how elusive is the higgs now? Options

[Trip like I do]

how elusive is the higgs now?

[Trip like I do]

"It's impossible to be excited enough," says Gordon Kane, a theoretical physicist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

[Trip like I do]

Joe Lykken, a theoretical physicist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., and a member of the CMS collaboration, says, "Whatever happens eventually with the Higgs, I think we'll look back on this meeting and say, 'This was the beginning of something.'"

[Flex]

In lesser news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZm_JYAYi8s&feature=share

[Trip like I do]

In lesser news http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZm_JYAYi8s&feature=share

yes.... much lesser news, but interesting nonetheless

[Trip like I do]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/11/...E7BA0N520111211

[Trip like I do]

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/light_..._universe-85357

[Magister Hayk]

The 13,000,000,000 EURO they spent over the LHC shall not help them to disclose the grand secret of formation of the Mass.

[Flex]

I agree Mr. Hayk. I think all the information needed to figure out the formation of mass is already known, but not understood. Finer detail probably wont help solve the problem all too much. We barely understand what we already know.

[Trip like I do]

just in case you are both wrong.... have we found the higgs?

I want the higgs for xmas

[Magister Hayk]

I agree Mr. Hayk. I think all the information needed to figure out the formation of mass is already known, but not understood. Finer detail probably wont help solve the problem all too much. We barely understand what we already know.

Yes indeed. They just shall report something to the inhabitants of the Planet of Monkeys that they discovered something, thus simply justifying the 13,000,000,000 Euro spending onto LHC and related activities.

[Trip like I do]

In assessing the situation, please keep these well-known shortcomings of the Standard Model of particle physics firmly in mind.

1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be put in by hand.

2. The Standard Model cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.

3. The Standard Model did not predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the "foam on top of the ocean".

4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted or measured by particle physicists (microcosm) and cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 1070 to 10120, depending on how one estimates the particle physics VED).

5. The Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.

6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.

[Trip like I do]

I agree Mr. Hayk. I think all the information needed to figure out the formation of mass is already known, but not understood. Finer detail probably wont help solve the problem all too much. We barely understand what we already know.

Yes indeed. They just shall report something to the inhabitants of the Planet of Monkeys that they discovered something, thus simply justifying the 13,000,000,000 Euro spending onto LHC and related activities.

just in case you both missed the big news....http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lhc-higgs-hints-cern

[Trip like I do]

The 13,000,000,000 EURO they spent over the LHC shall not help them to disclose the grand secret of formation of the Mass.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN costs 200,000 Swiss francs ($215,000) an hour to run

[Magister Hayk]

In my view data reported by LHC researchers absolutely cannot be trusted.

What they do is intentionally masterminded Great Hoax. They shall never disclose the Grand Secret, Money and complex equipment shall not help them.

That is my personal opinion.


The 13,000,000,000 EURO they apr. spent over the entire LHC device (so to say) shall not help them to disclose the grand secret of formation of the Mass.

[Flex]

I propose to the Brain Meta hypothetical research team a simple experiment to probe the nature of mass.

Thought Experiment:
If a laser were attached to one side of a centrifuge and a detector screen to the other side, what would happen to the light as we increased the rate of acceleration?

3 possible outcomes:
1.) Nothing, light is detected directly across from laser.
2.) Light is detected slightly behind initial starting spot.
3.) Light detected changes frequency (color).

I honestly could not tell you which outcome would occur. All three have some interesting implications though. We could probably do the experiment without ever doing the experiment. If we know the initial color of the laser (frequency) and we are an external observer, we know what will happen to the laser for us--the color will get red and blue shifted as the acceleration increases and the laser travels towards and away from us. We would probably not be able to detect this, as the speed of the centrifuge relative to light is so different, but still calculable nonetheless. But the detector cannot see this acceleration. It has no way of feeling that it is moving faster because it is accelerating at the same rate as the laser. There is no red or blue shift to the light traveling across the centrifuge to the detector, but something else happens. The detector does know it is moving faster, because it feels more massive. In this way, we may be able to show that the concerted motion of light (no relative acceleration) produces mass.

