and cannonade and then pretends that they accept that we aren’t dragging the Higgs field around like the earth drags its oceans."</i></p> <p>Those where examples of how the fleet of ships, with the pirate ship in the middle that is causing all the mayhem, are relatively staying in the same place of each other; while the Higgs field can flow by, as a metaphor I used here the sea (torpedo), wind (cannonball &amp; blast-wave). I also used the example of the fan in-between the glass and the speaker where wind is passing by while sound waves are still moving through the air and making the glass burst.</p> <p>My point is that while we are moving through the Higgs field we are constantly transmitting energy from the collision point, towards the matter that surrounds it. So yes the collision point moves through space (Higgs field), but also the surrounding matter moves along with that collision point through space, and so it still gets to be hit continuously, it gets no rest due to the high frequency and density of these collisions. </p> <p>Like I said before I'm not talking here about pecking a hole in the fabric of Spacetime, nor starting a fire at one point in the Higgs field that stands still. I'm focusing here on the continuous pecking on the Higgs particles from the Higgs field that are couple to the particles within the atom (water in the sponge). This is the mechanism that gives mass and we are boiling the water in the sponge. If the coupling gets to be disrupted, than the whole mechanism of the atom would be interrupted.</p> <p>I hope that this gives you a better idea of what I'm questioning.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510971&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mEwRHTGJd4duNVaE3yX4XhNz1P4FrDVCO78YM7TPJRE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510971">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510972" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341710428"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yes, tristan, I treat people with all due respect.</p> <p>Amd I see you still have nothing to say. Why, then are you wasting everyone's time here?</p> <p>PS pop along to ERV to see what a troll looks like and consider how you'd respond to that psycho.</p> <p>Or yust white knight your way to what you REALLY love doing: being nasty to people. White knighting uses a fictitious "outrage" at someone else's behaviour to hide the fact you're being intensely unpleasant. Justification being "well, they were rude first!".</p> <p>Guess what, dipstick? I wasn't first either.</p> <p>But that doesn't help you in your aim, does it, so you'll just splutter outrage.</p> <p>Tiresome. Very very tiresome.</p> <p>Do us all a favour and shut up.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510972&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZScY-dY7wTEc4vagFrnwj3hexkBpN1pNUT8Ft_rRggk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510972">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510973" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341710556"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Chelle, we're not boiling water in a sponge.</p> <p>We aren't holding the same higgs particles in the location of the protons.</p> <p>Learn what the hell a scalar field is, and get this into your thick skull: the analogy used is not the higgs field.</p> <p>Get it?</p> <p>Analogy, not reality.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510973&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bnOAdd62H-8ctVWHghkdi3xKc6O0IRlGP3_Qr-e9XFY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510973">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510974" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341710714"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And in case you're talking about the matter being hit,</p> <p>A it gets hit once. No more times than it would have gotten hit if the rate had been a trillion times higer or a trillion times lower.</p> <p>Do you have any idea how big a number avogadro's number is?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510974&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="A9n-zdWPQhJJ8JSngS2sKZ5EvPdmQADSQSvnej6Uvsc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510974">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510975" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341727974"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow,</p> <p>- <i>"We aren’t holding the same higgs particles in the location of the protons."</i></p> <p>So are you saying that the 'coupling' is more like a parachute that slows down the speed of a space shuttle that is landing, and not like attaching / embedding particles like a sponge holds water?</p> <p>- <i>"Learn what the hell a scalar field is"</i></p> <p>A scalar field can evolve over time, and if there are also conservation properties as the density of the field is not created or destroyed, there may be a vector field associated with change.</p> <p>- <i>" it gets hit once. No more times than it would have gotten hit if ..."</i></p> <p>The glass that bursts how often did it got hit ... here it's a matter of frequency and density.</p> <p>- <i>"Do you have any idea how big a number avogadro’s number is?"</i></p> <p>Sorry, but I don't get why you are bringing this up. I have read that the (boson) field can coincide when the system energy is very high with the statistics of Maxwell-Boltzmann gas.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510975&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Spw_Coa86wiHFYx7vMWjsxMlIEXMazKHF40-yqF9ggs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510975">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510976" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341730942"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>See, you're saying tha analogy of the thing IS the thing. This is part of the reason you're getting so much wrong.</p> <p>If you want to find out what the higgs boson is doing you need to get the actual science description and not use the analogy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510976&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Me2kw_0xrYdqigIwA6A-qheCwr0s8e1__Okl2fMXmqk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510976">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510977" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341734453"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow,</p> <p>- <i>"you’re saying tha analogy of the thing IS the thing.</i></p> <p>That is not necessarily what I'm saying I'm only using a few analogies, and if I may use a quote from you in a previous topic:</p> <p><i>Since we can’t see them directly and our monkey-brain doesn’t do thinking on the subatomic scale too easy, we have ot use analogies.</i> (How the Higgs gives Mass to the Universe - Wow, July 5, 7:40 am)</p> <p>- <i>"This is part of the reason you’re getting so much wrong.</i></p> <p>I'm not going to contest that I'm wrong. I'm only proposing a concept of how high-energy collisions might disturb the functionality of atoms within a certain perimeter, by using analogies. I agree that single collisions have proven not to be hazardous as they happen all the time. I'm only looking here at the frequency and density increase that is significantly higher than in nature (10^9). That's why I find that a safety-report should include an inspection of this type of possible disturbance-effect on the matter that surrounds the collision area, and not only focus on 'black-holes' and 'strangelets' for whom a frequency and density difference plays no role.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510977&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nfuPRPKZh4RW05uK21MPRj8giBr-CtMOEaxxZUjnEDo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510977">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510978" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341753955"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Pointless talking to you, you don't even know what it is you're saying, all you can do is go "OMG Bad things!" and when challenged on your reasoning "I'm not really saying that".</p> <p>When you've worked out what you're saying, say that and why it means we're all goung to destroy the universe.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510978&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pQ3dDOh-sle8x8DAlZMQULTM5RSdHSsnCA3relXT2CI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510978">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510979" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341784495"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Every year some 600.000 people die from malaria, caused by the very tiny sting of a very little mosquito, that is reality, and yes it is an <i>"OMG Bad Thing!"</i>, it is part of the reality of the complexities of our Universe. Now if you don't like to talk about a negative that could happen, or not even want to consider to inspect it, than you lack the maturity to consider yourself a true scientist, who should be neutrally observant and not waving questions away because the consequences 'appear' to be irrational. Like Ethan said at the end of his article; <i>"... these conditions don’t exist in the Universe today."</i>, so a more serious assessment report considering the effects of these high-energy collisions on its environment might be in place. </p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510979&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="2j4haG7o8f0nwReInjBm4AN2GMIWvLRxLRxPTfOntA4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chelle (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510979">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510980" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341795107"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And we know this because some chikcen little said that a tiny insect did this?</p> <p>No.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510980&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="c02iZyRK2o9Z_aEmqApjrvYEiYVLMRLS8k045yEu9nU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510980">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510981" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341798352"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Of course the Bokito says; "No."</p> <p>Like I said before you can't be a neutral observing scientist, for you it is all about defending (your) territory, and anyone else needs to be mocked or intimidated away. Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510981&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yC3u4Hyb1JJwGDi18Fi25SQqnWlAYpLyFRMtUJ8a8lo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chelle (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510981">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510982" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341812990"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Because you're wrong, chelle, but won't listen, so why waste time with proof when you'll only go and segue into yet another retcon of your previous statements?</p> <p>You<br /> Are<br /> Wrong.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510982&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ka2otqZInRqtdEJC3n0Q0Y4HMZukY4ICdP3NI6Asmgk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510982">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510983" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341818948"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yeah sure, take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510983&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0OJesUyyvdhT2kiupsNE8uAvLMdsLbjXWjj5yAC1kX0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510983">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510984" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341841811"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Will do.</p> <p>You too.</p> <p>And go read up the actual science papers on the higgs field if you want to see if there's a problem. It doesn't work otherwise.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510984&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="IQiP6wZUnlHQIB07zRN4dG4FHGpfVskJW9pBKN1ppn0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510984">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510985" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341870941"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow,</p> <p><i>"And go read up the actual science papers on the higgs field if you want to see if there’s a problem."</i></p> <p>I do and I will keep on doing, but I haven't read anything in the LSAG-report (<a href="http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf">http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/LSAG-Report.pdf</a> - 579k), about the effects of these high-energy collisions on the matter that surrounds it, and in regard to the high frequency and density difference (10^9) with 'natural' cosmic rays, see (my) first comment of this whole thread of comments. And that's why I said; <i>"... a more serious assessment report considering the effects of these high-energy collisions on its environment might be in place."</i></p> <p>btw I haven't done any <i>"retcon"</i> here. We have already discussed this issue of high-energy collisions shaking up the inner mechanics of an atom until the point of combu(r)stion, in a previous post of Ethan (Why You’ll Never Escape From A Black Hole). This time I more specifically focused on de coupling between the Higgs field and elementary particles, the mechanics that gives mass to matter ... because of all the fuzz since the new discovery. And yes, it might look like I've been adding information to the back story (retcon), but that was because some didn't understand from the start what I was talking about. Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510985&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Yaua6gEw5MVerT5wcgBjPHIyuT_C6oKvw537PwwsqsI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510985">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510986" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341879067"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And why do you think that is?</p> <p>Becsuse there in no danger. You're making a scare story. Nobody knows why.</p> <p>And yes you have retconned. First you accept that these comditions were not -universal- nti way back in the early univesre and happen all over the place naturally. Then you pretend that you never said that and quote ethan saying these conditions only existed in the early universe as if this proved these events never happen naturally any more (though how this proves any risk is conspicuous by its absence).</p> <p>Do you wish to continue lying?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510986&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="J9WEqn2OPxy9lYQhEDnwd14NGRGRB_CNdSxKjfiISuk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510986">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510987" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341885968"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow,</p> <p><i>"Do you wish to continue lying?"</i></p> <p>Are you saying that the frequency and density difference of 1.000.000.000 collisions per cm^2 between the LHC and those very rare ultra-high-energy cosmic rays in nature that Ethan talks about is a lie? And so you think it is all just the same, just likes the LSAG-report considers it to be no different. Have you even read it? And great because one doesn't like to put it into the safety report, it means that it is not an issue, than why in hell would one even put Black holes and Stranglets in the paper if they are also no danger? I'll tell you why; it is because 10^9 is by all means a significant detail ... and an <i>always look on the bright side of life</i> kind of non too skeptical scientists rather like to sweep this one fact under the carpet, just to keep the show on the road.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510987&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_RCADttgNbtXJgs906g2BP3GhEYkQxr0X7ueSExzAe0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chelle (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510987">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510988" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341911844"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It wasn't because the location keeps moving, you barnpot ignoramus.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510988&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_G3EVLQpCTxb_iK4hQylvf6M9-Jb0BIN2N0VLoRdQmI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 10 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510988">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510989" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341918451"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow,</p> <p>According to your logic one can ask; <i>'"How can we observe the Higgs boson at 125 Gev when the location keep moving?"