A chapter from a new book by Ian Semple, the Guardian's science correspondent. From English: Atalia Zilber
In the early sixties of the 20th century, three groups of physicists, each working separately, in different countries, encountered an idea that would completely change the science of physics and ignite the imagination of scientists for decades to come. The idea was to find what was later called the Higgs boson - that is, to finally understand what gives mass to things, the last missing brick in the building of life.
Now, after almost fifty years, this particle has been discovered at the massive CERN particle accelerator, and the implications of the discovery are enormous.
The Divine Particle weaves together the stories of the people behind the search, the international rivalries, the huge money, and of course the science behind the greatest scientific adventure of our time.
Ian Semple, the award-winning science writer, had direct access to Peter Higgs, the scientist for whom the particle is named, and also spent a lot of time at CERN. In this book, he describes with clarity and vitality how this ambitious search progressed - a process in which many billions were invested, accompanied by tremendous concerns (could the search itself destroy the universe? A question that was really asked...), as well as glorious failures - until the amazing discovery and its consequences.
Not the end of the world
Somewhere below the surface of the street, on a densely populated island east of Manhattan, an unfortunate incident is about to happen. A particle accelerator that has been operating for years without any malfunction slams gold ions into each other and smashes them, as it has done since it was first activated. The energy in the ion collision is so great that the protons and neutrons inside them melt and emit a hot soup of quarks and connecting particles called gluons.
The collision that is happening now is different from all previous collisions. Normally, when ions collide, the quarks that are released come back together and form harmless subatomic particles. This time they came back and connected in a way that seemed so improbable to scientists that they ruled it out. The grain of the unusual material is shot out of the accelerator's main chamber and lodges inside a huge magnet that surrounds one of the detectors.
From the moment the particle gets stuck there it behaves in a strange way. It begins to attract the atoms around it and swallow them. As it swells and grows, it attacks more and more of its opaque neighbors and swallows them too. When it reaches the size of an ordinary atom, it falls to the floor of the laboratory without anyone noticing it, and there it quickly passes through the concrete and sinks into the ground.
Out of sight, the growing particle spirals down to the center of our rotating planet, engulfing material and emitting enough heat to melt rock and ore. Soon the ground beneath southeastern New York begins to shake and crack. After a time, after gates collapse and oceans boil and disappear, the planet swallows itself. All that remains of her is a ball of quiet, warm material, the size of a cricket pitch.
This unlikely scenario is one of the strangest ideas that physicists had to test when a small group of minds raised concerns about the safety of particle transporters in the late 20th century. Frank Wilczek didn't usually spend his summer vacations pondering such crazy doomsday predictions. . Usually he would go to New Hampshire and enjoy the sun and the change of pace at his country vacation home. There was no phone there, so anyone who wanted to talk to him had to wait. Anyway, that's how it usually was.
The summer of 1999 was different. A few weeks earlier, two letters arrived at the Scientific American magazine system. The letters expressed concerns about a new particle handler to be built on Long Island. A few months earlier, the magazine published an article about the collider, called the "Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider" (RHIC), or "Rick" in its unofficial name. The title of the article was "Little Big Bang". RHIC is designed to slam gold ions into each other so that scientists can study exotic matter that is hypothesized to have existed in the first moments of creation.
One of the letters about RHIC came from Michael Coghill of British Columbia. "I am concerned that physicists are rushing into an unsafe place," Coghill wrote. "What will happen if they somehow change the foundations of nature and it will not be possible to return them to their original state?" The other letter came via email from Walter Wagner in Hawaii. He asked if scientists were absolutely sure there was no danger of RHIC inadvertently creating a black hole that could swallow Earth in seconds.
The letters were the starting point for a particle physics panic along the lines of a health scare in the media. Readers' questions were legitimate, because they raised interesting scientific points, but the events they prompted were almost as ridiculous as the doomsday scenario described above. The panic culminated in a legal petition that threatened to shut down the particle accelerators in America and Europe, which would have put an end once and for all to the hunt for the Higgs particle.
The editors of Scientific American decided to publish an answer to the readers' questions, which will be written by a senior scientist in the field. They called Frank Wilczek and asked him if he was willing to do it. He wrote a reply and sent it to the magazine shortly before he left for New Hampshire. The answer was intended to be published together with the letters in the July issue of the magazine.
Vilcek explained that it is impossible to create black holes in RHIC, but his answer did not end there. He went on to clarify another possibility, also highly speculative but "fairly respectable", that a new and stable form of a substance called strangelet ("museron") might be created in a more accessible way. "There is reason to be worried about a change of the 'Ice 9' type, where Mozron grows by combining and changing the normal material in its environment," he wrote. His answer ended with a sentence of reassurance, that even an unruly Mozron is an unlikely cause of global destruction.
The answer seemed harmless. She reassured readers and assured them that they had nothing to fear in the near future from black holes under New York, and raised an intriguing theoretical concept as food for thought. "I thought I should use the opportunity to teach some Torah," Vilcek told me years later. "It was scientifically interesting to mention the Mouzorons, and therefore, to increase the grace of my answer, I said something along the lines of: if you really want to be worried about something, worry about it."
When Wilczek's answer reached Scientific American, the editors thought it was too long, so they shortened it by a third. But in the process they also completely changed the tone of the list. In the edited version, Wilchek's answer sounds more ambiguous regarding the dangers posed by the blackening muzorons to the prey. "It was much less clear that the Mozron scenario was also very unlikely," said Wilchek. Unfortunately - although this is understandable - both Scientific American and Wilchek were unable to find the original wording of the answer.
At the Brookhaven National Laboratory, where the accessor was being prepared for operation, the director, John Marburger, learned that the magazine was about to publish the letters and Wilczek's reply. Marburger was parachuted into the lab to take command of the government facility a year earlier, after a radioactive form of hydrogen called tritium was discovered in January 1997 in the groundwater south of the High Flux Beam Reactor - a nuclear research reactor at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The tritium concentrations were above the permissible limits according to the federal and state criteria, but were limited to the Brookhaven site. The harmless leak caused such a public outcry that the Department of Energy shut down the reactor and ordered a multimillion-dollar cleanup operation.
Marburger, who later served as a scientific advisor to the administration of President George W. Bush, saw the storm clouds forming on the horizon. Scientific American is a serious magazine. Vilcek is a brilliant and well-known physicist. The local community is suspicious of the government and the way it runs the laboratory. The letters, and particularly Vilcek's reply, had all the makings of a public relations disaster, perhaps even a global catastrophe. "I immediately understood that there was a problem here," Marburger recalled. "Even a small chance is a big deal when it comes to destroying the planet."
Before the issue of Scientific American was printed, Marburger convened a committee of physicists and asked them to review a list of unlikely disaster scenarios that there was a risk - even if it was zero - that the device would cause. "The first person I approached and asked him to join the committee was Frank Wilchek," says Marburger. "My attitude was: 'Well, Frank, you started this mess, you need to help me calm it down.'"
A few days after Scientific American hit the stands, Marburger's storm broke out. On July 18, the London newspaper Sunday Times published a story titled: "The Big Bang Machine could destroy the Earth." It was said there that the RHIC accelerator was "under review" and that Marburger appointed experts to report to him "if the project could take a wrong path and cause a disaster." An editorial accompanying the news lamented: "The people in the white coats will send us, and themselves, into the abyss of a black hole that they will create with their own hands." The British newspapers are not really known for their restraint, especially in the summer months.