[KoolK3n]

I propose to the Brain Meta hypothetical research team a simple experiment to probe the nature of mass.

Thought Experiment:
If a laser were attached to one side of a centrifuge and a detector screen to the other side, what would happen to the light as we increased the rate of acceleration?

3 possible outcomes:
1.) Nothing, light is detected directly across from laser.
2.) Light is detected slightly behind initial starting spot.
3.) Light detected changes frequency (color).

I honestly could not tell you which outcome would occur. All three have some interesting implications though. We could probably do the experiment without ever doing the experiment. If we know the initial color of the laser (frequency) and we are an external observer, we know what will happen to the laser for us--the color will get red and blue shifted as the acceleration increases and the laser travels towards and away from us. We would probably not be able to detect this, as the speed of the centrifuge relative to light is so different, but still calculable nonetheless. But the detector cannot see this acceleration. It has no way of feeling that it is moving faster because it is accelerating at the same rate as the laser. There is no red or blue shift to the light traveling across the centrifuge to the detector, but something else happens. The detector does know it is moving faster, because it feels more massive. In this way, we may be able to show that the concerted motion of light (no relative acceleration) produces mass.

Thanks for putting it in layman terms! I am not "specialized" in this area of research, but I can tell that if your hypothesis is correct, would have earth-shattering implications and revision of our current model of classical physics.

[Flex]

Sort of. I think it may be a reasonable adjustment to the quantum model. It would basically suggest that particles do not have a constant mass, so the idea of tunneling being outside of the classically forbidden region may be incorrect. While light would still be quantized, mass could change as an independent variable dependent on angular velocity, favoring a state of greatest orthogonality.

[Magister Hayk]

I propose to the Brain Meta hypothetical research team a simple experiment to probe the nature of mass.

Thought Experiment:
If a laser were attached to one side of a centrifuge and a detector screen to the other side, what would happen to the light as we increased the rate of acceleration?

3 possible outcomes:
1.) Nothing, light is detected directly across from laser.
2.) Light is detected slightly behind initial starting spot.
3.) Light detected changes frequency (color).

I honestly could not tell you which outcome would occur. All three have some interesting implications though. We could probably do the experiment without ever doing the experiment. If we know the initial color of the laser (frequency) and we are an external observer, we know what will happen to the laser for us--the color will get red and blue shifted as the acceleration increases and the laser travels towards and away from us. We would probably not be able to detect this, as the speed of the centrifuge relative to light is so different, but still calculable nonetheless. But the detector cannot see this acceleration. It has no way of feeling that it is moving faster because it is accelerating at the same rate as the laser. There is no red or blue shift to the light traveling across the centrifuge to the detector, but something else happens. The detector does know it is moving faster, because it feels more massive. In this way, we may be able to show that the concerted motion of light (no relative acceleration) produces mass.

Good point. I need some free time to provide my feedback to this very important issue. Maybe after some few months.

Your sagacity is impressive, my respects.

[Magister Hayk]

It was interesting to talk with you all. Good buy for some period of time.

[Magister Hayk]

And have a good research.

[Jakare]

I propose to the Brain Meta hypothetical research team a simple experiment to probe the nature of mass.

Thought Experiment:
If a laser were attached to one side of a centrifuge and a detector screen to the other side, what would happen to the light as we increased the rate of acceleration?

3 possible outcomes:
1.) Nothing, light is detected directly across from laser.
2.) Light is detected slightly behind initial starting spot.
3.) Light detected changes frequency (color).

I honestly could not tell you which outcome would occur. All three have some interesting implications though. We could probably do the experiment without ever doing the experiment. If we know the initial color of the laser (frequency) and we are an external observer, we know what will happen to the laser for us--the color will get red and blue shifted as the acceleration increases and the laser travels towards and away from us. We would probably not be able to detect this, as the speed of the centrifuge relative to light is so different, but still calculable nonetheless. But the detector cannot see this acceleration. It has no way of feeling that it is moving faster because it is accelerating at the same rate as the laser. There is no red or blue shift to the light traveling across the centrifuge to the detector, but something else happens. The detector does know it is moving faster, because it feels more massive. In this way, we may be able to show that the concerted motion of light (no relative acceleration) produces mass.

