Simon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> bernard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I know you have a problem with the Higgs
> particle.
> > Actually what gives particles their mass
> > (including the Higgs boson) is their
> interaction
> > with the Higgs field. Thus it is NOT one
> particle
> > giving mass to others but the interaction of
> > particles with an energy field.
> > Lincoln, pp 224-235. I've recommended this
> book
> > before Don Lincoln. 2004. *Understanding the
> > Universe from Quarks to Cosmos* London:
> World
> > Scientific.
> >
> >
>
> But why say there are particles at all then ? The
> Higgs bosons are considered to have mass but no
> charge at all. A particles mass is derived in
> Higgs theory as you say from the fact that as they
> move they interact with other higgs particles, and
> a force is generated between the Higgs and that
> particle. So the interaction between a single
> Higgs bosun and its surrounding Higgs is that of
> particles with no charge generating charge in each
> other.

The British Minister of Science in 1993 ran a contest for the best 1-page description of the Higgs boson. I'll post a couple in a separate reply.


>
> I say why not go into the origins of Higgs theory
> and see that its derived from the vacuum energy.
> All mass is generated in the theory from the fact
> that empty space contains energy that resists
> acceleration.

One problem I have with this post is that you throw in a number of different frontier questions all at once and it is too much to deal with all at once. The question of Higgs has to do with completion of the Standard Model. Some of this other stuff (vacuum energy ec. is more relevant to things like dark matter


Thats a good solid place to start.
> Now why the multiplication of entities ? In my
> opinion its because we're used to thinking of
> particles and its a convenient way to unify the
> forces. Thats not science though - thats
> accepting something because its compelling. Why
> not consider rather what the nature of this vacuum
> energy is ? We see it in the Casmir effect and
> yet that is not explained in terms of Higgs
> bosuns. The maths of M theory clearly points to
> extra dimensions - its just that no one really
> knows what that represents. But it would make
> sense that there is some kind of membrane 'phase'
> shift between spacetime and these dimensions, one
> that is more fundamental than that between space
> and time themselves. That again seems to me like
> I'm standing on solid ground. But that doesn't
> mean there is no interaction between them!

I don't much beleive in the "many worlds" or in superstring theory. Since they have not produced testable consequences and/or experimental evidence supporting them, they are too far out for me :-(.


>
> Take some of the problems facing physics/cosmology
> right now.
>
> 1) Quantum gravity
> 2) Dark Matter
> 3) Dark Energy
> 4) A model of a supernova
> 5) Entanglement
> 6) Inertia
> 7) Superposition
> 8) Mirror matter
>
> I'm fairly convinced to resolve all of these you
> don't need to invent other universes. You just
> need other dimensions.
superstrings again


Whats more natural ? We
> have an existing universe that has dimensions and
> our best mathematical analysis of it suggests
> there are more than the four. Mass is far better
> explained if particles have components outside of
> spacetime. The motion of galaxies is much better
> explained if creating motion in spacetime produces
> an equivalent of motion outside of space time
> (hence momentum and inertia). Dark Energy is
> better explained by these extra dimensions produce
> a force which 'holds' particles in spacetime. A
> supernova can be probably be modelled if it is
> considered that a star builds up pressure against
> the pressure of the other dimensions via the
> energy of fusion. Entanglement can only be
> explained if interactions in spacetime remain
> connected outside of spacetime. And a series
> of,lets say, odd and even spacetime equivalent
> dimensions gives you the parity of mirror matter.
>
> I get annoyed with people like WG with their wacky
> theories maybe because I have enough of my own
> But I am VERY keen for any criticism. Its very
> difficult to be self critical when peoples only
> criticism is that I'm multiplying entities (when
> that is their own favourite hobby and I don't
> believe I'm doing so uneccesarily at all) and that
> I'm just looking for some compelling explanation
> for problems scientists admit through honest
> dilligence (when all the theories on the above
> issues exist only because they are compelling and
> fit nicely with existing theories). I'm more than
> happy to admit that I'm pretty ignorant in any
> specific area of physics. But I'm still looking
> for someone to tell me why I'm wrong
>
> Can you help ?

Probably not enough. The only way to really see what is going on in quantum mechanics, superstrings, etc. is to be able to see what the mathematics lead to. Although I had quantum mechanics in graduate physical chemistry, it was primarily applied to the needs of chemists and it was many years ago. Physics has come a long way since. What I do is what scientists usually do when dealing with areas that differ from their own expertise; as a first approximation you go along with what the majority of scientists in area of science see as valid. Questions and problems that are in the frontiers (or exotic) in that area I consider interesting, but I don't worry too much about them. I want to see the dust settle among the contenders with the credentials to fight the fight before I take sides. I particularly take reports in popular magazines or the press with a load of salt. My other principles are that 1) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and 2) untestable theories are just that- theories.

Bernard

>
> Simon
>
>
>
> Edited 2 times. Last edit at 03/10/05 03:19PM by
> Simon.