</i></p> <p>Pfffff, your way of debating has become really pathetic, and please stop with your stupid remarks, false accusations and insults it only proofs that you have got no credibility whatsoever, already two persons pointed the finger at you for being a dumbass troll, its time for me do the same and stop waisting my time arguing with you. Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510989&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_vM2IMgMAxc2kLq4gxzPXG84Nau80veQebWXlKI4NZY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chelle (not verified)</span> on 10 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510989">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2012/07/05/explaining-the-higgs-on-tv-last-night%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:57:39 +0000 esiegel 35447 at https://scienceblogs.com How the Higgs gives Mass to the Universe https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/04/how-the-higgs-gives-mass-to-the-universe <span>How the Higgs gives Mass to the Universe</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>"This is evidently a discovery of a new particle. If anybody claims otherwise you can tell them they have lost connection with reality." -<em><a href="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/higgs_live_blogging_5_draft_quotes_guardian_etc-91745">Tommaso Dorigo</a></em></p></blockquote> <p>You've probably heard the news by now: the Higgs boson -- the <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/03/the-biggest-firework-of-them-all-the-higgs/">last undiscovered fundamental particle</a> of nature -- <a href="http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/07/04/the-day-of-the-higgs/">has been found</a>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/Higgs_SM.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17608" title="Higgs_SM" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/Higgs_SM-600x535.jpg" alt="Higgs Standard Model" width="600" height="535" /></a> <p>The fundamental types of particles in the Universe, now complete.</p> </div> <p>Indeed the news reports just <a href="http://trap.it/#!traps/id/11a80242-6298-4e24-bae6-80e383cb92e8">keep rolling in</a>; this is easily the discovery of the century for physics, so far. I'm not here to recap the scientific discovery itself; I wrote <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/03/the-biggest-firework-of-them-all-the-higgs/">what to expect yesterday</a>, and that prediction was pretty much <em>exactly</em> <a href="http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/07/04/the-day-of-the-higgs/">what happened</a>, with CMS announcing a 4.9-σ discovery and ATLAS announcing a 5.0-σ discovery, of a Higgs boson at 125-126 GeV. You can watch a recording of the <a href="https://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1459604">press conference announcing the official discovery here</a>, and all observing scientists were thoroughly convinced of both the quality and veracity of the work.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/5sigma.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17617" title="5sigma" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/5sigma-600x335.png" alt="5 sigma annoucement" width="600" height="335" /></a> <p>Screenshot from the original, live webcast of the seminars leading up to the presentation. Taken at the moment the CMS team first said the words "5-sigma," long known as the gold standard for discovery in the field.</p> </div> <p>So, the Higgs boson has been discovered! That's good news. You may have <em>also</em> heard that the Higgs gives mass to everything in the Universe, and that it's a field.</p> <p>The odd thing is that <em>all</em> of these things are true, if not intuitive. There are some <a href="http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12547980-the-higgs-boson-made-simple">attempts to explain it simply</a>, but as you can see, even the top ones are <a href="http://www.physics.org/toplistdetail.asp?id=28">not very clear</a>. So let's give you something to sink your teeth into: <strong>How do fundamental particles, including the Higgs boson, get their mass?</strong></p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/1005e_cow_moose_in_rain_storm.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17626" title="1005e_cow_moose_in_rain_storm" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/1005e_cow_moose_in_rain_storm-600x450.jpg" alt="Cow Moose in a Rain Storm" width="600" height="450" /></a> <p>Image credit: Highway Man of WhiteBlaze.net.</p> </div> <p>The Higgs field is like rain, and there is no place you can go to keep dry. Just like there's no way to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_shielding">shield yourself from gravitation</a>, there's no way to hide from the rain that is the Higgs field.</p> <p>If there were no Higgs field, all the fundamental particles would be like dried-out sponges. Massless, dried-out sponges.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/spongiform.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17627" title="spongiform" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/spongiform-600x201.jpg" alt="Dried-out sponges" width="600" height="201" /></a> <p>You have to use your imagination, if only slightly, for the massless part.</p> </div> <p>But you can't keep these sponges out of the rain, and when you can't stop them from getting wet, they carry that water with them. Some sponges can only carry a little bit of water, while others can expand to many times their original size, carrying very large amounts of water with them once they're fully expanded.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/Compressed_Sponge.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17628" title="Compressed_Sponge" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/Compressed_Sponge-600x450.jpg" alt="Compressed Sponge" width="600" height="450" /></a> <p>Image credit: GNI Phoenix International, via DIYTrade.com.</p> </div> <p>The most massive fundamental particles are the ones that couple most strongly to the Higgs field, and are like the sponges that expand the most and hold the most water in the rain. Of all the particles I've shown you, atop, there are just <em>two</em> that are truly massless, and hence don't couple to the Higgs at all: the photon and the gluon.</p> <p>They can be represented by massless sponges, too, except they are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durable_water_repellent">water repellent</a>.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/LSH.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17629" title="© Gregory Alan Dunbar" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/LSH-600x399.jpg" alt="Water Repellant" width="600" height="399" /></a> <p>Image credit: CETEX Water Repellent, from Waltar Enterprises; photo by © Gregory Alan Dunbar.</p> </div> <p>So, the Higgs field is rain, all the particles are like various types of sponges (with various absorbancies), and then... then there's the Higgs Boson. How can the field -- the rain -- be a particle, too?</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/empty_balloons.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-17630" title="deflated balloons" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/empty_balloons-600x399.jpg" alt="deflated balloons" width="600" height="399" /></a> <p>Image credit: stockmedia.cc / stockarch.com.</p> </div> <p>If it weren't raining -- if there were no source of water -- your intended water balloon would be a sad failure. If there were no Higgs field, there wouldn't be a Higgs boson; at least, not one of any interest, and not one with any mass.</p> <p>But the water comes from the Higgs field, and it also fills the balloon that is the Higgs boson: the Higgs field gives mass to all the particles that couple to the Higgs field, including the Higgs boson itself!</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/water-balloons.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17631" title="water-balloons" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/water-balloons.jpeg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></a> <p>Image credit: Laura Williams from SheKnows.com.</p> </div> <p>Without the water, the balloons and the sponges would be far less interesting, and without the Higgs field, the Higgs boson and all the other fundamental particles would have no intrinsic mass to them.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/pitchburst3.jpeg"><img class="size-full wp-image-17634" title="pitchburst3" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/pitchburst3.jpeg" alt="It's only kind of like the Higgs boson" width="600" height="394" /></a> <p>"I've found the Higgs boson! And I'm very, very wet!"</p> </div> <p>So now you not only know <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/07/03/the-biggest-firework-of-them-all-the-higgs/">that we've found the Higgs Boson</a>, but how the Higgs field gives mass to all the particles in the Universe, including the newly-discovered boson itself. Just like water can seep its way into almost anything, making it heavier, the Higgs field couples to almost all types of fundamental particles -- some more than others -- giving them mass.</p> <p>And the great new find? We've been able to create and detect enough Higgs Bosons at the Large Hadron Collider to confidently announce -- for the first time -- that we've discovered it, that we've determined its mass (around 133 times the mass of a proton), and that it agrees perfectly with what our understanding of the Universe currently is.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/higgs.gif"><img class="size-full wp-image-17635" title="higgs" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2012/07/higgs.gif" alt="Higgs Event" width="600" height="388" /></a> <p>Image credit: A Higgs creation, decay and detection event, courtesy of CERN.</p> </div> <p>Like I told you yesterday, keep up with <a href="http://trap.it/#!traps/id/11a80242-6298-4e24-bae6-80e383cb92e8">the latest Particle Physics news here</a>, and if you want to see/hear me on TV talking about the discovery of the Higgs in all its glory, you get to, <strong>tonight!</strong></p> <p>I'll be talking about the discovery of the Higgs Boson at CERN later today, July 4th, at 7PM (Pacific Time) live on Portland, OR's own <a href="http://www.kgw.com/">KGW NewsChannel 8</a> on <a href=" http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/about/Watch-Live--7-right-now-67236667.html">The Square: Live @ 7</a>! If you missed my last appearance on the show, talking about the Higgs, you can <a href="http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Astrophysicist-explains-the-search-for-the-Higgs-boson-135556373.html">watch it anytime</a>.</p> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.kgw.com/templates/belo_embedWrapper.js?storyid=135556373&amp;pos=top&amp;swfw=470"></script><object id="bimvidplayer0" width="470" height="264" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="cachebusting" value="true" /><param name="flashvars" value="config=http://www.kgw.com/?j=135556373&amp;ref=http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Astrophysicist-explains-the-search-for-the-Higgs-boson-135556373.html" /><param name="src" value="http://swfs.bimvid.com/bimvid_player-3_2_7.swf?x-bim-callletters=KGW" /><embed id="bimvidplayer0" width="470" height="264" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://swfs.bimvid.com/bimvid_player-3_2_7.swf?x-bim-callletters=KGW" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" quality="high" cachebusting="true" flashvars="config=http://www.kgw.com/?j=135556373&amp;ref=http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/Astrophysicist-explains-the-search-for-the-Higgs-boson-135556373.html"></embed></object><script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.kgw.com/templates/belo_embedWrapper.js?storyid=135556373&amp;pos=bottom"></script><p> But if you want to catch tonight's show? Tune in to channel 8 if you're in Portland, otherwise you can watch the <a href="http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/about/Live--7-Boothcam--Chat-Room-104175004.html">live stream</a> from anywhere in the world at 7PM Pacific at <a href="http://www.kgw.com/thesquare/about/Live--7-Boothcam--Chat-Room-104175004.html">this link</a>. See you then, and enjoy your Higgs-Discovery/Independence Day!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Wed, 07/04/2012 - 06:03</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/physics" hreflang="en">Physics</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/q" hreflang="en">Q &amp; A</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/boson" hreflang="en">boson</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/coupling" hreflang="en">coupling</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/field" hreflang="en">field</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/god-particle" hreflang="en">God particle</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/higgs" hreflang="en">higgs</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/higgs-boson" hreflang="en">higgs boson</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/higgs-field" hreflang="en">Higgs field</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/mass" hreflang="en">mass</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/origin" hreflang="en">origin</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/particle" hreflang="en">particle</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/particles" hreflang="en">particles</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/standard-model" hreflang="en">Standard Model</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510813" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341396757"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Nice!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510813&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="CJl41Ebnn6GKS1jDd2_OuyAJwxZXdgg4S2kRwRoqGYM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CharlieG (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510813">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510814" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341398506"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I love the rain analogy! Would it make sense to think of the Higgs boson as the raindrop and the Higgs field as the rain?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510814&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="r68m74Xpd8oTOOggIQMPF-iDEYXQdgXZOc59fBU1618"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Gethyn Jones (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510814">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510815" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341399440"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I would say rather than perfectly agrees that it supports the validity. After all, the median expected value for the mass of the Higgs particle was less than the figure we have, but within the range of what concords with the rest of the standard model outcomes.</p> <p>How this value sets other values that are to some extent free variables in the standard model will be interesting to me (and comprehensible to me too).</p> <p>Interesting times.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510815&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-EGRlyGFXJfDDW9pjsywAErBlA7nUYxnuI2XGAvj6Uo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510815">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510816" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341401558"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If we build a pizza collider, each resulting fragment will contain less pasta, right? So, why does a proton smasher unveil particles whose mass is 125-126 times that of the whole enchilada? This reminds me of the miracle of multiplication of loaves and fishes, but don't let's change the subject.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510816&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LN7W7RFKgTyuVqb_t4g4IByEiYnYt6n3xsnyw-yKe4s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Peido Velho (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510816">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510817" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341404859"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Peido Velho.</p> <p>I'm not a physicist so I might be wrong here but;</p> <p>- In physics mass and matter are different. In your anology you are talking about the total matter of the pizza, each fragment, added back together, must contain the same amount of matter as the two pizzas.</p> <p>- Since mass is equivallent to energy (the famous E=mc2) I would imagine that the mass of the created particles goes up significantly because the acceleration goes waaaay down when they smuck into each other.