As expected, other media outlets jumped on the story. Some have called the RHIC operator the "Doomsday Machine". The press office in Brookhaven was flooded with phone calls. One person wanted to know if a machine-generated black hole brought down John F. Kennedy, Jr. (one of the physicists answered this way: "That connection, uh, didn't occur to me"). In a message intended to calm the situation, Marburger reminded people that "scientists do not want to endanger the world or themselves any more than anyone else."
Everyone wanted to talk to Frank Wilczek, but he had already gone to New Hampshire. "I don't have a phone line there, and I didn't have a mobile phone then, but media from all over the world harassed me. I had to go to a place with a public phone and answer them," said Wilchek.
The storm caused by the accessor was not all negative. The article in the Sunday Times guaranteed the machine publicity all over the globe, and for every news item that announced the end of the world, there were more moderate items that explained the importance of the Brookhaven experiments.
In Geneva, the CERN management realized that the European laboratory was a clear target for the arrows of a vocal minority, which made it clear that it wanted to close the particle accelerators. The giant LEP machine only has about one year left to run, and it hasn't destroyed the world yet. What worried CERN more was the public backlash against the Large Hadron Collider, which was intended to be the world's most powerful particle collider. If the construction of the machine is halted due to the collapse of public support, the Higgs particle may never be discovered. A long list of other theories will be relegated to the remote realm of theories that cannot be tested experimentally. To be safe and cautious, CERN's director-general, Luciano Maiani, appointed his own team of physicists to test the safety of the new launcher.
The tests at Brookhaven National Laboratory and CERN were arguably the first time that governments asked scientists to seriously discuss whether there was a chance that laboratory experiments could destroy the Earth. The only comparable situation was in 1945, when two Manhattan Project scientists, Emil Konopinski and Edward Teller, calculated the chances of nuclear bombs igniting the Earth's atmosphere. They determined that this was impossible, at least as far as the bombs they were going to make in the Manhattan Project were concerned. By the way, this assertion of theirs did not prevent Enrico Fermi - before the activation of the first atomic bomb, on July 16 of that year, at the Trinity test site - from organizing an intervention on the question of whether there is a possibility that the world will come to an end.
The safety committees established by the Brookhaven National Laboratory and CERN examined scenarios that could cause a disaster on Earth, including: the accidental creation of dangerous musrons (some types of which are considered harmless); creation of a black hole that will swallow the earth in the blink of an eye; creating magnetic monopolies destroying atoms; And a very terminal scenario called by the innocent name "vacuum decay".
Wilczek's words about "Ice 9" were taken from Kurt Vonnegut's 1963 book, Cat's Cradle, in which he describes a world transformed after an alternative, more stable form of ice developed by the military was accidentally released. "Ice 9" is designed to clear mud and prevent soldiers and war vessels from sinking in it. A single chip of "Ice 9" thrown into a mud-covered area becomes a nucleation site, a point where the surrounding water molecules stick to it and freeze into new crystalline structures, as hard as a table. Unlike normal frozen water, "Ice 9" does not melt until it is heated to 45.8 degrees Celsius.
A year before the book Cat's Cradle was published, scientists in Russia created something that sparked fears similar to those that would be associated with "Ice 9". Nikolai Fedyakin was a chemist in a remote government laboratory in Kostroma in central Russia. He spent his time studying the behavior of water in capillary tubes. One day he checked some tubes after filling Ha'ain with water, and saw that new, separate drops of water appeared on the surface of the water. Over time they grew at the expense of the water below them. Tests have shown that these new water droplets are much more compressed than normal water. Fedyakin was amazed. His experiments indicated a new phase of water, a more stable phase capable of changing pure water on contact.
Important discoveries do not stay long in small laboratories. When word of the breakthrough spread, Fedyakin's research was transferred to Moscow, where it was continued by one of Russia's most famous scientists, Boris Deryagin. Deryagin, who was known as a thorough and meticulous scientist, successfully reproduced Fedyakin's experiments. He announced the discovery of "anomalous water" - a new and unknown phase of life's most precious liquid.
The wider scientific community was extremely skeptical, until a team of scientists from the US National Institute of Standards published a study that supported the Russians' findings. They tested how anomalous water absorbs infrared light, and announced that they do it in a different way than normal water. They went even further and gave the liquid a new name, polywater (polymeric water), because they were convinced that the water molecules group together and form a polymer-like gel, consisting of long chains and hexagonal grains of water.
The polymer water had some disturbing properties in common with "Ice 9". Some scientists thought that they were more stable than normal water and melted at a higher temperature than the temperature at which ice melts. If this is indeed the case, and if they ever produce such water and pour it into the waterways of the world, they may turn the water supply on Earth into polymer water. In other words, the water molecules will bind to each other and form huge molecules like the molecules in plastic. As far as life on Earth is concerned, the result will be terrible beyond imagination. In October 1969, the journal Nature published a letter from a reader, P.J. Donohoe of Wilkes College in Pennsylvania, who demanded that the scientists confirm that the polymer water is safe. "The consequences of a mistake in this matter are so serious that one can only accept conclusive evidence that there is no danger from them," wrote Donohoe. "I see polymer as the most dangerous substance on Earth... Scientists everywhere should be aware of the need for extreme caution in handling polymer water. They should be treated like the deadliest virus until their safety is proven."
Polymeric water gained credibility, but many scientists were still not convinced. They argued that if there really was a more stable form of water, then we should have found viscous layers of it a long time ago. Physicist Richard Feynman pointed out that if polymer water is real, millions of years of evolution would have given us a creature whose only means of existence is drinking water and excreting polymer water, because the transition from water to polymer water releases energy that the organism can thrive on.
As Feynman suspected, the polymer water turned out to be nonsense. After years of experimentation, the scientists found that the only thing that differentiates polymer water from ordinary water is that it contains impurities, many of which, it seems, originate from the capillary tubes that were held in them. From the exciting discovery to the embarrassing refutation, the distraction created by the polymer water lasted a decade.
The fears of polymer water that would freeze the water of rivers and oceans subsided quickly, but the prediction of an exotic substance that would change the earth did not let up. A few years after the polymer water tumult subsided, a Chinese-American physicist, a Nobel laureate named Tsung Dao Li, and an Italian theorist, Gian Carlo Wieck, hypothesized that particle accessors might be capable of slamming atomic nuclei together with such force that they would collapse into a stable form of matter. And compressed beyond all imagination. Lee was so excited by the idea that he proposed two particle accelerators together to see if scientists could create such a thing.
Engineers at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California approached the craft. They combined two boosters so that one booster fired an atomic nuke into the other booster, which accelerated them even more and slammed them into the target. When the machine, named Bevalac, was put into operation in the mid-1970s, scientists were not sure that it would create Lee and Wick's "anomalous matter". But they also knew that if they created him, he might not be harmless.
In May 1979, years after Volk began operating, but before it began accelerating heavy ions such as uranium, several top scientists met secretly at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory to discuss whether the machine might create anomalous material, and if it posed a risk. And again "Ice 9" cast its heavy shadow. If the anomalous material is more stable than the normal material, a tiny amount can change all the material that comes into contact with it and thus cause a global disaster.
The assembled experts, including Tsung Dao Li and Bernard Harvey, director of the Department of Nuclear Physics at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, spent a day and a half discussing the disaster scenario and the question of whether the Volak experiments should be canceled. When the meeting was over, they were unanimous that there was no danger in the anomalous material. For billions of years, more energetic collisions took place on the moon, when cosmic ray particles flew onto the surface of the moon. If the anomalous material was dangerous, it would have destroyed the moon long ago. And since it seems that the moon is safe, the scientists have concluded that there is no cause for concern.