Here it is my hypothetical research.

There is a few interesting phenomenon here:

1-As the centrifuge speeds up the light near the edge on both sides (laser and dectector) must cross more space than the light crossing the middle of the circunference. This will increase its frecuency at the center but decrease it at the edges. (sort of the outcome number 3).

2-Given a big enough centrifuge a spiral of light will appear. (second outcome as flex said).

3-We take a metal bar of 10 light seconds long. Then we bend it until a ring that will be our centrifuge is form. We put the laser in one point and the detector in exactly the opposite side. Now, we get the ring on the laser side and start the centrifuge movement. Because nothing can move faster than light, the detector wont start to move until 5 seconds have passed since we push the laser side and consecuently it wont detect anything.
Another implication of this is the metal bar hasn´t existed on its full length during the 10 seconds it takes to the movement to reach the laser again.
I wonder if the rings diameter gets shorter because of this and where do the matter go...

[Lindsay]

I propose to the Brain Meta hypothetical research team a simple experiment to probe the nature of mass.

Thought Experiment:
If a laser were attached to one side of a centrifuge and a detector screen to the other side, what would happen to the light as we increased the rate of acceleration?

3 possible outcomes:
1.) Nothing, light is detected directly across from laser.
2.) Light is detected slightly behind initial starting spot.
3.) Light detected changes frequency (color).

I honestly could not tell you which outcome would occur. All three have some interesting implications though. We could probably do the experiment without ever doing the experiment. If we know the initial color of the laser (frequency) and we are an external observer, we know what will happen to the laser for us--the color will get red and blue shifted as the acceleration increases and the laser travels towards and away from us. We would probably not be able to detect this, as the speed of the centrifuge relative to light is so different, but still calculable nonetheless. But the detector cannot see this acceleration. It has no way of feeling that it is moving faster because it is accelerating at the same rate as the laser. There is no red or blue shift to the light traveling across the centrifuge to the detector, but something else happens. The detector does know it is moving faster, because it feels more massive. In this way, we may be able to show that the concerted motion of light (no relative acceleration) produces mass.

Here it is my hypothetical research.

There is a few interesting phenomenon here:

1-As the centrifuge speeds up the light near the edge on both sides (laser and dectector) must cross more space than the light crossing the middle of the circunference. This will increase its frecuency at the center but decrease it at the edges. (sort of the outcome number 3).

2-Given a big enough centrifuge a spiral of light will appear. (second outcome as flex said).

3-We take a metal bar of 10 light seconds long. Then we bend it until a ring that will be our centrifuge is form. We put the laser in one point and the detector in exactly the opposite side. Now, we get the ring on the laser side and start the centrifuge movement. Because nothing can move faster than light, the detector wont start to move until 5 seconds have passed since we push the laser side and consecuently it wont detect anything.
Another implication of this is the metal bar hasn´t existed on its full length during the 10 seconds it takes to the movement to reach the laser again.
I wonder if the rings diameter gets shorter because of this and where do the matter go...

[Lindsay]

how elusive is the higgs now?

[Lindsay]

Unitheism and the "God Particle": In my opinion, any "god" made up of particles--or with dimensions--no matter how many, is nothing more than an idol. For this reason, except when I am quoting others who do use it, I no longer use the proper noun "God" (favoured by monotheists). I don't use it, because it implies thinking of a super human-like being--separate and apart from the cosmos and from us. For a similar reason, I understand that Orthodox Jews, when writing in English, write "god" as, G-d.

Me? When, as a unitheist and process theologian, I write of "god" before time--before the moment of the BIG bang--I use the acronym G~0~D (note the Tildes and the zero)--symbolizing the everlasting now. Writing of "god" following the moment of creation, I use G~O~D (that which is good, opportune, delightful and even dangerous--the O symbolizing expansion in the everlasting now. Perhaps this is the Higgs Field, in which "matter", for good or for otherwise, takes on mass and form.