</p> <p>You have two particles, moving at somewhere around 99% of the speed of light, going nearly equal speeds, suddenly slamming into each other. Since they're going in opposite directions they cancel each other out but all that energy has to go SOMEWHERE, so it gets converted to mass. </p> <p>I think...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510817&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="heiQupd_IJ83RMAlPdFX1lUy9N5H0UgONrdvDSB0jYE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">JesseS (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510817">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510818" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341405206"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Peido Velho: The energy of the protons involved in the collision also contributes to producing the outgoing particles. With proton-proton collisions, only a fraction of the total energy actually goes toward new particle masses; the rest goes into their kinetic energy.</p> <p>The CERN accelerator is currently running with 4 TeV proton beams, so there is a total of 8 TeV potentially available to create new particles.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510818&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="aErO7eJaimuKga2e5FLZwrXLBnmH8-Z4M9Co72RIvOw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510818">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510819" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341407192"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Also not a physicist, so would appreciate setting me straight if I get this wrong: I thought that the Higgs mechanism for mass involved a 4-component spinor field. 3 of the components couple to other particles, producing mass, and the 4th component is free to do whatever it wants. The 4th component is the "scalar" Higgs boson. But that means that the Higgs boson itself isn't what produces mass. The mass of other particles comes from interaction with the other 3 parts of the spinor.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510819&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QUM6V-Q7iSPhMBkccE7PGILCTnFoh7l6eUFTVc4WDfw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">david (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510819">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510820" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341407119"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If I understand correctly, what they have managed to do is create extremely high energies which causes a disturbance in the higgs field. This disturbance is manifested as the higgs boson but since it is unstable it decays. Now what would happen if during the very limited existence of the higgs boson it is exposed to another field like an electron field? Is there any possibility of interaction between the higgs boson and the field it is exposed to? </p> <p>Considering the early universe had high enough energy to create higgs bosons and perhaps other fields for it to interact with. Could an interaction like this be the basis for dark matter and dark energy?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510820&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vOJyxgpffeEI5JgnOTbnpngmsnnRNQkpPnhzXLk0jy8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Adithya (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510820">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510821" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341407134"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>If photons do not couple with the higgs field, why is their path affected by gravity?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510821&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Kgv_8uobRc11sEgVlfGWaqcO2Yo4Mg8rg1hQPtuS0Yk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">PhysicsDummy (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510821">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510822" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341408340"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>i think this analogy has a couple of major flaws:</p> <p>1) It doesn't seem to have anything to do with symmetry breaking</p> <p>2) Your Higgs as the water just gets absorbed to the sponges, so the sponges are then "made out of" higgses. But really, the SM particles are not made out of higgses, they just "bump into it", which is a different idea.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510822&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="idZodSHdBgjndPSctGRxAI761iYy4Y8wqky0D_Jhgoo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bob (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510822">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510823" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341408357"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I assume people mean Inertial mass when they say it 'gives mass' as Gravity is and has never been part of standard model.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510823&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XMTAlmtHHO0OCsZFO1iaDd8cl_Pp-6T0_b-5cpCAS1U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Kenny (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510823">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510824" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341408618"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>It is my understanding that non-zero masses of the neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino do not involve the Higgs mechanism.</p> <p>Generally, the neutrino particle type is quite a source of surprises. For years physicists were convinced the neutrino's had to be massless. As we know, today a non-zero mass is attributed to neutrino's. As I recall, the known case of parity violation involves the neutrino.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510824&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pWZ6xFVBE0H7cEhdTt2n9jnyRJimasE23RQa-wsUL_4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Cleon Teunissen (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510824">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510825" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341409038"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The best analogy I've read Ethan, thank you.</p> <p>I have a question - if the higgs particle is nothing without the higgs field, what part does the particle play, i.e. in what way are the particle and field connected? Or was the particle just useful in confirming the existence of the field?</p> <p>Maybe there's a way to shoehorn it into your analogy...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510825&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U1JXIlFvDmHPnzi06KJQM09PfWeGvndlkRee0DyTEaY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Cam (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510825">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510826" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341409776"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The discussion of the Higgs field giving mass to itself is not right. If the Higgs field were zero, i.e., if the vacuum expectation value were zero, then the Higgs would still have a mass. In fact, the Higgs is the only field in the SM with a fundamental mass.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510826&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dwFfEA_yZYnFZZcbNykODKbLBJX-HpMh2HMf00Rf3FQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bob (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510826">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510827" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341411741"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hippity Higgs, Hurrah!</p> <p>Some early reflections:</p> <p>- They did really well as mentioned here, better than expected.</p> <p>- What they didn't handle well was the press release. Apparently they put up press videos leaking the result yesterday and press releases before the talks were finished, as well as collaboration members leaking.</p> <p>- The production rates and the different combinations of observed particles produced by the Higgs, the "channels", are still somewhat rickety statistics. But they are all consistent with a standard Higgs. </p> <p>What is interesting is that a standard 125-126 GeV Higgs, if that is what it is, immediately points to new physics.</p> <p>For example, as I understand it several analysis <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6497v1.pdf">including this update</a> find that there should be supersymmetry at the weak scale, which is where LHC works. And the vacuum should be quasistable, with a lot of indication of an underlying dynamical process (multiverses). </p> <p>@ david:</p> <p>4 components, yes, that is what particle physicist Matt Strassler's notes on his blog Of Paricular Significance. They are all from the Higgs field, they are all "higgs" including the Higgs. 3 of them goes into Z&amp;Ws which has mass, one is massless, _the field_ is the mechanism giving mass. (By virtual particles, same as how EM fields give potentials with virtual photons.)</p> <p>Oh, and while Higgs field gives fundamental particle's mass proportionally to energy, it doesn't do proportionality for its own particles (so it ain't gravity). Something else is required, precisely as neutrinos are SM particles (I think, sort of, it's a kludge) but they get mass elsewhere.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510827&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JaVrSVeFOwj5e7MIAVsdx1r4YDPmCcVAdStlYbbIk9s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Torbjörn Larsson, OM (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510827">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510828" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341412029"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oh, I see bob was already there regarding that Higgs's masses are different. And I fumbled the "massless", its the massive Higgs natch. <a href="http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-known-apparently-elementary-particles/the-known-particles-if-the-higgs-field-were-zero/">Here is a description</a>.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510828&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wuyoDHV1gUDidoSJTUIeshH93hvPv1usp264mcTq9Rs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Torbjörn Larsson, OM (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510828">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510829" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341414955"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Given that physical reality is awfully non-intuitive, people complicate matters even further by mishandling the instrument of language. 'God particle' is obviously just a bad slogan. But 'hadron collider', 'atom smasher', and the like, when used to refer to the discovery of 'elementary' particles, are expressions that induce innocents like me to believe we're talking about proton debris. The same language problem arises when we say that not even light escapes from a black hole, as if massless photons were newtonian apples. The effect of gravity on space-time is often illustrated by some sort of bowl into which things 'fall'. And so on. Wittgenstein, we have a problem.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510829&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4WhwLDBtPTslRIqu3MFs9slbgOp3LtYuZs0_TslJzLc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">P Velho (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510829">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510830" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341423404"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Depending on exactly what you mean by "mass", most of the mass of the universe is either Dark Energy or Dark Matter. The former with near certainty does not get its mass from the Higgs, and the latter may or may not, depending on what it is. </p> <p>As for "everyday" baryonic matter in the universe, the Higgs contribution to baryonic mass is very small, on the order of a percent or less. Most of the universe's bayronic mass is from the confinement energy of the gluon fields inside the nucleon.</p> <p>Frank Wilczek wrote <a href="http://arxiv.or/abs/1206.7114"> a nice article on all this recently.</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510830&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jfabpMJy90TqEj3zQhkbybzqcT1jjifSu9BujrFOyV8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Andrew Foland (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510830">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510831" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341438658"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Good summary Foland. You are right, there is a lot of misimformation presented here in Ethan's blogs.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510831&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lYw7HAmwqBVvC14g9RsIsR5-ElINuzzNwlxxS4lnQ1k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510831">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510832" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341442168"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So, if some particles acquire their mass through interaction with the Higgs field, then where does the Higgs boson fit in?<br /> Why is the Higgs boson needed?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510832&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WEHYxHW1QtiAfkz-tTUzHIQyy1zNLizK9rEbHHACGjk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Hannay (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510832">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510833" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341442481"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So, if most particles acquire their mass through interactions with the Higgs field, then why is the Higgs boson important? what does the Higgs boson do here?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510833&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nfqWtCJew1gy3rYaCCE069f64aC2CItx8q07zJOaiAY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">hannay (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510833">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510834" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341444032"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Andrew until we know what dark matter and dark energy actually are, your statement is unsupported. Wrong even.</p> <p>It's like saying invisible pink unicorns are not affected by electric fields (which is why you can't touch them either).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510834&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kPlNAHMe2biqt2jv3W_ibjMyi5mpGsNKNOOYN4ZsHnw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510834">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510835" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341444250"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bob the highs field particles are virtual particles. This means they have no mass (to within the limits of the uncertainty principle, which gives at least one limit to the mass of a free higgs)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510835&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0UarKQ7jnszTYAXxQ5IROpdXuaimm2YT-5l0PuIHTE0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510835">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510836" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341444560"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Physicsdummy, that is one of the ways we know we don't yet have all the answers.</p> <p>Higgs gives everything inertial mass. But it doesn't give gravitational mass. And one of the huge questions is "why are they the same value?"</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510836&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kkDA_daKczJoWQ4PdROIM4aKaQ-YALxmhZNA1DZYNA0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510836">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510837" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341454718"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Now I wait for homeopathic light nanowater that sucks up, by means of quantum mechanics, those bosons that make you heavy</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510837&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="wv2ssyPTcurEDa54m4U6snU65YW4qdqxrOT2y-tMppE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michel (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510837">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510838" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341457285"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>But I still don't understand few things. About density of Higgs Field. Is it constans? I mean if some bosoms wet the sponge they will be absent in place without sponge. How about space between bosons? Do bosoms multiply to fill the emptyness? Is the field thinner or fatter? Does ideal vacuum exist or not?