Researchers working with the machine had another, more personal risk to consider, though most must have felt protected. From the late 1970s to the mid-1990s, the United States suffered from a frenzied series of bombings that targeted scientists and airline workers. The FBI agents who dealt with the matter knew that the person they were looking for, whose nickname was the "Yonabomber", was deeply opposed to what he saw as the blind march of technology and its potential consequences for humanity.
A year before the Bevolk machine was shut down, two physicists, Gary Westfall from Michigan State University and Sabul Des Gupta from McGill University in Montreal, wrote an article for the journal Physics Today in which they extolled and praised the machine's achievements. They said that "meetings took place behind closed doors" to find out if the risk of disaster is so serious that the experiments must be canceled for safety reasons. The article added: "The experiments were eventually carried out, and fortunately no such disaster has yet occurred."
When the article was published, the FBI feared that Westfall and Des Gupta might be targets of the Yunobomber's bombs. Both were put on a watch list, and Gerry Westfall agreed to have his mail searched for explosives. Das Gupta refused, choosing to put his trust in the Canadian Postal Service and his secretary at the university. No explosives were ever intercepted on their way to the investigators.
The Yunobomber was arrested about a year after Gary Westfall and Sabul Des Gupta were put on the FBI's list of potential targets. Theodore Kaczynski, a former mathematician at Harvard and later a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, lived a wild life and ran his bombing campaign from a cabin in Montana. He was banned after his brother discovered familiar phrases in an eight-page manifesto that two major newspapers agreed to publish. In his document, Kaczynski questioned Edward Teller's motives for developing the hydrogen bomb, and warned: "The technophiles are taking us all on an irresponsible journey into the unknown."
By the time the RHIC transmitter at Brookhaven was ready for operation, concerns about the anomalous material from Lee and Wake had faded. But Wilczek's article in Scientific American ensured that the wild and ravenous muzorons would be ready and willing to play the role of the terrifying entity heralding the end of the world. Scientists came up with the idea of mosrons when they tried to think what might happen if the protons and neutrons inside the atomic nuclei were subjected to unusual pressures. Such a thing may happen naturally in the hearts of neutron stars, which are formed when ordinary stars explode and collapse under their own gravity. Neutron stars are amazingly compressed objects: the mass of a teaspoon of the core material of such a star is about one hundred million tons.
Normal protons and neutrons are made of two types of quarks, called "up" and "down", but scientists suspect that some of these, under great pressure, may become a third type of quark, called a "strange" quark. A mixture of such quarks is called a musron. In 1984, the physicist Ed Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, whom many consider Einstein's natural successor, calculated and found that once the muzorons are formed they may continue to exist even if the enormous pressure necessary to create them is released. The paper raised the suspicion that if mosrons are more stable than normal matter, they could create the Ice 9 type scenario that Wilchek described.
The safety committees at Brookhaven and CERN explained at length why there is no reason to fear the formation of musrons in the accessible ones. If they exist at all, they are very difficult to create. And if you manage to create them, they are extremely unstable. And if they happen to stay around longer than expected, they most likely have a positive charge, and therefore won't be able to attract atomic nuclei to them and swallow them.
The theoretical reassurances about the safety of the planet did not allay all concerns. Physicists Sheldon Glashaw and Richard Wilson of Harvard summed up the feeling of uneasiness in an article published in Nature in December 1999: "If the mozarons exist (which is plausible), if they form fairly stable clumps (which is unlikely), and if they have a negative charge ( Although the theory favors positive charges), and if tiny mosrons can be created in the RHIC accelerator (which is completely improbable), then maybe there could be a problem. A newly born Musron can swallow sealed nuclei, grow unstoppable and finally swallow the Earth. The word 'improbable', even if it is repeated many times, does nothing to alleviate our fear of this total disaster."
To strengthen their conclusions, the safety committees claimed that Mother Nature had already done the RHIC accelerator experiments for us. Cosmic rays contain metal ions that move at almost the speed of light. These ions collide with minerals on the moon and asteroids and free ions found in clouds of interstellar dust and gas. If the dangerous mozarons were easily created, they would already be created in space.
As with the Volak case and concerns about anomalous matter, the continued presence of the moon has been cited as strong evidence that the evil Muzorons are at the very least extremely rare. If five billion years of cosmic ray pounding didn't turn the moon into a giant lump of strange matter, five years of RHIC collisions wouldn't put Earth in danger. More words of reassurance were based on the fate of asteroids. If the cosmic rays were creating "killer asteroids" by turning into mozarons, some of them would surely fall into the sun or other stars and destroy them. But when scientists looked at the 70 billion billion stars in the visible universe, they saw nothing but the natural death of stars in supernova explosions.
To give an idea of how improbable the possibility that the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, will turn out to be an unpleasant surprise, CERN scientists did a calculation. Cosmic rays collide with our sun regularly with energy no less than that of the LHC collisions. Based on the number of stars in the visible universe, they estimated that since the beginning of the universe, nature has done the number of experiments that the LHC will do during its entire life (twenty years or so) times a million billion billion times. Furthermore, the total number of collisions of cosmic rays with distant stars every second is 10 billion times greater than the total number of LHC experiments in all the lifetime of the machine.
Of all the disaster scenarios examined by Brookhaven and CERN scientists, the creation of a black hole that swallows the Earth whole has received the most media attention. Both teams ruled out the danger. To create a normal black hole a particle accessor would have to compress a truly incredible number of particles into such a tiny volume that gravity would cause the ball of matter to collapse in on itself. This multiple act is so far beyond the capabilities of any known accessor - and any accessor in the foreseeable future - that the two teams did not set aside much time to test this scenario.
The denial of the scenario was based on the assumption that Einstein had the last word on gravity, but this is probably unlikely. Some new theories describe a nature with hidden dimensions that are folded into dimensions so small that we cannot see them. So far there is no evidence that we live in a world with more than four dimensions - three spatial dimensions and the dimension of time - but if additional dimensions do exist, it must be assumed that microscopic black holes could have been created very easily in modern particle detectors.
And again, the scientists considered and concluded that there is no reason to fear even if microscopic black holes ever form within reach. In 1975, Cambridge cosmologist Stephen Hawking showed that black holes emit radiation. The smaller they are, the more radiation they lose. According to theories that include additional dimensions, all the black holes that will be created at the LHC will be cosmic dwarfs, whose width is a millionth of a billionth of a millimeter. At this size, they will be tiny dots that emit tremendous radiation - a billion times higher than the radiation in the center of the Sun. But fortunately they will lose heat so quickly that they will evaporate and disappear in the blink of an eye.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
- CERN tour notes, part 21: Prof. Elam Gross: The discovery of the Higgs is the beginning of the new science of the XNUMXst century
- Prof. Higgs in response to the question of the science website: I believe that when the accelerator returns to activity there will be interesting discoveries
- Stephen Hawking: It would have been better if the Higgs particle had not been discovered (update)
- Prof. Elam Gross, center of the Higgs Atlas Group: "You can remove the term "like" from the particle, and be sure that it is a Higgs boson"
194 תגובות
Very interesting and well written article.
"I think you don't understand, or don't want to understand"
You just forgot to add "trying not to understand" to join the site's education committee, all the pedagogues and moral preachers whose concern is psychology and not technology..
I actually believe that I understand very well, but as I have already said, I do not have the energy to start repeating all the discussions and reasonings.
Ruth, the end.