[P JayS]

Unitheism and the "God Particle": In my opinion, any "god" made up of particles--or with dimensions--no matter how many, is nothing more than an idol. For this reason, except when I am quoting others who do use it, I no longer use the proper noun "God" (favoured by monotheists). I don't use it, because it implies thinking of a super human-like being--separate and apart from the cosmos and from us. For a similar reason, I understand that Orthodox Jews, when writing in English, write "god" as, G-d.

Me? When, as a unitheist and process theologian, I write of "god" before time--before the moment of the BIG bang--I use the acronym G~0~D (note the Tildes and the zero)--symbolizing the everlasting now. Writing of "god" following the moment of creation, I use G~O~D (that which is good, opportune, delightful and even dangerous--the O symbolizing expansion in the everlasting now. Perhaps this is the Higgs Field, in which "matter", for good or for otherwise, takes on mass and form.

Do you write G0D this way in an attempt to please your Creator?

[Lindsay]

Unitheism and the "God Particle": In my opinion, any "god" made up of particles--or with dimensions--no matter how many, is nothing more than an idol. For this reason, except when I am quoting others who do use it, I no longer use the proper noun "God" (favoured by monotheists). I don't use it, because it implies thinking of a super human-like being--separate and apart from the cosmos and from us. For a similar reason, I understand that Orthodox Jews, when writing in English, write "god" as, G-d.

Me? When, as a unitheist and process theologian, I write of "god" before time--before the moment of the BIG bang--I use the acronym G~0~D (note the Tildes and the zero)--symbolizing the everlasting now. Writing of "god" following the moment of creation, I use G~O~D (that which is good, opportune, delightful and even dangerous--the O symbolizing expansion in the everlasting now. Perhaps this is the Higgs Field, in which "matter", for good or for otherwise, takes on mass and form.
===========================
Here is a revision of the above, which I have posted in www.wondercafe.ca
http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religi...er-god-particle

LET US NOT FORGET, THE NEW PHYSICS IS ABOUT "THE FIELD"--NOT JUST THE MULTITUDE OF PARTICLES IN IT

Unitheism and the "God Particle"--A MISNOMER:


In my opinion, any "god" made up of particles--or with dimensions--no matter how many, is nothing more than an idol.

For this reason, except when I am quoting others who do use the noun, I no longer use the proper noun "God" (favoured by monotheists). I don't use it, because it implies thinking of a super human-like being--separate and apart from the cosmos and from us. For a similar reason, I understand that Orthodox Jews, when writing in English, write "god" as, G-d.

Me? When, as a unitheist and process theologian, I write of "god" before time--before the moment of the BIG bang--I use the acronym G~0~D (note the Tildes and the zero)--symbolizing the everlasting now. Writing of "god" following the moment of creation, I use G~O~D (that which is good, opportune, delightful and even dangerous--the O symbolizing expansion in the everlasting now.

Perhaps this is the Higgs Field, in which "matter"--for good reasons, or for reasons that are not so good--takes on mass and form. I suspect it is we who--using the power of faith and hope, thought, word, imagination and deed--bring matter into being. And when we do so in bad faith and false hope--that is, without agape-love we get what we experience as pain, suffering and death. In short, evil.

===================

PERHAPS, WITHIN AND AROUND US, WE EACH HAVE A PERSONAL ACCESS TO A HIGGS-LIKE FIELD OF HEALING. LET'S EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES

Einstein called "The Field" the only reality.

In her book, THE FIELD--The quest for the secret force of the universe, author Lynne McTaggart, writes about the importance of qualities like love, compassion, kindness, cooperation and empathy.

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/review.htm

The movie/documentary I mentioned above was centred around the work of McTaggart and others who think like her. I just found this:

http://iamthedoc.com/
============================================

Recently, I watched a one hour and seventeen minutes movie-documnetary, by a famous and very successful producer/director--an exceptionally valuable one.