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510838&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9SDmc7EX-Od6-d524RKis9LsklWWcTHhLZ9LKnhr4Bo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Slawek (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510838">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510839" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341457867"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You just rule-34'd homeopathy, Michael.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510839&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OzoJQ-3a7xpYCrfi2p8skwl8v9Y0w_sGPBfsuv5S3W0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510839">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510840" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341464308"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Have to say that I'm deeply disappointed by this latest post Ethan :( Was expecting some real explanations on the Higg's field and how it interacts with particles. Yet you have said nothing on the subject. Water and sponges.. come on. While basically wrong as someone pointed out here (as given an impression that particles somehow "absorb" the field) I am really sad that you made no attempts to even try to explain it in physics terms. How does work? How do particles interact with it? What's the difference in proton's interaction with it in comparison with photons... etc. etc? Not some kindergarden grade explanation (which makes it even more confusing) about some water baloons and whatnot, but a genuine explanation as we have them today. If we as a society don't know something still, ok, then say.. we don't know how this or that works. But at least try to explain. Your post is "how the higgs gives mass to the universe", and yet there is nothing physics about it :(( Would you please try another go at it, for all of us curious to know more without high-end mathematics. I loved your post about quarks and chromodinamics, I was really hoping that this post about the Higg's would be along those lines, but it's not :(</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510840&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ls6ViOl91Och5vuqbzDt9jQ6aveesh8Fgh154pSloTU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510840">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510841" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341466834"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Since we can't see them directly and our monkey-brain doesn't do thinking on the subatomic scale too easy, we have ot use analogies.</p> <p>You're merely whining that you don't like the analogy.</p> <p>Touch noogies.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510841&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="H8yu9jmzw4VHphWtQHKALfYOZbTkfVMakdlQ7GGsBcc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510841">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510842" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341467679"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow</p> <p>I'm whining because there is nothing scientific or physics related in the post. How does Higgs' field interact with other particles in real terms? Is it through strong or weak interaction or some other "new" force? I.e. we have proton moving through Higgs field... how does it interact with it? What is that "drag" (not rain) that happens to it. What are the forces in play? Is there any emittions, absorptions etc.. If yes, what are day. Then in contrast, what happens to the photon i.e. or some "less" massive particle. There is no explanation here about the mechanism nor even a hint to it. That's what I commented about. I don't care if we use fish in the sea or ping-pong balls sitting on a bed of sugar, or whatever other way popular press is trying to describe it. From Ethan I came to expect real physics and science in his posts. This particular one fell really short for me, and I just commented on that. If someone now has a better understanding about Higgs mechanism by reading about different spunges abosrbing different ammounts of water, great fro you. It brings me no closer to understanding what Higg's bosson is really about and how Higgs field really works.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510842&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ySaa377dXF2M5tuwEhM2-OiNcoGyNh36UzHrGroITbM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510842">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510843" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341468237"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I agree here with 'Sinisa Lazarek' although I do not want to point the finger at Ethan specifically. </p> <p>We have amazing Visual FX technology that can create imagery of just anything imaginable, and what we get here is a sponge and some balloons to explain what's going on. It can't get any more amateurish for "the discovery of the century for physics", knowing that the Standard Model and the Higgs mechanism is nothing new, it is already more than 30 years old. Why can't CERN and all those genius physicists take a more serious approach at educating the general public to explain how this all works. This is some very poor communication.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510843&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DvXuBcnm6tu3DrPdK0WeCjhQdXdO4Te3KpubWysjG0k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510843">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510844" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341471521"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I have a far better analogy: the Higgs boson is like The Girl from Ipanema permeating all the elevators of the world, so that neither elevators nor the world would fall apart. You just can't get rid of them, I mean, that godforsaken boson and the unstoppable song. The end of the Universe shall consist of a lukewarm soup of Higgs bosons with The Girl from Ipanema as background radiation. I hope I have clarified the matter once and for all.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510844&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1MiO1WavX5qG4orn4cEsTUAKrMPmS896VKDolRA0p-U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">P Velho (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510844">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510845" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341474214"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>How does the Higgs work?<br /> Sponges are nice, thank you Ethan; </p> <p>But this 3 minute video explains the Higgs without sponges or need of a PhD<br /><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2012/07/one-minute-physics-why-the-higgs-is-the-missing-link.html">http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2012/07/one-minute-physics-why-t…</a><br /> Just clinck on the video when you get to the New Scientist site.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510845&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="D8r7uG5blWcWs9sSei4HGUbjWCvNxYG03SzbLhRj3TY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">OKThen (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510845">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510846" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341474888"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And BTW Ethan, now have watched you on TV, I would love it to see put little speeches on all kind a things here too.<br /> Would be great to have a little seminar once a month or so.<br /> Not that I´m a lazy reader (far from it) but to see and hear adds so much.<br /> :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510846&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GadgUq0S0_os2ncOKEe0HGmugDml1PGMY6lnoEllyvI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michel (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510846">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510847" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341475981"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@OKThen</p> <p>thanx for the video link to newscientist. Is ok, but nowhere informative enough. I mean not to my apetite :) I really want to know what happens to particles in the higgs field and how it "gives" mass to particles.</p> <p>Guess I'll digg deep into wiki and other resources to find out what really happens and how.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510847&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FaZb3O8gD-zJeYAYvAG1w8b9FTR5ESELq8Hbojos7Oo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510847">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510848" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341476293"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Higgs boson as water and everything else as sponges rather happily explains why some things are heavy and other things light, SL. The sponge doesn't get bigger, it gets more filled, meaning heavier. And a sponge that is water repellent will not contain water and remain "sponge only" and light.</p> <p>This explains how the higgs field can make things heavier or lighter by binding to the material that we see as "massive particle".</p> <p>This neatly explains this aspect of the Higgs field.</p> <p>There are other aspects that are not covered by this analogy and therefore this analogy for those aspects is invalid.</p> <p>HOWEVER, this isn't trying to explain those features.</p> <p>If you want to explain those features, you do it. But don't complain about an analogy to explain one feature doesn't explain another, because it was never meant to.</p> <p>Make your own analogy. With hookers and blackjack if you want, but you do the damn work if you're so damn cheesed off.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510848&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hESLsnRfSnbbLLiINWc_ZhZdipb_ZVU4tCkRbgO6kkE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510848">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510849" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341478622"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I bet that if Nethan was a gorgious girl who wrote about sponges and balloons they would be more than happy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510849&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hPHopOvsKr_n71ga90yc8dTWqm-zlEc1Fa-oG1Of6Q4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michel (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510849">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510850" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341481155"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Wow</p> <p>"Higgs boson as water and everything else as sponges rather happily explains why some things are heavy and other things light," - my issue was with this in the first place. Why use water and sponges or big fish and small fish etc.. in the first place. Why not talk about the higgs field and particles in the first place?? Why the unnecesary metaphore?</p> <p>"The sponge doesn’t get bigger, it gets more filled, meaning heavier." - ok.. now let's get back to particles please. What happens to the particles in the higgs field? Do they absorb the field somehow? If so, how, by what process? Does it "suck" the energy from the higgs field and therefore increases it's own energy? Do higgs bossons get somehow coupled to particles? By what process, what energy? What is a carrier of that coupling? Those are my questions, among others. </p> <p>"And a sponge that is water repellent will not contain water and remain “sponge only” and light." - so this is in reference to photons (or EM fields) not interacting with Higgs field, while other quanta do. Again, how? "How" was never touched in real physical sense and yet it's the first word of the title. How does that interaction take place, not as a metaphore but as a physical process? </p> <p>"This explains how the higgs field can make things heavier or lighter by binding to the material that we see as “massive particle”. - well, no it doesn't. It explains in a metaphore WHAT happens, but doesn't explain HOW it happens.</p> <p>"If you want to explain those features, you do it." - I don't want to explain anything, I want to know first. </p> <p>"Make your own analogy." - one first needs to know what happens in order to make analogies. </p> <p>If you know what happens, I'm glad for you. If you know how it happens, even better. But we who are not physicists don't know. But some of us would like to know. I just don't understand why it can't be written as is and needs balls, and guests and fish and whatnot. Why not use words like field, potential, charge, vector, scalar, tensor, operator, particle, quanta, etc etc etc....? Why can't it be explain in plain physics language... why these analogies that confuse?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510850&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4fxQW0-tXGB-QBky6Tsmqit0JFkFcFgKu6FLsiZ6QEY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510850">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510851" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341482842"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So you just found Ethan´s explanation too simple and wanted more.<br /> Ok.<br /> There are more sources than Ethan alone.<br /> Go search and expand your mind. But now you just sound ungratefull towards someone who does his best to explain something hard to a wider public.<br /> Or maby you just get angry quickly. FYI they are working right now, as we speak, to make the afformentioned homeopathic light nanowater that sucks up, by means of quantum mechanics, those bosons that make you heavy thoughts.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510851&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pu0oiy1omcY3I0pjPfT5nBkrfBdSyVqNADKqarE3tMU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michel (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510851">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510852" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341483619"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan:</p> <p>Your Particle Physics <a href="http://trap.it/#!traps/id/11a80242-6298-4e24-bae6-80e383cb92e8">TrapIt</a> page is great. I loved the headline on one of the news articles you're collecting there: "God Discovers the Elusive 'Physicist Particle.'" LOL!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510852&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kGR8HBh8kNExKDAqtOY44ldFnICqsI52kUjsRyT12qE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">JM Hanes (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510852">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510853" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341485297"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ok think I understand now. Did some wiki digging, and reading and think I have the essence of it. And without any math :)) yeeey. Please correct me if I'm wrong.</p> <p>this is from wiki and think it gives the best summary possible: </p> <p>"According to the Standard Model, the W and Z bosons gain mass via the Higgs mechanism. In the Higgs mechanism, the four gauge bosons (of SU(2)×U(1) symmetry) of the unified electroweak interaction couple to a Higgs field. This field undergoes spontaneous symmetry breaking due to the shape of its interaction potential. As a result, the universe is permeated by a nonzero Higgs vacuum expectation value (VEV). This VEV couples to three of the electroweak gauge bosons (the Ws and Z), giving them mass; the remaining gauge boson remains massless (the photon). This theory also predicts the existence of a scalar Higgs boson, which has just been observed[4]."</p> <p>So it's basically an interaction of one type of field with the other at a fundametal interaction level (W and Z bosons being the carriers of weak interaction, the interactions between quarks i.e. ) those fundamental force carriers interact with a Higgs field which then breaks and gives masss/energy to those very bosons, while others remain intact. </p> <p>So no mysterious fishes and ping pong balls in sugar :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510853&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Z84sSZBYjnZSubXxLJ9hYto0bkLVi6cOROhJpVJhwLo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510853">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510854" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341489215"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s. another interesting thing that I didn't know before is that symmetry breaking occurred right after the big bang (the energies involved to have em and weak field unifing). So W and Z bosons "got their mass" at that instant. Everything from then on as far as mass goes is just an effect. It's not like we are "swimming" now in the "higgs field" sort of fluid that resists our movement. It;s the mass of W and Z bosons that gives mass to everything else. Is this correct?