Israel
The law of conservation of momentum is not logically binding. I think you don't understand, or don't want to understand, what "logically bound" is.
As long as this is the case, there is really no point in the discussion.
As in Galileo's proof, you don't need physics, only logic.
The law of conservation of momentum must exist even without a mechanism that causes it like the Higgs, otherwise we will encounter serious problems, one of which is that without the Higgs there are no bodies and no mass at all, while the Higgs particle itself has a high mass.
But I don't have the strength to repeat the whole discussion again. Ili Paat - by.
Israel
You wrote "My claim is that even without a mechanism such as the Higgs, objects must resist the application of a force in direct proportion to the amount of mass".
The claim is unclear. You say that there is another mechanism that gives mass to the particles, but you also say that there is no such mechanism.
Your paradox is not a paradox. Maybe you mean "I don't think so"?
Decide - do the particles have mass or no mass? Leave the mechanism. Do you mean they have no gravitational mass but have persistence?
It's really hard for me to understand what you're trying to say.
By the way, Mr. Shapira, if you have already mentioned persistence... then it is worth mentioning your persistence here on the site. Whatever you do - strive. They will probably invent a prize for it. In any case, much respect.
Israel Shapira
What does 'why' mean? Don't you know there is a parallel location information leak into our universe? Come on, you're out of date. I asked the boss. You are not up to date on matters, honey. Go back to the drawing board. ?
"I thought you were saying that it contradicted Galileo's proof."
Where did I say such a thing?
Discussion summary:
The article deals with the Higgs particle, which is "what gives mass to things" as the article says.
Mass in the sense of resistance to the application of force.
My claim is that even without a mechanism such as the Higgs, objects must resist the application of a force in direct proportion to the amount of mass - matter - in them. Otherwise we will get paradoxical results, you throw a stone and the Milky Way you are part of is pushed in the opposite direction at enormous speed because the laws of conservation of momentum that determine the ratio of recoil in relation to the amount of mass (matter) found in the bodies being pushed are not relevant without the Higgs particles.
To avoid this paradox, we have no choice but to assume that the laws of conservation of momentum exist even without a mechanism, otherwise in any elastic collision the bodies will recoil at the speed of light regardless of their mass, i.e. there will be no bodies (which, by the way, is the assumption in the article we brought).
But if this assumption is correct, then it is not enough that we have a big bang without an explanation why, but that a fraction of a second after it the Higgs bosons were also created without an explanation why.
Maybe the boss can explain why.
Israel
I didn't understand where the problem was. It is clear that the sun exerts more force on the earth than the feather.
I thought you were saying it contradicted Galileo's proof.
Indeed, this is the solution to the question of how it is possible that if you put the sun separately on the tower and the feather separately then they will hit the country at different speeds, but both together at a higher speed. You didn't answer this question so I found it necessary..
Israel
If you have nothing to say then...
Not really..
When the feather is alone without the sun it will slowly fall towards the earth.
When it is together with the sun, then the earth is the one that falls fast in their direction.
The feather says to the sun: sun sun, look how much gravity we produce!
According to Newton, the sun will never fall on Earth in free fall
The sun has a much greater mass than the earth, therefore the earth is considered a point mass compared to the sun, in the interaction between them the earth will fall to the sun, and the sun will have a tiny fall
Very very towards the country
Israel
The Earth exerts a force on the Sun and the plume that is proportional to their mass. Therefore, both will accelerate equally.
The second law…
"This does not contradict Galileo's proof."
Of course not - the proof is logical and not related to physics..
But it's a bit surprising, isn't it? Take a tower higher than the earth and drop a feather from it, then drop a sun from it, and the speed of the sun's impact is higher.
Drop them both and it's the same.
how?
Israel
The sun falls faster than the feather. And both together fall even faster. And it does not contradict Galileo's proof.
Israel
I can't discuss things I don't understand.
I have to think about Galileo's problem 🙂
What are you right about? I didn't see that they wrote anything about a charged body in a gravitational field..
Regarding the escape velocity: you need to add m+ next to the big M so that the formula is accurate.
Falling bodies: If you drop the sun and a feather from a high tower in the country together, they will hit the country at the exact same moment.
How can it be?
Israel
I didn't find an explanation either. But, it is far beyond my understanding - so I guess they are right
Michael
Light indeed behaves like particles, but this does not necessarily turn the photon into a particle.
Each photon has properties of both a particle and a wave.
The last missing brick in the building of life? the last??? Isn't it a bit pretentious to write that?
What about graviton? Don't even know how to start looking for him
This result answers our question. A moving observer will not detect any radiation from a uniformly accelerated
charge. The moving observer can receive signals only from regions I and IV. The field emitted by the accelerated
charge does not reach region IV, and in region I, it is interpreted by the moving observer as a static field.
In short - if you accelerate with the charger you will not measure radiation.
But I didn't see an answer to the second question in the paradox:
Moreover, if the equivalence principle is assumed to be valid, we would
conclude that a charged particle at rest on a table should radiate, because for free-falling inertial observers the particle
is accelerating
Israel
I don't understand either... but I think the authors of the article do.
These observations are enough to solve the paradoxes posed
by the three questions
Event horizon?
Translate and explain, I don't know what the answer is.
Israel
The answer is in the article I linked to.
A large electric charge is said to be on a compressed neutron star with a gravity of 1000g at rest relative to the background radiation.
According to general relativity, the charge is actually at a huge acceleration (1000g) and is supposed to move vigorously even though Newton would claim that it is at rest.
So if the generalization is correct and the charge is radiating - what is the problem with discovering the same radiation?
And if the same charge falls in free fall towards the same star as your electron, then won't it desperately radiate, contrary to the general rule that it is actually at rest?
Israel
All that matters is the movement of the charges relative to the gauge. If you rotate the load, and the Earth is also in accelerated motion - then I don't know how to answer...
I also don't know what the effect of a gravity field is in this situation.
This is clear, but what if the table is at rest relative to the earth?
Israel
Tie the drawer with a string and spin at high speed. You will receive cyclotron radiation.
how?
Israel
"Do not understand. Is it possible to tell with a radiometer if there is a rubbed lump of amber inside the desk drawer if you can't see it?"
Yes you can.
we
Am I annoyed? You must? Or about someone? never..
Ofek Arauet.. Ehud's argument..
Do not understand. Is it possible to tell with a radiation meter if there is a rubbed lump of amber inside the desk drawer if you can't see it?
It's not easy here either, today I almost wore a jacket.
for miracles and Israel,
I found the requested Feynman quote. Starting from page 15 (one paragraph before the end):
It is very important to know" that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves."
He repeats the point several more times in this chapter and throughout the book
Israel
The link is to solve the paradox of radiation from a body in free fall. I just started reading it…. In the meantime, I am clearing snow 60 cm deep...
What is? What does it have to do with relationships?
Israel
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0506049%E2%80%8E
Will you tell me what you are trying to prove?
"If you rest relative to the amber - you will not measure any radiation."
And if I move relative to him? Yes I will measure?
And what am I going to do anyway, after all you wrote earlier "I don't think the amber will radiate at all".
I don't understand Alek..
"Galileo's logic is valid and assumes that there is no attraction between the two falling bodies and themselves. If you put a feather near the moon and let them both fall to the earth, then the feather will fall more slowly.'
Negative. Both will fall at the same speed. The proof as mentioned is logical and does not involve weights.
Look at the escape formula. The only thing that appears in it is the mass of the body from which they escape.
So who is running away from whom? Does the formula need to be updated?
Israel
If you rest relative to amber - you will not measure any radiation.