It is basically the story of how he made a miracle-like recovery from a dreadful bike accident that nearly cost him, the biker, his life.

It sure shows what healing-power there is in what I like to call the pneuma (spiritual) component of our being, when we learn the art of being lovingly patient.

Unfortunately, because of a copyright dispute, the movie is no longer available on U-Tube. See below.

Do you write G0D this way in an attempt to please your Creator?

No. I write it G~0~D/G~O~D to avoid thinking of god as my creation, or the creation of anyone.

In my opinion, the reason we have so many religions at each others throat, so much inhumane, destructive, social, political and economic misery and misbehaviour is that we have created too many gods in our own image.

[Joesus]

In my opinion, the reason we have so many religions at each others throat, so much inhumane, destructive, social, political and economic misery and misbehaviour is that we have created too many gods in our own image.

Me? When, as a unitheist and process theologian, I write of "god" before time--before the moment of the BIG bang--

You, being human have defined an image in the relationship to god/G~O~D and creation as you see it.
e.g.

Me, I write of God before time--before the moment of the BIG bang.

differentiating yourself from everyone else as you see God, time before time, and what you might reference as a moment that defines the beginning of time (a moment someone might use to determine when the universe as humans define it, began).

In my opinion, the reason we have so many religions at each others throat, so much inhumane, destructive, social, political and economic misery and misbehaviour is that we have created too many gods in our own image.
I use the acronym G~0~D (note the Tildes and the zero)--symbolizing the everlasting now. Writing of "god" following the moment of creation, I use G~O~D (that which is good, opportune, delightful and even dangerous--the O symbolizing expansion in the everlasting now. Perhaps this is the Higgs Field, in which "matter", for good or for otherwise, takes on mass and form.

In your opinion: A personal human trait to initiate the personal defining principles of what is being spoken of.

God and G~O~D, the differences as you see it, based on your determination of how to describe something because the spelling of the word God is being applied incorrectly, and placed upon their personal interpretations (not yours) of what it represents. (As such the word does not define the object of discussion but instead the humans using the word have defined the object and applied the word of their choice.)

You've defined the word as being associated to your definition of how others might see God, regardless of whether they will or not. You are attempting to describe what God is not, which is in essence an image of mans personal opinion. Casting judgment, value and imagery of idols, the precedent you pretend to have risen above

LET US NOT FORGET, THE NEW PHYSICS IS ABOUT "THE FIELD"--NOT JUST THE MULTITUDE OF PARTICLES IN IT

New physics? You speaking of the Unified field?

Unitheism and the "God Particle"--A MISNOMER:

Perhaps we should instigate a discussion of the defining principles of the God particle, as they are defined by those that are investigating it and gave this particle the name in the New Physics field of study. How the words are applied to you as you define yourself as a Unitheist, they as Scientists as they define you, and how you both define the words might have different applications. Just to make sure you as a Unitheist and those in the field of the New Physics are on the same page.

In my opinion, any "god" made up of particles--or with dimensions--no matter how many, is nothing more than an idol.

That's nice. Everyone can appreciate an opinion or two. A god or g~o~d made up of anything or not made up of anything is going to be a definition of human proportions based on some kind of experience or idea. If God or G~O~D as defined by man is truly beyond all definitions and systems of measure, then we will assign all words and their corresponding values as prescribed by any man to the reflection of man and his determinations within the personal scope of vision, or the physical and mental boundaries of human principles.

In my opinion, the reason we have so many religions at each others throat, so much inhumane, destructive, social, political and economic misery and misbehaviour is that we have created too many gods in our own image.
For this reason, except when I am quoting others who do use the noun, I no longer use the proper noun "God" (favoured by monotheists).

Politically correct in your determination?

I don't use it, because it implies thinking of a super human-like being--separate and apart from the cosmos and from us. For a similar reason, I understand that Orthodox Jews, when writing in English, write "god" as, G-d.