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510854&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iVrrIxpVjdFO5V-U_o-9hm2ctNQLbx1myENG4wUdsCE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510854">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510855" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341514779"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sinisa, no, the Higgs gives mass to the other particles, not the W and Z bosons. Did you really think that every single person in the world were all saying it wrong?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510855&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eoPdl7yVDeBl0vV1nWR5OaDgjEqInREv5YZH2ZN1fdg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bob (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510855">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510856" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341531397"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Bob</p> <p>Don't want to argue, since it's not my field, but from everything I read, it's the W and Z bosons that are first to get directly "modified" by the interaction with the higgs field. Quarks and leptons are thought to interact via Yukawa mechanism with the higgs, but the whole point of the field being non zero is because of the initial interaction with the unified field which cuased it's symmetry to be broken.</p> <p>I do not think that every single person is wrong, not did I say that. But would like if you could explain how higgs gives mass since you say it's not the W and Z bosons.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510856&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_zh5jeiBQV2-qzOBz_QJz9BGmxk-J2MmvRD3X85Bh9M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510856">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510857" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341531679"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Maybe this helps SL:<br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyO5Kwc3NK8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyO5Kwc3NK8</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510857&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kQpX4Gl30NeZaL3pTPtv29ECcC1EK7mYSRNf339_KWQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michel (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510857">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510858" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341538886"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Wow Michael... hilarious. What's even more funny is none of you even bother to answer. </p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18aHX293JD4">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18aHX293JD4</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510858&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OBBTFB3S5J-5v_IyZyfRUpTOFd6mgpUu7A1v4JTt5Jg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510858">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510859" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341541591"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"I do not think that every single person is wrong, not did I say that."</p> <p>Then why are you continually complaining about everyone else?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510859&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="z5YOPhHDGiaKLi1vmLQzPLAKKkgEnEw5c3OrjyeL_d4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510859">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510860" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341549450"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow</p> <p>"why are you continually complaining about everyone...?"</p> <p>what? everyone who? don't put words in my mouth which i never said or ment</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510860&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BqkS3-5llzPcvjgfiBYL1x9VJp7yabLX4M19zi9O8Ds"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510860">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510861" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341550792"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Because you're weaselling out of your comments against everyone by using the pedantic "absolutely everyone" meaning rather than the colloquial "everyone".</p> <p>And you're whinging about everyone else, SL.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510861&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8AFqFMIWewjVnNeyiHzSAm0mq7XcMvaEuyyjNIKud20"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510861">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510862" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341552399"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I really like Ethan's rain analogy, but I am confused about the relationship between the Higgs field ("rain") and Higgs boson.</p> <p>I am going to try and torture the analogy a little further using the idea that a gauge boson is the minimum-sized "ripple" in a quantum field e.g. a single photon is the smallest enrgy "ripple" in an electromagnetic field </p> <p>The "sponges" (particles with non-zero rest mass) absorb the "rain" which gives them mass...</p> <p>OK...so what happens when you bang two sponges together? Nothing - these are incredibly absorbent sponges we have here. In fact, some Sponge-physicists suggested that it wasn't actually raining at all! </p> <p>Nevertheless, physicists in Sponge-world went on to build a Large Sponge Collider in order to bang them together really, really hard to see if they were really absorbing water.</p> <p>And when they did so, the minimum mass of the water droplet released was about 126 GeV. Sponge-physicists now triumphantly concluded that it really is raining....</p> <p>(Apologies - I know an analogy is only an analogy but just trying to get my non-expert head around the ideas....)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510862&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DgpPS30yOdiMooNTAJuQ4mCBe4QUuc6AQ09XVNm512U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Gethyn Jones (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510862">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510863" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341552637"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"but I am confused about the relationship between the Higgs field (“rain”) and Higgs boson."</p> <p>Well, it's not a good bit of the analogy. But mostly because we don't have 100% rain all the time everywhere, even indoors. Since the higgs field is everywhere (even indoors), for the rain to be like it, it has to be everywhere.</p> <p>Ethan does try to get this across, but if you're spending too much time trying to find the faults, you can easily miss it:</p> <p>Ethan: "The Higgs field is like rain, and there is no place you can go to keep dry."</p> <p>But here is another attempt to find fault rather than look for enlightenment from you:</p> <p>Gethan: "so what happens when you bang two sponges together? Nothing – these are incredibly absorbent sponges we have here."</p> <p>And when you bang two items that can tough each other (bind together), you lose mass.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510863&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="IJ-LEY9skBdprvrof3mxved9oH4vxHZ04s2rfP-rdVA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510863">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510864" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341553482"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So, if some particles acquire their mass through interaction with the Higgs field, then where does the Higgs boson fit in?<br /> Why is the Higgs boson needed?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510864&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3sHELjKoG3tAcQSp-PKXLMa1CnKm4OFhT3ZbhZtW_mE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">hikaye (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510864">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510865" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341565921"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@wow</p> <p>Actually, far from finding fault with Ethan's analogy, I was attempting to extend it. I was puzzled about why high energies are required to detect the HB, and I was playing with the analogy to see if it could help me picture the relationship between field and boson.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510865&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="atDnfPLeD_zdfukd154pYKhxVEF3PH9LMs1v298xjWU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Gethyn Jones (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510865">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510866" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341576154"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Well, one way to look at it is the be broglie wavelenght. Higher energies mean you see smaller structures. I.e. dimensions that are wrapped up smaller. Dimensions that the higgs field sits in.</p> <p>Another way is harmonics on a very short tight string. To excite that string you need a certain energy before you het a standing wave that will last. The string theory view.</p> <p>You can look at it like pair production: you neded at least enough energy to create the mass of the particle, and the higher the energy, the more you'll make and the liklier you get to see one.</p> <p>None of these views work as water drops because the analogy isn't explaining that bit and attempting to stretch it that far tears it.</p> <p>Like I said earlier, an analogy is not the thing it analogises, therefore you'll always find a way it doesn't work. Picky pedants who like to pick holes in things for pleasure love analogies from other people for this reason.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510866&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="szSsJrTAY0mEd6GA4inodZnjw9kboAbEj6WHose4zCA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510866">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510867" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341592067"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Sinisa, what are you talking about? Its not the W and Z bosons that gives mass. Its the Higgs. As you said, the Higgs has Yukawa couplings to the fermions and its this interaction that endows the fermions with a mass. What is it you don't get?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510867&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8LQoyH1aJUT3wJ-rvxlhU1AgJrdAc-jiZILsKthihc8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bob (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510867">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510868" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341635110"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Bob</p> <p>From the research I did in the past few days, this is what I have in summary. And seems that we are diverging in something, and would like to understand what it is.</p> <p>So here it is:</p> <p>"Actually, there's a significant caveat to "the Higgs field gives all particles mass." Many strongly interacting particles, such as the proton and neutron, would still be massive even if all quarks had zero mass. In fact most of the mass of the proton and neutron comes from strong interaction effects and not the Higgs-produced quark masses. For instance the proton weighs almost 1 GeV, and only a small fraction of this comes from the three up and down quarks that compose it, which weigh only around 5 MeV each. If that 5 MeV was reduced to 0 the proton mass wouldn't change very much."</p> <p>and this...</p> <p>"An example of energy contributing to mass occurs in the most familiar kind of matter in the universe--the protons and neutrons that make up atomic nuclei in stars, planets, people and all that we see. These particles amount to 4 to 5 percent of the mass-energy of the universe. The Standard Model tells us that protons and neutrons are composed of elementary particles called quarks that are bound together by massless particles called gluons. Although the constituents are whirling around inside each proton, from outside we see a proton as a coherent object with an intrinsic mass, which is given by adding up the masses and energies of its constituents.</p> <p>The Standard Model lets us calculate that nearly all the mass of protons and neutrons is from the kinetic energy of their constituent quarks and gluons (the remainder is from the quarks' rest mass). Thus, about 4 to 5 percent of the entire universe--almost all the familiar matter around us--comes from the energy of motion of quarks and gluons in protons and neutrons. "</p> <p>So yes, compound particles also get a small portion of their mass from Higg's field, but only a small part. The main mass is already there by the process' we already know and understand. What we didn't understand is why some bosons have mass (w and z) while others (photon and gluon) are massless. And this is where higgs mechanism really shows itself. It gives all the mass to those bosons. Or in other words, the interactions of higgs field and boson's gives the terms in lagrangian that corresponds to mass value of those bosons.</p> <p>If I'm mistaken, please correct me. But please do give some examples and explanations instead of just saying yes or no. I want to learn more, and just saying "this isn;t so" without a follow up isn't helping :)</p> <p>Cheers.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510868&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="DHSFazzLvJS2BOOazTPeL5CWtwduInFHjHEOhBWjN7E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510868">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510869" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341649324"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Way out of my depth here, but in case it helps you Sinisa; IIRC kinetic energy is dependent on mass, so if the quarks had no rest mass I assume they would also have no kinetic energy. Of course it could be my school-level physics is not relevant at this scale, not sure.. ;)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510869&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="21KQSuBqqkz8eBPRok5DrzyzSnSkDUoZKigwnGswk6A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Dai (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510869">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510870" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341649760"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Wow</p> <p>Helpful comments - thank you. I agree the analogy as originally presented by Ethan isn't intended to illustrate the relationship between boson and field, and that I'm probably overextending it...but what the heck so here goes nothing</p> <p>Ethans rain analogy cleverly explains why hadrons and leptons and some bosons have mass: they are "spongy" and absorb "water". </p> <p>OK but the "rain" is the Higgs field, not the Higgs boson. So can the HB be represented? </p> <p>One possible way would be to picture a boson as the minimum energy wave in its associated field. I guess for a e-m field this would be a low energy photon, perhaps in the radio frequency region. For a Higgs field, this is a high energy Higgs boson.</p> <p>Using the analogy, the Higgs field would be a fine mist of rain droplets (what some people call mizzle) while the HB would be a more substantial drop.</p> <p>If the "sponges" were very, very absorbent then you'd have to squeeze them pretty damn hard to get even the tiniest drop of water...which is one way of picturing why the HB can only be detected at high energies...</p> <p>However, an analogy is only an analogy as you rightfully point out - but they can be a lot of fun too.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510870&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Rao4t9kcX6FmZZa7YJaVkc3iZCy6ZaOxYKyzARdIdlc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Gethyn Jones (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510870">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510871" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341651701"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I eould have put it that the higgs field iis the fact that it's rsining and a raindrop is the particle.</p> <p>It's not about being low energy, it's about being a virtual photon or higgs boson.</p> <p>Electric fields have the forces transferred by whatever energy photon it needs to do the job, but they're virtual photons, not real ones.