This doesn't mean anything about the generality - it means that maybe, maybe, maybe you don't understand when a charge is radiating.
Galileo's logic is valid assuming that there is no attraction between the two falling bodies and themselves. If you put a feather near the moon and let them both fall to earth, then the feather will fall more slowly.
I have no idea what you want to say about the escape formula
In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body
You can't ignore the word massive.
A rubbed block of amber is an electric charge. According to general relativity, when it is standing on the table at rest then it is actually accelerating, and therefore should emit detectable radiation.
Add to that the electron that radiates in free fall when, according to the general theory, it is not in acceleration - so what does this mean about the general theory?
Galileo's logical proof shows that all bodies will fall to earth at the same speed regardless of their mass - but it is clear that a compressed neutron star that weighs as much as the sun will hit it faster than a feather falling from the same height - so what happened to logic?
According to the law of the escape formula, the escape velocity of that compressed neutron star is 11.2 km per second, but it has no possibility of escaping the earth at less than the much higher escape velocity of the sun.
Was the law to laugh?
Israel
I don't think the amber will radiate at all.
Galileo's logical proof shows that the formula for the velocity of fall does not depend on mass. What does she show beyond that?
The escape formula is based on Newton's equations. What are you trying to prove?
What about Galileo's logical proof that all bodies fall to earth at the same speed, the sun sure falls faster, doesn't it?
And what about the escape formula, a body with the weight of the sun would surely require an escape velocity higher than 11.2 km/s, wouldn't it?
Why do you think that if you put a block of rubbed amber on the table in the living room, it will radiate and you can pick up the radiation with a radiation meter, no matter how fast you move relative to it?
Israel
Your radio has a very large bandwidth, relative to the Doppler phenomenon.
A bat changes its transmission frequency in real time so that the received frequency is constant.
My radio receives all the stations whether it is moving or at rest relative to the transmitter..
Israel
"I mentioned that a radiation meter measures absolute radiation" - didn't they tell you that you were wrong? Too bad….
The cosmic microwave background radiation is an emission of uniform, black body thermal energy coming from all parts of the sky. The radiation is isotropic to roughly one part in 100,000: the root mean square variations are only 18 µK,[8] after subtracting out a dipole anisotropy from the Doppler shift of the background radiation. The latter is caused by the peculiar velocity of the Earth relative to the moving cosmic rest frame as our planet moves at some 371 km/s towards the constellation Leo
The whole idea of the principle of equivalence is that when you are in free fall you are in the middle at rest. Remember Einstein's "happy thought" that led to the general?
The answers I received were along the lines of "a body in free fall radiates only in relation to the system that is in motion relative to it" but when I pointed out that a radiation meter measures absolute radiation and it does not matter if it is in motion or at rest relative to the source, the responses ran out.
Israel
I agree with you that it's weird. Let's look at two electrons. The first falls freely and the second is accelerated in an electric field.
From the outside - it looks the same, so it makes sense that there would be radiation.
From the electron - is there a difference? That is - can the electron know what accelerates it? I think not…
Israel Shapira
I don't understand why you are upset. On the contrary, you should be happy that you're learning new things... oh well
The question you asked me was actually a question I asked you and you avoided it beautifully. Like a duck on the range.
As you were told earlier: the preferred system could be the cosmic radiation.
But, that's the way it is, if you ask me I would assume a more primordial system... But never mind, I don't understand anything about it. Good day and good luck.
So Newton was right.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52764/falling-electron
Vicky
In general relativity, an object in free fall is subject to no force
So what makes an electron vibrate if no force acts on it?
Israel
As far as I know - an electron falls from radiation. The radiation slows down, slightly, the rate of fall.
Israel
And by the way - not all the mass comes from Higgs particles.
And on the other hand - you don't need mass to have gravity.
The word mass has several meanings.
Inertial mass - the ability to resist the application of force.
Gravitational mass - the ability to pull and be pulled.
All the experiments that have been done so far show that there is no difference between the effect of mass on the phenomena, that is, if a mass shows a certain resistance to force and exerts a certain gravitational force, then a double amount of the same mass will exert a double force on both phenomena.
But note that the mass exists even without the symptoms associated with it. A platinum block also exists without a graviton that produces gravity or a Higgs that produces inertia for the block.
Note also that the principle of equivalence in relations is derived from the apparent identity between gravitation and inertia. According to Einstein, there is no way to know if the force acting on you is gravity or inertia, so there are comparisons between the Higgs and the graviton.
I still don't understand the issue of an electric charge falling in free fall. If it accelerates as Newton claims, it should emit electromagnetic radiation. If it does not accelerate as Einstein claims, then it should radiate when it is placed on the table at rest, where it does not accelerate according to Newton but does according to Einstein.
All the questions I asked on the subject were answered in Irfol, apparently no one really knows. Albenzo said at the time that the principle of equivalence is not comprehensive, but did not provide an explanation or link.
The best thing is to do an experiment, let's wait for some time..
Israel
Reporter:
"But what makes the ball resist you if it is heavy, i.e. its mass is high?
The standard model says: the Higgs field. Without it the ball could weigh a million tons and still your kick would send it to Andromeda.
But note: the mass of the ball exists even without the Higgs field. What he gives it is the second meaning of the word mass, namely the ability to resist the application of force."
I don't understand what the first meaning is. gravitation?
Let's say you step out of your spaceship and watch football. If you kick it, there's a chance you'll score a goal, but there's also a chance you'll break your leg if it's made of platinum unbeknownst to you.
But what makes the ball resist you if it is heavy, i.e. its mass is high?
The standard model says: the Higgs field. Without it the ball could weigh a million tons and still your kick would send it to Andromeda.
But note: the mass of the ball exists even without the Higgs field. What he gives it is the second meaning of the word mass, namely the ability to resist the application of force.
If instead of a ball there is plywood with an area of a square meter that weighs a gram, your kick will send it to Mars because it hardly opposes you.
But if you kick that plywood in the sea, the kick will send you to the hospital with a broken leg.
But what opposes you is not the plywood or its mass, but the ocean is what gives the plywood the ability to resist, i.e. mass.
And this is what the Higgs Ocean does: it gives bodies the ability to resist the force, which is one of the properties of mass.
Israel
Earlier you talked about physics until 1870. Now Higgs...
Your question was "Would mass exist without the Higgs?", and you claimed yes. Claim that motion is a logical necessity.
Maybe ask one question that can be understood?
As I recall, the discussion and article is about the Higgs..
The word mass in the context of the article means resistance to force, but mass also exists in its own right.
A sail exists even without its resistance to the wind.
Israel
I say without mass there is no phantom. I don't know if mass requires Higgs.
Let's see if we agree on the differences of opinion between us:
Me: The phantom exists even without the Higgs. The Higgs field gives the phantom its resistance to the force.
Miracles: without the Higgs there is simply no phantom.
getting?
Israel
I think so. This follows from Newton's laws. You will place 0 mass - you will get 0 momentum and 0 force.
Even with the knowledge of 1870?
Israel
All your fiscal examples are correct. But I think these are red herrings.
Your claim is:
"It is said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the Earth and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision vibrate?
This means: inertia is logically required, even without a particle that "gives mass to things."
And I answer - if there is no mass then there are no elastic collisions. The reason is that without mass there is no momentum, therefore there is no law of conservation of momentum. And if there is no mass - then there are no forces. So there are no conflicts.
"You are right that there is no difference. This does not make what you say true.'
Maybe on the philosophical level, in the physical space rather yes.