Oh the pain.. So many viewpoints, so many thoughts. Jews, Monotheists, Unitheists, Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. Which image of man is the correct image God created, to create the image (or non-image) in the scheme of things

Me? When, as a unitheist and process theologian

Unitheist and process theologian. As man defines himself and differentiates his principles and worth thru titles, to separate himself from the commonality of man in the common habits of separation and idolization, how does he unite himself with the processes in creation and the infinite potential of God without lowering God to his limited processes?

I write of "god" before time--before the moment of the BIG bang--I use the acronym G~0~D (note the Tildes and the zero)--symbolizing the everlasting now. Writing of "god" following the moment of creation, I use G~O~D (that which is good, opportune, delightful and even dangerous--the O symbolizing expansion in the everlasting now.

Good example of how the mind tries to escape its own illusions. Create the illusion that it is not caught in an illusion.

Perhaps this (God Particle) is the Higgs Field, in which "matter"--for good reasons, or for reasons that are not so good--takes on mass and form. I suspect it is we who--using the power of faith and hope, thought, word, imagination and deed--bring matter into being. And when we do so in bad faith and false hope--that is, without agape-love we get what we experience as pain, suffering and death. In short, evil.

Ah the application of the defining principles of creation by the ego in determining what God or humanity is. To find what you search for, and call it that.

PERHAPS, WITHIN AND AROUND US, WE EACH HAVE A PERSONAL ACCESS TO A HIGGS-LIKE FIELD OF HEALING. LET'S EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITIES

You mean like a Unitheists Higgs Field, or a Reverend Lindsay King Higgs Field? Does that even resemble the Higgs Field since the particle discussed in physics has nothing to do with God nor any mystical associations?

Einstein called "The Field" the only reality.

If you are again referring to the Unified field, I don't think you and he are on the same page. So far you don't seem to present any similarity in thought to any of the subjects presented since they are imagined by you as being something outside of the contexts of what others are presenting. You seem to be living in the Rev. King Field. Not sure it's one anyone else can inhabit or visit without losing sight of reality.

In my opinion, the reason we have so many religions at each others throat, so much inhumane, destructive, social, political and economic misery and misbehaviour is that we have created too many gods in our own image.

The Kettle calling the pot black...

[Lindsay]

ATTENTION PLEASE!

Does anyone @ BrainM, learn anything valuable from "Joe"? At first, I took him/her seriously. I soon found that he/she writes the same kind of "brain-numbing stuff"(BNS)--a phrase coined by Ellis, a lady teacher, fellow-poster and friend from Australia--as a "twin?", TTurtle, writes at www.scienceagogo.com --where I write as RevLGKing.

Here, and @ SAGGO, I thank G~0~D/G~O~D for the ignore button.

However, whenever I need to do penance for my sins of omission--and there are any number I could name--I take a brief look, very brief, at some BNS, which is probably robot-generated. The penance does help with the sin-problem.

BTW, @ SAGGO, I have a thread on "Philosophy of Religion ...", which I opened using "Turner" (2007). It now has over 4, 600, 000 hits.

[Flex]

[quote name='Lindsay' post='119941' date='Jul 18, 2012, 07:47 PM']
Einstein called "The Field" the only reality.[/quote]
If you are again referring to the Unified field, I don't think you and he are on the same page. So far you don't seem to present any similarity in thought to any of the subjects presented since they are imagined by you as being something outside of the contexts of what others are presenting. You seem to be living in the Rev. King Field. Not sure it's one anyone else can inhabit or visit without losing sight of reality.

[/quote]

I personally don't understand WTF the field is supposed to be/in reference to. I mean at one time there was thought to be a luminiferous ether, but that was sure wrong. It seems to me like there are two distinct forms of existence, light (energy/mass) bodies and space-time. I could see an interplay between space and time acting like an interplay between hyperbolic and elliptic geometry in some sort of weird Klein bottle shaped space-time fabric with light and mass acting in a Euclidian fashion.

Did any of that make sense? I hope not. The Rev. King reality makes more sense to me. The Big Bang could just have been a big black hole like event. For all we know there are entire Universes such as our own inscribed within black holes. Perhaps it is the luminiferous ether (empty space) in this world which is perceived as existence.