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510871&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="NtPbOAlRQKzD3vQ5Risen8fdlzSdZxd-l4TA6cHqdnU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510871">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510872" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341652446"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Dai</p> <p>"kinetic energy is dependent on mass, so if the quarks had no rest mass I assume they would also have no kinetic energy."</p> <p>photons have no rest mass yet they have kinetic energy, actually all of it's energy is kinetic.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510872&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8mK32hcD2uz3a2W4qImUaefWg0_H9a7SxJ6t_oUOVLs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510872">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510873" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341665941"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Actually we don't know that.</p> <p>Kinetic energy = mass times velocity squared divided by two.</p> <p>Mass zero, kinetic energy zero.</p> <p>Photons do have momentum, though. Or at least can impart momentum or sosk it up. Whether thst's momentum as you get in matter is a little unclear.</p> <p>But photons could have no kinetic energy, but only energy from existing (at the speed of light), as the equicalent of things at resthaving mass (=energy)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510873&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tllu31XReN9I5kp4WfioBmFzB27xnBVLHddL72M6EqQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510873">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510874" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341666061"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Those infinities are hard to deal with in a language developed to tell other apes whete the bannanas were.</p> <p>Classical mechanics terms don't really do much better.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510874&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="77Djw8a9LR76eacvHPgg13dDWO1OJpjUJ_N164iuikk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510874">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510875" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341671501"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>sinisa, it is true that the strong interaction provides most of the mass of the proton and neutron. However, the point of the Higgs is to give mass to the "elementary particles". The proton and neutron are NOT elementary, they are made out of the elementary quarks. The quark's masses and the lepton's masses (including the electron), as well as the W and Z bosons, are acquired from interaction with the Higgs field.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510875&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ka5hLt-_XTnSvEhyW0Z3ThPHR3Mi9qKnY7YPLX3Le7U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bob (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510875">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510876" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341671553"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Dai and wow, you are both wrong. Even if a particle's mass is zero, the particle can carry kinetic energy. This is the difference between Einsteinian theory and Newtonian theory.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510876&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5OWX_dRm23aKrXtbRSCsi-fhxvrI5uZwPV7czmyWolM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bob (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510876">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510877" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341676105"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bob, thanx for the reply.</p> <p>"The quark’s masses and the lepton’s masses (including the electron), as well as the W and Z bosons, are acquired from interaction with the Higgs field."</p> <p>with this, we are in total agreement.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510877&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="v8ZtiAZ3xTqp54JTDKVJ244LfoaBlln4MaewSKCxt-g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510877">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510878" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341689113"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sinisa, the reason for your confusion was that Ethan claimed that the Higgs gives mass to everything in the universe, when in fatc this is competeky wrong. Almost all the mass in the universe cmes from the dark sector and nuclei, whose mass does not come from the Huggs. Instead only a very tiny percentage, less than 0.002% such as electrons, comes from the Higgs.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510878&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HVqLIyQx2Ezo5xjaWj_LmuaLtWZUrCBQWUUqbofRi_U"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bob (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510878">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510879" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341702046"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Bob, kinetic energy is for a photon its energy in and of itself. Try to remobe some snd the photon is reduced in itself. Red shifted.</p> <p>Something different is going on here.</p> <p>And note I merely maintained "we don't know that for sure"</p> <p>If you're goung to say "wrong", you,re saying we ARE sure.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510879&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TPiJ4ek9TDgEUlfEX4yXt7ZCX-ETfQ0JwJs5NyGBahM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510879">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510880" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341702158"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Using a tablet sucks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510880&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="91X1YQmdarE4ZjCpg1REhTG1IKd_HKJBBrB6k-f0NVY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510880">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510881" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341791587"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Theoritical physicists get the best dope. That's crazy man.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510881&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QatSbypF3_De322Axl-Co7iOjrB1YiAzkYA8n2WFA7Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Gary D (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510881">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510882" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341801194"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Go Sinisa Lazarek! I'm with you. Though there is a place for providing 'real world' analogies to roughly explain a phenomenon, indulging in the analogy does more harm than good especially where it gives the impression that it has explained anything.<br /> Funny how the posts of those who accuse Sinisa as being 'cheesed off' (Wow) and 'ungrateful' (not ungratefull btw) (Michel) are the ones that sound most agressive - Sinisa is just stating his thoughts in a decent and polite way.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510882&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="P3o_G4lgLQnRnPQtNEZScgLi5djEaU91Q4W0M8y8gG8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Dirk (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510882">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510883" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341812524"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Why do you say that this analogy has explained nothing, dink?</p> <p>Making it up, yes?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510883&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0XW6qcemaJQehPks3GOaBxhr2_f6ShCX26COtWnCGBI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510883">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510884" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341844066"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Jeeze. This is like the time someone complained about an analogy to red and black marbles in closed bags to explain why quantum entanglement cannot be used to send information, because the marbles represent hidden variables and the outcome of the experiment would not match the statistical distribution of actual quantum entanglement. Even though neither of those things are relevant to explaining why you can't send information with entanglement. </p> <p>The only analogy that correctly explains all aspects of a phenomenon is not an analogy, it's the actual phenomenon in question. That doesn't make analogies useless.</p> <p>If you understood that summary on Wikipedia, then congratulations you're more informed on the subject than the vast majority of people with science degrees. You don't need an analogy. Most do, and this is a good one for explaining what it does.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510884&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="u8-o2__NSh5o_95WC9e3t-JqBub8GxCu0R2vYdjeoOg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510884">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510885" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341844668"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>On a non-analogy note, does this really create a problem with inertial vs gravitational mass? The intrinsic (and hypothetically inertial-only) mass granted by the Higgs is the result of a particle's potential with respect to the Higgs Field. That potential is a form of energy. Energy creates gravity. So is it really any more surprising that the gravity exactly matches the potential energy of the Higgs than it is that it also exactly matches the binding energy of a proton, or water molecule?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510885&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Pe89HRvBwKoLNbwTMPFP_m24T7RznQk8RgQ3jGBaW7s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 09 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510885">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510886" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1341967345"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@CB</p> <p>"If you understood that summary on Wikipedia, then congratulations you’re more informed on the subject than the vast majority of people with science degrees."</p> <p>I guess I should say "thank you". But I think you went a bit too far with the "science degrees". If in biology, then ok. But as far as physics goes, there isn't much not to understand. All the terminology is from high-school grade physics (relativity, qm and some math terms). I learned in high-school what leptons and quarks are, what the fundamental forces are, how mass equals energy, what symmetry and symmetry breaking is in math and physics. So it's all there. Just needs some "dot connecting" and perhaps some cross referencing, nothing more. My strong belief is that anyone with a general notion of relativity and qm can understand that quote I took from wiki. If in fact it's not so, especially for science majors, then something is terribly wrong with the educational system. :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510886&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5Uyo0JxKhbYhVEK-0syP8Da8D0cublAZWHpwhSjZwK4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 10 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510886">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510887" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342003541"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sinisa, most of the particles of the Standard Model have an interaction with the Higgs field - it is a new kind of force, a "higgs force" if you like. (Technically, for the fermions it is a type of Yukawa interaction, and for the W bosons it is a gauge interaction). The Higgs field takes on a non-zero value, even in the vacuum. So the interaction is always present. It leads to an effective mass for those particles. What more do you want to know? Did you try opening a book and finding out for yourself?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510887&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mN7CxYub_iN3P7iOalbP8H_X6DpRyjT50ZMEm1d1o1E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">bob (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510887">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510888" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342012281"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@bob</p> <p>don't know what this last post of yours to me was about. Couple of days back i posted to you that I agree completely with what you posted then and that the statement that higgs gives mass to everything and anything is not correct. after that I haven't posted any questions about the higgs. </p> <p>my post to which you now comment was to CB who said that that paragraph from wiki which I quoted is above the understanding of most science majors, which I find hard to believe. It's wasn't in any way connected to anything dealing with higgs directly.</p> <p>Am sorry if I am hard to understand sometimes. English is not my native language, so something might get lost on the way.</p> <p>"Did you try opening a book and finding out for yourself?"</p> <p>... of course.. that's how you I and started discussing higgs.</p> <p>But again I don't know why this last post from you? And in such a way? Wasn't about higgs or questions about it. Was about understanding the wiki quote</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510888&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="R5mJvCvF9v53fkN06UXg738UN3UgEV2_S7tzZnDHaJ0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510888">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510889" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342050092"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>SL who said that higgs gives mass to everything? Strawman.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510889&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="C4DfexsMpdwujvCIaSlfsVNBZBra_z19ap1h7zkr_wk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510889">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510890" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342093350"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Wow</p> <p>what's the title of this post?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510890&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hWWm7gAmvQxELvgZ5Dc5B_zGANIxU93YoaxLwNI7dsc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510890">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510891" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342106567"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And you only read that???</p> <p>You did notice there were more words below that, right?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510891&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yElOK_V1FUj_gEK3kLIBcIaE5akg2VHSj5z3fP_Qw1E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 12 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510891">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510892" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342297442"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>One of the comments above "Higgs, Higgs ,Hurrah" is real.<br /> By the way I just posted this in another article in this blog. Explains very nicely...<br /><a href="http://www.allgoodread.com/first/2012/07/cartoon-explains-the-god-particle.html">http://www.allgoodread.com/first/2012/07/cartoon-explains-the-god-parti…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510892&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ps86y6kgEVVciMIubPVu9nJHQE0hfiEtdtOk2po-6hU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Nathan (not verified)</span> on 14 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510892">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510893" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342484671"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Mass is an inherent property of elementary particles.<br /> The mass of the proton has been calculated from spin, charge and particle radius on pages 3-4 of Belgian patent<br /> BE1002781; see e-Cat Site "Belgian LANR Patents". For the electron mass a similar formula has been used.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510893&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qKbab5qRbmJ_8JEFkUpr15EL_sTBmvwT-7OT5lMIG30"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 16 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510893">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510894" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342503246"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Science discoveries are not patentable.