"Who said the heavy bodies fall faster?"
Let a feather and a barrel free fall to the earth from a distance of 150 million kilometers and they will hit it at the same speed and take the same time.
Let the sun fall from the same distance and it will hit the land at a much higher speed, and in much less time.
"What about the escape formula, it only includes the land mass and not the fleeing mass, so how does that work out?"
It's working out nicely.'
From Wiki:
Escape velocity is the minimum velocity required for a body to break free from a gravitational field of a celestial gram. The speed is a function of the mass of the celestial gram from which one is trying to escape and does not depend on the mass of the escaping body.
Mmmm... and what if the body fleeing the Earth is a compressed neutron star that has melted like the mass of the Sun?
Israel
"Galileo, Newton, Einstein, they all think there is no preferred frame of reference.."
Right.
"And if the conservation of momentum is due to the Nether theorem, then surely it has nothing to do with Higgs, but only symmetry, right?"
Right
"And symmetry is related to logic, isn't it?"
Not true. Symmetry is logical, but not a logical necessity.
"Send the sentences above to a forensic linguistics laboratory and compare it to what Sahabak claims, you will see that there is no difference."
You are right there is no difference. That doesn't make what you say true.
"And regarding the bodies - the livers fall faster to the earth because what about the falling body is the sun? Who falls for whom then?"
Who said that heavy bodies fall faster?
But how does this stack up with Galileo's logical proof? And what about the escape formula, it only includes the land mass and not the fleeing mass, so how does that work out?"
It works out nicely
Galileo, Newton, Einstein, they all think there is no preferred frame of reference.
And if the conservation of momentum comes from the nether theorem, then surely it has nothing to do with Higgs, but only symmetry, right?
And symmetry is related to logic, isn't it?
Send the above sentences to a forensic linguistics laboratory and compare it to what Sahabak claims, you will see that there is no difference.
And regarding the bodies - the livers fall faster to the ground because what about the falling body is the sun? Who falls for whom then?
But how does this stack up with Galileo's logical proof? And what about the escape formula, it only includes the land mass and not the fleeing mass, so how does that work out?
Israel
Why is the electron mass 0.511 million electron-volts? We don't know - but as far as we know, it is not logically required.
The same goes for a preferred frame of reference.
I agree with you that it makes more sense to not have a preferred frame of reference, and that then the conservation of momentum comes from Neter's theorem. But it is not logically required.
If there is a preferred rest system then there is no symmetry between it and other systems, and symmetry was our basic premise.
It's quite clear by the way that Aristotle was wrong, it's a shame to waste time on it. But what about what I asked - who was right about gravity, Aristotle or Galileo? Do heavy bodies fall faster?
Israel
Aristotle thought the Earth was the preferred system. If he were alive today, he might say that the cosmic background radiation is the preferred system.
So what is the preferred system? And why exactly this one and not another?
By miracles, your Aristotle also thought that heavy bodies fall faster than light ones. Galileo proved no, and his proof is... logical! Does not require any physics.
So just to change direction - who was right, Aristotle or Galileo?
Israel
Yes, it requires a preferred reference system. So what?
Arrested... relative to what?
Doesn't this require some preferred reference system relative to which the bodies move?
This is certainly not what Galileo Newton and Mach claim.
we
Come on, you explain why if the Higgs gives bodies mass then how is its own mass so high? Who gives it to him?
First move Elek.. Full gas in neutral.
Israel
No. Persistence is not logically bound.
Aristotle was not stupid, and he thought that if no forces are applied to bodies then they stop.
The Higgs particle and the Higgs field were created to explain why bodies resist acceleration, i.e. why inertia exists.
You can call it "why there is mass" but if you read you will see that this is exactly what I said and hence the term Higgs Ocean.
The question of why inertia exists and what causes it is an age-old question, so I will repeat what I asked many comments ago: Do you see that according to the knowledge of 150 years ago, inertia is logically required even without any mechanism whatsoever?
Answer only with terms of 1870 and below.
On second thought, and there were second thoughts here (I saw), so I say one more thing, go Israel Shapira: think about this - as in the previous example -
that the 'first gear' (the treasure within it is enormous power) never goes down to neutral, but is constantly divided into smaller and more powerful gears (in terms of the power they treasure)...
Israel Shapira
Misha and Grisha from your barn would probably tell you: cow cow...
What you say sounds to me like: first gear in the vehicle's transmission does not have to exist and is not even necessary because there are gears number 2,3,4 and they function properly...
Maybe the problem is with me, but that's how I understand what you're saying..
Your exercise may be correct in some cases, but from what I understand - these things have no meaning in relation to Higgs.
If I understood correctly then, the Higgs field is a force field and the Higgs boson is the carrier of the force that, in interaction with other particles, transfers to them a dose of energy - and it is the 'mass'.
Israel
Regarding collisions. What you said is not true. There is a continuum between perfectly plastic collision and perfectly elastic collision.
The difference is what part of the kinetic energy is converted to heat. In completely plastic - everything is converted to heat, in elastic - nothing.
A "penetrating" collision is not something I know of, but probably not related to the matter.
So - I understand that we are talking about perfectly elastic collisions. The behavior of the bodies after the collision depends on two laws of conservation - energy and momentum.
Now - no mass, no momentum and no kinetic energy (at normal speeds).
And more interesting - there are no powers. Therefore the trajectories of the bodies will not change from the "collision".
I'm ignoring that a massless particle must be moving at the speed of light right now. And also from the fact that the particles will not become a body.
Israel
You wrote "It is said that there is no Higgs and that bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the earth vibrate and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision?
This means: inertia is logically required, even without a particle that "gives mass to things."
From this I understood that your claim is that there is persistence even when there is no mass.
So - why do you now claim that the subject is the Higgs mass?
I don't know what happens to the comments, my father.
"We weren't talking about the Higgs - we were talking about a mechanism that produces mass."
The title of the article is: "The divine particle - the Higgs boson and the greatest hunt in science" and my original question that started the discussion was: "It is said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the earth recoil and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision?"
So how come "we didn't talk about the Higgs"?
Elastic collision. There are three types of collisions: plastic (the bodies stick), penetration, and elastic (the bodies recoil).
I've been thinking a bit about your argument "haven't we learned that taking the most likely assumption can be wrong?"
So besides entropy and calculus (division by 0?) what about the theory of relativity? After all, it is built on the assumption that if it takes a light beam time 2t to get from the source to the mirror and back then it will only take time t to reach the mirror.
How do we know this is true? Maybe the beam moves fast on the way to the mirror and slowly on the way back?
I demand that they immediately stop teaching relativity in all schools! It is built only on the most likely assumption and not on facts!
Israel
We weren't talking about the Higgs - we were talking about a mechanism that produces mass.
What is an elastic collision for you?
Ok, so let's show me why mathematically entropy should increase with time. I will be the miracles that will prove to you that she is not.
And yet, the second law of thermodynamics is considered the most fundamental of the laws of physics and one of the most useful, even though at the time Poincare mirrored Boltzmann's life with his miracle arguments until he committed suicide.
But you can actually harness your non-automatic for positive needs: let's say that in elastic collisions the speed ratio is preserved, let's say that for some unknown reason every body does not have an accurate computer and speedometer that knows how to give the body half the speed it had before - do you accept that in such a miraculous case the laws of conservation of momentum are required And this without a mechanism such as the Higgs?
Note that in the example of the closed box I brought, this is the only possible mathematical - logical - option, and this without mass, momentum and energy calculations.