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510894&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1As_xOeDPdQs3rxhgmJFO_wDwp21V61l01TnMe6iQTA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510894">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510895" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342517679"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>"Science discoveries are not patentable."</i></p> <p>Depends on what you call a discovery. And I suppose that in theory one could see the production/creation of a Higgs-boson by the LHC as a patentable thing, no?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510895&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rQP5dwcFgZZNshW_UJUVPLITmVr72dqhFHqTaa4m7-A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510895">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510896" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342529997"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Nope depends on the definition of discovery by patent offices.</p> <p>And these discoveries are not patentable by ANY patent office.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510896&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kZi-sY6y5Oay2m21NhZeARmRByN2rkmI-hNvs2ZIQeM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510896">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510897" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342530110"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>You csn patent the design of the macine to make the measurement.</p> <p>But maths and the discoveries of science in nature are not.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510897&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kNC2InnOYUxauV7LYDiBXF8cIiXL_dMKU6_UA17UBY8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510897">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510898" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342530165"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In ansewr to your question- no.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510898&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="x05dJzFKfoj9JqdcKbDAjfAsLxhmPn29Ev56SY-UpbA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510898">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510899" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342533927"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I was looking here at the broad sense of <i>science</i> and the controversial gray zone of gene patenting.<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent#Controversy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_patent#Controversy</a></p> <p>But with <i>"these discoveries"</i> you surely mean in the field of physics, here I'm not going to argue with you.</p> <p>Regarding the Higgs-boson, there are two parts, the collider making them, and the detectors measuring them. I think that you could patent almost everything that CERN makes, and perhaps lots of the parts being used are already patented? So you either can scoop them Higgs for free coming out of a cosmic ray collision, or probably having to pay for an artificially created one.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510899&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="C0-xi7uybFNGmcmhWRyPmgWxaSMkiyYfBsCJzbDm2zg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510899">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510900" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342565209"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>There's no grey area here, chelle, thankfully enough.</p> <p>Discovering the electron charge value is not patentable. Inventing a machine to measure the electron charge is, but I can't think of any scientist who does that because there's no market for the singular purpose machine, and they'd rather get on with research.</p> <p>They'll use patented tools. Like hammers. But they don't purchase a licence to the patent on them any more than you do.</p> <p>Bogart there was claiming a patent on the theory of how to calculate masses. As maths, this is not patentable.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510900&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="LjlM_UMMWUfDQ3J-Wmgxw3k4tC79LvZt0Wrd7VioZmQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">wow (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510900">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510901" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342570053"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>"There’s no grey area here, chelle, thankfully enough."</i></p> <p>You might want to read 'The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks' by Rebecca Skloot, or follow up on some other patent cases.</p> <p><i>"Each nation has its own patent law, and what is patentable in some countries is not allowed to be patented in others."</i><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent#Controversy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent#Controversy</a></p> <p>It's all about politics and company's lobbying. Anyway, the way you keep on ignoring facts just amazes me.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510901&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="68njlGEj8pZb6Tzy_7wbKmFpCO3j_hZWygHQvn00RCs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">chelle (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510901">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510902" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342572785"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Nope, I won't. Guess why? Because discoveries in science and maths are not patentable.</p> <p>It's not about politics, by the way, it's about money and the capitalist system that equates power with money and allows it to accumulate freely.</p> <p>Maybe you want to read up on an Aus patent on swinging on a swing.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510902&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="26vNUBV8bqudksEwzHmvatCdNu9DAme2i2lUPRz3B0I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510902">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510903" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1342573045"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>PS Irony: Chelle saying "the way you keep on ignoring facts just amazes me."</p> <p>ROFL indeed...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510903&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="f59JfJY99Aw5tTgqn7zUAWNGDTh0S8tPoARLk-OlrmA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 17 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510903">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510904" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1343285153"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To Mr. Wow,</p> <p>The patent BE1002781 does not relate to a method of calculating the rest mass of the proton, it relates to a kind of "cold fusion" based on Coulomb explosion of charged deuterated electroconductive particles. Read the patent text in English published on the "e-Cat Site" under the title "Belgian LANR Patents" and have a look to BE1003296 published on the same site under the title "LANR by Coulomb explosion retarded from publication for 2 years by<br /> the Belgian Government of Defense. The calculation of said rest mass is dimensionally correct and does not infringes quantumphysics or mathematics. The rest mass of the proton is intrinsic linked to spin angular momentum, electric charge and particle radius. The product of mass and spin radius is constant and charge is an inverse function of the root value of mass and said radius. the proton is composed of "spinning quarks" . Two of them spinning in the same sense , one having opposite charge spinning in opposite sense being quenched between the the two others attracting each other by the current law of<br /> Ampère. Electric charge comes out of the formula as dualistic, positive and negative, that is correct!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510904&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XiueutQjEE-EDcVU5qx7Q8M3PwUFElPcVBTldGdnpxk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 26 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510904">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510905" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1343290466"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Then your post earlier was lying.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510905&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ClqRKDjwE_zw79KAuWIBMubjvJUVUrnIyMyJBM4dp54"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 26 Jul 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510905">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510906" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1343886928"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To Wow,</p> <p>Have you read already BE1002781 through the e-Cat Site and what do you think of the equation for the rest mass of the proton on pages3-4 of that BE patent relating to lattice assisted nuclear fusion (LANR) by Coulomb explosion?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510906&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hhiSB2G3acZvmZyOo85NPnE-cKqL_H2CjGbHnSlYRtA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 02 Aug 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510906">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510907" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1343887024"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I can't even work out what that patent is trying to patent.</p> <p>Patents are pretty pointless now. They're nothing but lawsuit fodder.</p> <p>However, in this case it looks more likely that the patent is patenting rubbish, hiding the result in obtuse verbiage and using the PTO as a proxy for publishing in a journal to lend unearned authority to the idea.</p> <p>That, however, is a conclusion based on likely utility. This patent may be genuinely intended as a patent, in which case, you wasted your money, but hey, who cares?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510907&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xH2Z7JQN12LLfptWQT2ZyNfKAbXutyWTwRbxQVnE2Bw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 02 Aug 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510907">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510908" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1343888526"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To Wow,</p> <p>I still not have comments to the equation on pages 3-4 of BE1002781. I do not like your vocabulary "rubbish". Blogs are developed to have worthful discussions, certainly when it concerns science. Cheers!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510908&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FDaLqH6fxRuppr5xjJxZjekjMCHN7H5Ww59lvF1QVzI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 02 Aug 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510908">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510909" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1343891014"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I don't really see why your dislike is my problem.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510909&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jUP_Ipu8bsGquC1mzDiEFa048V6GKJnvbU01l77QAxA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 02 Aug 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510909">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510910" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1345737084"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Does an understanding of the Higgs field provide any hints (perhaps vague hints) about why General Relativity's equivalence of inertial and gravitation mass should be expected?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510910&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RDYOVrC8f3KFm7ffNAsFME39b8vSYYqvip2oor-b8bg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bernard (not verified)</span> on 23 Aug 2012 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510910">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510911" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1358715223"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>E/c2=m<br /> this will give mass it's matter.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510911&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nz7ikWEOp8bm_k2Fxp3y8rK--RG6Oa4nLwxWk9fzYVs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">marino (not verified)</span> on 20 Jan 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510911">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510912" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1358716767"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>E=mc2 gives an explosion<br /> E/m=c2 gives you fusion<br /> A.E.I.O.U (Absolute Energy equals Input, Output Utilization)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510912&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RxVy4DxEZNDt0tHSf9aI9vQOFdQ5yTj6AsSKerXCIr8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">marino (not verified)</span> on 20 Jan 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510912">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510913" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1358738387"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I don't think so, Bernard.</p> <p>It could do if, for example, Higgs tied to Higgs in short range interactions.</p> <p>Then again, we don't know WHY vacuum has a permitivity or permeability either. Well, not since I last looked. Not why an electron has one electron's charge (though it may have more: the excess hidden by charged virtual particles hiding some of the electrons' "true" charge).</p> <p>It may be that these figures are self-correcting to some "most stable local value" and gravitational mass does the same thing.</p> <p>All this, however, is well beyond my pay grade...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510913&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yyR_A6iYORPxeNJCLr34GAwApfE2WzBBzucQwgyPI30"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 20 Jan 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510913">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510914" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1381826380"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Earth science discovery is exciting work but if your new data goes against the accepted models it can take time for the community to incorporate new data. </p> <p>Carl Sagan wrote,<br /> “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” Caral Sagan</p> <p>A sad truth indeed from someone who carried the burdens of innovation.</p> <p>This brings us to the big bang dogma today that all elements were created in a singularity event out of nothing, when new data reveals that cosmological processes are creating new elements continuously and on a massive scale. ie, Navy drill cores from ocean rifting, covering massive planet surface areas are only from a few years old to 180 million years old. </p> <p>Those still wearing the big bang blinders can not appreciate that we indeed have a growing earth with a changing radius (continental mass is growing and ocean bottom surface is growing) from new elements being created at the core and not from space dust accretions. </p> <p>Maverick scientists at Blue Eagle have now confirmed using LENR Interferometry Microsmelt Technology Processes (basically mimicking nature’s elemental bloom conditions) and are now making new precious elements. Not the wispy Hadron atomic scale elements but visible gold beads measured on a gram scale.</p> <p>Our team of credentialed scientists and entrepreneurial engineers have accomplished more science in the last 18 months than the legions of those labouring over bosons in billion dollars budgets. For their efforts they are labelled as Crackpots when they should be recipients of the highest awards for progressing science. </p> <p>To see a video of a modern day alchemist makng real gold in an LENR Interferometry Microsmelt low budget lab go to: <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/56975959/2129178196?token=7173274e">http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/56975959/2129178196?token=7173274e</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510914&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oY0bC1Qov9RXqSyPVc22ZCDzORv0vI1LL3UmhetTGj8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Martin Burger (not verified)</span> on 15 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510914">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510915" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1381899183"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Earth science discovery is exciting work but if your new data goes against the accepted models it can take time for the community to incorporate new data. "</p> <p>Well, of course.