Israel
Sorry, it took me a while to understand... your mistakes are marginal details..
apologetic!!
Israel
Haven't we learned that taking the most likely assumption can be wrong?
And you make it even worse - you say "This is the most likely assumption, therefore there is a logical necessity!"
And finally - when I say "no", you decide it's automatic and without thinking.
Try to remember that if you want the discussion to have a purpose, then your automatic "no" to every idea certainly does not promote it.
Take for example your last claim: in elastic collisions the final velocities of the colliding balls are halved.
It is indeed symmetrical and without contradiction, but why exactly half? Why not a third or an eighth?
And even when you are shown that in such a system the speeds aim for zero, you continue "but they don't reach it..
It's just the method of exhaustion of an incorrigible genius who never tries to see the main point but will deal with marginal details. Why don't the speeds go to infinity instead of zero? Is there a contradiction in this?
Why wouldn't the entropy in a closed system decrease instead of increase? Is there a contradiction in this?
If you want to have a discussion, try to see the bottom line, the whole, and not just the quibbles of the grammaticality of the gibberish.
And the bottom line here is quite clear: if you take the most reasonable assumption, that is, in elastic collisions the velocities are conserved as you agreed before you started philosophizing, then in the example of the box I brought the only mathematical possibility to keep the system in equilibrium is to apply the laws of conservation of momentum, and this without assuming any mechanism that causes inertia Like the Higgs.
Let's start: why should the system be in equilibrium? Does it also work with red and purple balls? What if the box is a little flat..
Israel
This discussion has gone off the rails.
So they won't stop but will gradually decrease to speeds aiming for 0? Why? Does that seem logical to you?
Try to see once what is reasonable, not only what there is no contradiction. I just hope you don't play poker, otherwise you will always think that if you have a full ace then someone else must have a four of a kind..
Mr. Judge Mr. Judge..
Israel
According to what I described - the bullets will slow down but never stop.
Think of a closed box where balls move in all directions, but for simplicity we will take those that move in one dimension only.
The balls collide with each other and the sides of the box.
It is said that at time 0 all the balls are at 0 speed relative to the box and there are tensioned springs connected to the box that can repel the balls.
At moment t all the springs are released and the balls start moving.
My claim: if in collisions between the balls and the box and between themselves the recoil ratio will not be exactly according to the laws of momentum and the laws of symmetry and consistency are preserved, then either the speeds of the balls will gradually decrease until they reach 0, or they will increase to infinity, or the box itself will start moving quickly in a certain direction.
Israel
Changing direction tires the balls. Each change of direction of 180 degrees reduces the speed by half.
Note that if it is 50, then if he meets an identical ball moving in front of him also at 50 they will now drop to 25, then to 12.5 until finally they stop..
Do the math and you'll see that only the results consistent with the law of conservation of momentum hold for any cluster of balls you take.
Symmetrical, but not logical.
Why 50? Why not 150? or 67.96? or 0?
Israel
Two balls move towards each other at 100 knots.
After the collision, they move away at 50 knots, in opposite directions.
"The logic is that you defined that the collisions are elastic"
Could you give a theoretical example of a collision in which the bodies recoil and the results are not the same as the results of an elastic collision, yet symmetry and logic are preserved?
Israel
The logic is that you defined that the collisions are elastic - and from this it follows, from the definition of "elastic collision" that the kinetic energy is conserved.
And if we add to this the law of conservation of momentum - then we will get the tuning that we love so much.
"Note that you are assuming Newton's laws and conservation laws here. There is nothing here that obligates the results beyond these laws.'
Mmmm... I thought we agreed "and all of this is for symmetry and logic considerations only, regardless of the Higgs or any other mechanism that causes the conservation of momentum."
Israel
I have no argument about Newton's laws. Just note that you assume Newton's laws and conservation laws here. There is nothing here that obligates the results beyond these laws.
Wow, we agreed..
And now make the same calculation when on one of the sides, no matter which, instead of one body there are two identical bodies, but on the other side only one body.
Also try this with 10, 1000, or whatever you choose and it doesn't matter which side and how many bodies on each side.
What velocities would you get on each side, and how are they different from the velocities you would get using a normal calculation of momentum and energy?
Israel
For symmetry reasons, yes.
For reasons of logic - note that you have defined a completely elastic collision. The meaning - no loss of kinetic energy. The law of conservation of momentum always holds, so they will move away at an equal speed, which is also equal to the speed before the collision.
We will not go up, so if protons have no mass without the Higgs and they move at the speed of light then in which direction? And what happens when they collide, they are now moving at the speed of light in the opposite direction?
Boris and Yip say pizdamt.
Try to answer the question for miracles in the previous answer, it is based on symmetry and logic only.
In the barn of Yafim Boris and Grisha there is no antimatter, no virtual particles, no negative mass, and cows do not pass each other without touching even one mo.
Let's see if we are in sync on the base:
Do you accept that if two identical bodies collide in a completely elastic collision then they will recoil in the same ratio, i.e. if the speed of both is the same but opposite in direction relative to a certain point, then after the collision the velocities of each body relative to that point will remain the same only the directions will be reversed, and all this for symmetry considerations And logic only, regardless of the Higgs or any other mechanism that causes the conservation of momentum?
Israel
I don't understand what bothers you.
For Newton - a massless particle always has 0 momentum. If such a particle collides with a body with mass, the collision will not affect the body, because of the law of conservation of momentum, right?
Anti-elk matter.. tell that to Newton Maxwell and Mach..
It seems to me that if we have reached a situation where we are talking about what at least I have no knowledge of (and it seems to me that I am not the only one..) then the discussion has been summed up.
Israel
They will move in the direction in which their creation preserves the law of conservation of momentum.
In this world there are no phantoms... If you say that all the particles will become massless, then again - the law of conservation of momentum will determine the direction of movement of the particles.
But - for that the MiG-26 will be composed of antimatter, right?
"massless particles must move at the speed of light".
Which direction?
We are not talking about objects that do not contain matter but about phantoms and migs.. Will they also suddenly start moving at the speed of light? where?
Israel
"If you claim that without the Higgs there are no objects, explain why or provide a link."
I claim that without mass there are no objects.
Massless particles must travel at the speed of light
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
No force can be applied to these particles, so they cannot become bodies.
I have been saying the same thing for many comments already….
Here's what I'm asking (in my first comment):
It has been said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the Earth and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision vibrate?
It seems to me that you are confusing a body or object (phantom, mig, ball) and mass (the body's resistance to force).
If you claim that without the Higgs there are no objects, explain why or provide a link.
Israel
I have no idea what you are asking. Until now - did I say something wrong?
So what?
Higgs.
Israel
Bodies do not penetrate each other due to electron repulsion.
Let's make sure we are in sync on what a "body" is and what a "mass" is.
A sail is a body. A sail also opposes the movement of air or water. The resistance of the sail to the application of a force on it is equal to the resistance of a mass to the application of a force on it.
But the sail is not "mass" (although it has a small mass). A block of platinum is a body with a large mass, but it also exists without its mass property, and its gravitational mass varies from place to place.
It is the Higgs field that opposes the passage of bodies through it, just as the air or water through which a sail passes are the ones that oppose its movement. But the sail or the platinum or the phantom or the mig exist as a body even without the fields that resist movement through them.
Your comment about the photon has been released. There, too, it is not stated that the photon is only a particle and not a wave, but only that all the calculations can be calculated in QED if one only considers the properties of the particle in it, but that does not mean that it is not a "globe".