</p> <p>For a start you'd need to find a new model if it is going to be refuted by the new data and that takes time UNLESS you've gone looking for data to fit a preconceived model. Which may be correct (e.g. looking for how the photoelectric effect disproves the wave theory of light and proves the quantisation of same). Or completely anti-science (e.g. looking at the time of diagnosis of autism and the similar time you can first be immunised against deadly childhood diseases so you can push your own "miracle cure" and rubbish the vaccine).</p> <p>Either case does DEMAND you state a priori what model you did your measurements to fit so that others can check for confirmation bias. Much as Carl Sagan constantly exhorts guarding against, but almost never quoted by cranks and quacks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510915&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gnlHpu_S98VU7aHYuLHZ3F0qxXWao0dWQRlNAYjEzwg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510915">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510916" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1381900217"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Martin Burger,</p> <p>Please educate yourself about what the big bang theory actually says before you try to criticize it. The big bang theory does NOT say that all the elements were created "in a singularity event". In fact, in the earliest moments (ie fractions of a second) after the BB, there was nothing that could conceivably be called an element. The universe was too energetic for atomic nuclei to remain intact. Nuclei only formed later as the universe cooled. Furthermore, not all elements formed at this time. The BB theory does quite well at predicting the abundance of elements formed at this time, and it consisted mainly of hydrogen, with a smaller amount of helium formed and trace amounts of other light nuclei such as lithium. Heavier elements (up to iron) formed via nuclear fusion in stars. Elements heavier than iron formed in supernovae. </p> <p>Short story: formation of new elements today in no way invalidates the big bang theory.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510916&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nQYlYKHU_Sbon0thfvQNLonVLlm-HOWJDIN2tnbMk-8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510916">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510917" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1381906729"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I love when people call the Big Bang "dogma", ignorant of the fact that the Big Bang suffered all the resistance one could imagine but eventually won everyone over by its overwhelming predictive success.</p> <p>In the same way, even if scientists are obstinately opposed, if you can do as you say and produce gold from silicon dioxide, then they will be forced to accept the evidence.</p> <p>It's the E-Cat all over again:<br /> - If the goal is to convince science of the new theory behind this invention, it would be easy to produce the necessary evidence. But how much do you want to be that a proper test that controls for any possible source of fraud will NEVER be done. Maybe sham "demonstrations", but never the kind of test you would design if you really wanted to prove the device worked. Just the kind you would design if you wanted to sucker in gullible investors.</p> <p>- Screw those dogmatic scientists! You have a device that makes GOLD from SAND. Much like a simple cold fusion reactor, this is a project that, if real, would have zero problem funding itself. Once deployed at industrial scale it would drop the bottom out of the gold market, but in the meantime you'd be raking in the cash. In fact to prevent speculation, you'd probably keep really quiet, just slowly selling enough gold on the market to keep going (and getting rich) until one day you open your factory and reveal you're now the world's gold supplier.</p> <p>Instead, you have a kickstarter page.</p> <p>LOL.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510917&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-Ia6sOs7dsH1cQGxlyxyKmPqqCFXdXGHwBzE_OZaMLw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510917">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510918" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1381926091"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>there is probably a good reason for your "scientists" to be called crackpots. You website indicates that.</p> <p>Cb, it isn't quite a kick starter page, given this disclaimer at the top<br /> This is not a live project. This is a draft shared by martin burger for feedback.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510918&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eKtkAuQqgHqQBEEKj15VbRxn6a039LrsEWo8rBXCMCw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510918">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510919" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1381967089"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Martin Burger</p> <p>hahha... OMG... hahaha...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510919&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8sr95lnWv2OpIqo-TehG7AgM0SIR3Vc8APccDPrv_zY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 16 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510919">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510920" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1381998640"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Dean: Wouldn't the purpose of the draft be to eventually set up a proper kickstarter based on the feedback? Seems like otherwise there's no reason for it to be on kickstarter (with sponsorship prizes and all); it could just be a facebook post. Or am I missing something?</p> <p>Sinisa: Once again you find a way to summarize my own thoughts in far fewer words.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510920&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1bZy8_4ZsSmKdgibLkkMMWuK3bPAeqEQnbhbWJN4HhA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510920">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510921" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1382000155"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Wouldn’t the purpose of the draft be to eventually set up a proper kickstarter based on the feedback? "</p> <p>It seems that this was a feeler to get a sense of interest - my take away that whoever put it there hasn't done the hoop jumping to get it okayed to get to the point of taking money. It seems that there has not been any interest in it at all. That could be because<br /> * there is little interest for certain science items, or<br /> * people skim over it because of what this particular item is</p> <p>Or, I could be missing a bigger piece of the puzzle. My wife tells me that happens quite often.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510921&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fHxNDhp1uwjKXtypj0iGZmyp3Fv2R5Ddq7ItFX0OURE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510921">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510922" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1382002590"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I'm just trying to infer the intention to eventually, should interest be sufficient etc. etc., fund the miraculous alchemical gold-making machine (which supposedly already works and can make significant amounts of gold!) using kickstarter.</p> <p>Because that's hilarious to me.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510922&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EW-hiIiGnme6TlCsb8Q8HY7HBDJlVCo2P42Xv71Z-GE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">CB (not verified)</span> on 17 Oct 2013 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510922">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510923" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1394003287"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Gravity waves are the result of the product of mass of an elementary particle (fermion) and its spin radius.<br /> Said product is constant but results in zitterbewegung.<br /> Longitudinal waves are produced by the trembling motion of the particles. The spin radius is fluctuating inversionally proportional to the value of the mass. Mass fluctuations are gravity fluctuations. Interference of gravity waves inbetween massive objects is at the origin of attraction (pushing from the other side).<br /> Photons have no rest mass but are composed of matter and antimatter particles in equal strength with curvature infinite. Their traject curvature (bending) is influenced by the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum in the neighbourhood of massive objects such as the sun.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510923&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cBYuuS9GtqR3Lkz24WPS0biEE2YI-f8RpsGvg1NRdxY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Joannes Van den Bogaert">Joannes Van de… (not verified)</span> on 05 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510923">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510924" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1394023157"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Joannes #112: [citation needed]</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510924&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OIMNdWYuhsQbud-YhzS5FUVvWdZ8C1NMVikdv3FDH1Q"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 05 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510924">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510925" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1394697441"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In connection with the preceding blog of mine have look at the equation for the mass of the proton in the Belgian patent BE1002781 available in English on the blog site ; "e-Cat Site" in the article "Belgian LANR Patents" Have a look also at the article of Rockenbauer concerning the cause of mass formation through spin of the elementary particle.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510925&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oBpU14cc__PEhjkgw-i165VXgMISArjTB7zOsEk707k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 13 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510925">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510926" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1394746252"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Joannes #114: Thanks. So no published journal papers, then. Just blog posts, patents (which are neither reviewed for, nor required to meet, conditions of reality), and vanity-press papers.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510926&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="2GMq16LSbqyGI_gqP7eTfjUgjByTKyzeQ-uHrEynej0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 13 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510926">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510927" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1395109284"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>To Mr. Michael Kelsey</p> <p>Dear Sir,</p> <p>You are right about the non-existence of publications of mine in journal papers. Being a self-teached person in quantum physics I read some books about it, e.g. "101 Quantum Questions" from Kenneth Ford and was impressed by the statement that nowone knows the real nature of "electric charge" (je ne sais quoi) statement in the book. I like to draw your attention to the Bohr-atom formulae of the electron (Essentials of Physics from Borowitz-Beiser wherein you will find how to calculate electric charge in function of the product mass and (spin)radius of a fermiparticle such as an electron. See also BE1002781 PAGES 3 AND 4 for the proton restmass and its connection with electric charge.<br /> Further I like to draw your attention to my Belgian patent BE904719 (in Dutch) for calculating the spin radius of the electron using a time independent Schrödinger equation for a "Standing wave" and have a look at the BE-patent referenced therein (Fig. 2 and 3).<br /> It has been a pleasure to me to hear from you. Have a look at my article "Cold Fusion Catalyst" on the E-Cat Site and have a comment thereto if possible . Thanks!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510927&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="XO2W8VbMSCqMBeoJQ4Wf4XCAiC6qPOSxOZUojggnmgo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 17 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510927">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510928" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1395280317"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The Figures 2 and 3 are in the Belgian patent BE895572 (abstract in English available through ESPACENET.<br /> My e-mail address is : <a href="mailto:jan.van.den.bogaert@hotmail.com">jan.van.den.bogaert@hotmail.com</a>.<br /> Do not hesitate to ask questions about my patents(12) no longer in force.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510928&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RDW6RzYLfpUuyN5xBB5ZPYoFTrnTLB_sWSJGUbwUU8c"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 19 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510928">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510929" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1395281533"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The frequency of the gravity waves emitted by the trembling in the ground state of the electron "f" is 0.000008717 cycles/sec. This value has been obtained starting with the pendulum equation of Huygens (Dutch scientist) . In that equation L has been put equal to the spin radius calculated according to my Belgian patent BE904719 viz. 2.64X10^-11 m. The period (T) is consequently 114715.2798 seconds and the energy E being h.f = 5.7758842x10^39 joule.<br /> For calculating the acceleration factor (a) in the Newton formula of gravity force( (F) I had to divide through the restmass of the electron being 9.108x10^31 kg.<br /> For calculating the electromagnetic trembling being origin of electromagnetic attraction or repulsion I started with the Coulomb formula for electrostatic force giving (a) by dividing through the restmass of the electron . The force relationship of 10^42 of electromagnetic force to gravity force comes out. Comments are welcome.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510929&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WyTrE0hB5tctePbQN91Qv0s_bNkfM2R2kXk3ZdCMXlc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 19 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510929">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510930" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1395472578"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The rest maas of the electron is 9.108x10^-31 kg and the outcome of h.f = 5.7758842x10^-39 joule . Sorry for the typist error.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510930&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BbUTwmgpUZckggJf_HAwZdnwXARF6Soofu3loKZJguw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Van den Bogaert Joannes">Van den Bogaer… (not verified)</span> on 22 Mar 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510930">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510931" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1404806710"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>When an electron in an atom goes from a higher state to lower state the mass of the atom decreases.This is explained by electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.<br /> The "Higgs Field" is not needed. The Higgs theory is incomplete and the predicted mass of the "Higgs particle"<br /> kept changing to higher and higher values used to justify<br /> to the European politicians to fund the Hadron Collider.<br /> Peoples jobs depended on the Hadron Collider finding the "Higgs boson". I tried to ask Steven Weinberg about this and he wouldn't look me in the eyes, I suspect there is something very incomplete about this even to the people who created it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1510931&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_OsRw4hQdNuVfEQ41ysYDJJ3WWlTgOYK9w4jG1Po9jM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">S Kennnedy (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2014 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/taxonomy/term/9809/feed#comment-1510931">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1510932" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1407606375"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Different levels of sponginess,indeed a good anology. But the concept can be deemed to be fully explained only