It is also possible to calculate all the features of the fields from the assumption that the boss is Chinese, but today it is already known that he is not Chinese but a Negro. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmCA3qQkqso
Israel Shapira
You are difficult to understand and hopeless, old man...
"If it were not for the existence of this field, electrons and quarks would be massless, similar to photons, the particles of light, and just like them, and according to the predictions of Einstein's theory, they would move through space at the speed of light, without the possibility of being trapped inside atoms or molecules. In such a case, nothing of what we know would exist."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-nobel-explenation-1810134
Think of it (Higgs), as a transmission system (gear) in a car: the Higgs is the first gear in the process (of the formation of the universe as we know it).
Israel
"If not, then what is your claim, that without the Higgs there are no bodies like the Phantom Mig or a rubber ball?
Or maybe there are such bodies, but they pass inside each other without having any effect?"
My claim has nothing to do with Higgs. I say that if particles have no mass, then there are no bodies. And - such particles will pass through each other without any effect (this is a logical necessity).
I have no idea if it is possible to produce mass without Higgs particles.
Israel
No - I do not accept that in our world persistence is logically required. Lack of persistence does not create a logical contradiction. Aristotle thought that this is how the world works, a body that has no forces on it will stop.
We didn't talk about the Higgs, I understand. We talked about what would happen if the particles had no mass.
I will repeat what I wrote:
"I'm talking about what we see around us, that if a Phantom hits a MiG-26 then at least one of them disintegrates and they don't penetrate each other without leaving a mark, and that if a rubber bullet hits the country then either it penetrates, or it sticks or it is repelled.
So in this unimaginative world do you accept that inertia is logically required and if bodies collide in an elastic collision they will recoil according to the laws of conservation of momentum even without the Higgs or any other mechanism?'
Accept or not?
And if not, then what is your claim, that without the Higgs there are no bodies like the Phantom Mig or a rubber ball?
Or maybe there are such bodies but they pass inside each other without affecting?
Israel
At Newton's - yes.
With Einstein, the formula is different, and a particle can have momentum even though it has no mass.
In the case of a photon - momentum is equal to energy divided by speed. There are no other massless free particles.
We know from experiments that photons have momentum, and if they have mass then it is very, very low.
"Without mass - there is momentum"
Isn't momentum times mass with speed?
Have fun
I see elastic collisions around me all the time, maybe you know something I don't..
can you share
Israel
"So if elastic collisions maintain the law of conservation of momentum even without the Higgs - then why do we need it?"
There is no point in me responding if you are not going to address my comments.
Without mass - there is both momentum and the law of conservation of momentum. But, there are no elastic collisions.
Miracles
So if elastic collisions maintain the law of conservation of momentum even without the Higgs - then why do we need it?
Webster
So there is no such thing as proportional to speed squared? And what do your links contribute to the topic of discussion (Higgs).
By the way from Webster's dictionary:
Proportion - ratio
Proportional – having a constant ratio
#Just saying
Miracles
So if the elastic collisions fulfill the law of conservation of momentum in any case - why do we need the Higgs?
Shoshi
What is your reference supposed to update on the Higgs subject?
sleeve,
search in Google:
Relativistic momentum
Momentum of photons
Energy momentum relation t
Israel
"Why philosophy? Don't you see bodies colliding elastically around you?"
Views.
"In those cases where there are elastic collisions, can the colliding bodies repel other than according to the law of conservation of momentum? Maybe according to electric charge, volume or acidity as Shushi suggested?"
An elastic collision, like any collision, obeys the law of conservation of momentum. This is what you call a "logical proof of the law of conservation of momentum"??
Now - Shushi is right. The recoil is due to electrical forces. If there is no mass, then there is no charge, and if there is no charge there are no electric forces. And if there are no electric forces - there is no recoil.
If instead of 20 tons a Phantom weighs 0.0000000000000 femtograms, and the same as the MiG-26, then they will pass through each other. And see it's a miracle - there is no violation of the principle of conservation of momentum, or any other law.
This is my response and I decide on the mig numbers. So it happens to be a double mig..
Why philosophy? Don't you see around you bodies that collide elastically?
So try to curb your creative imagination and answer: in those cases where there are elastic collisions, can the colliding bodies repel other than according to the law of conservation of momentum? Maybe according to electric charge, volume or acidity as Shushi suggested?
Israel
And no - persistence is not logically required. In any case, you didn't show it.
Israel
When you assume what you're trying to prove, it succeeds.
"And if bodies collide, an elastic collision" - an elastic collision... Isn't that what you're trying to prove? Conservation of energy and conservation of momentum??
What I wrote is what physics says: a massless particle must move at the speed of light, and it will not be affected in any way by any other particle.
And the numbers of Migs are odd 🙂
Very creative and maybe even true, but my poor knowledge is not enough to answer a meaningful answer.. I believe yours too, everyone's too.
I'm talking about what we see around us, that if a Phantom hits a MiG-26 then at least one of them disintegrates and they don't penetrate each other without leaving a mark, and that if a rubber bullet hits Israel then it either penetrates, or it sticks or it is repelled.
So in this unimaginative world you accept that inertia is logically required and if bodies collide in an elastic collision they will recoil according to the laws of conservation of momentum even without the Higgs or any other mechanism?
Israel
Not related to Higgs per se. I think that if particles have no mass then there really won't be bodies. The particles will move through space at the speed of light, without being trapped and without colliding with each other.
Are you claiming that without the Higgs there would be no bodies? Or yes there will be but they will just pass through each other.
Israel
The principle of conservation of momentum is not a logical necessity. It arises from the symmetry of the position in space.
I say there is no repulsion between massless bodies. The reason is that there are no forces between the bodies.
Miracles
I didn't understand, you claim that the conservation of momentum is true, but inertia is not required?
Shushu
Kinetic energy is indeed not proportional to speed, but it is definitely proportional to it, except that the proportion is not linear but square.
Yes, bring a link.
Israel
No one is saying that the law of conservation of momentum does not hold.
The law you claim is "logically binding" is incorrect. Just wrong.
Hint: Kinetic energy proportional to mass and velocity squared (you forgot squared, not bad) is also wrong.
Need a link?
Shoshi
First step - consistency. The same action will give the same result if it is repeated under the same conditions. This is what physics is built on, even the chaotic, but not the random. getting?
Second step - do you accept the law of conservation of energy?
Step three - do you accept that there is kinetic energy proportional to mass and speed?
And hence if you have received all of the above - do you see that the law of conservation of momentum, proportional to mass and speed, is binding?
One moment Israel, you wrote: "But my point is that inertia is logically required, even before all modern physics."
When you write that, I assume you don't mean that m*v is logically bound.. It's just a number 🙂 You probably mean that the momentum conservation formula is the one that is logically bound.
If so, then the debate about whether it is logically required was unnecessary.. The classic formula is wrong. Just not true! Do you need a link?
Israel
I don't understand why you think there would be any reluctance at all - if there is no mass?
Particles do not repel unless there is a repulsive force between them. And as far as I understand - if there is no mass then there is no charge either.
kid
Ynet writes a lot of nonsense. The power of the accelerator is negligible compared to the power of cosmic particles that hit the earth.
By the way, I'm not just saying about blades... check it out
Israel,
Why would the recoil ratio depend only on the ratio between the masses? Bodies have other properties. Maybe it will depend on the volume of the body, after all the buoyancy of the body depends on its volume. Maybe it will depend on the electric charger. Maybe with the rotation speed (borrow blades from a 6-year-old child and check).
In conclusion, the recoil ratio can depend on all kinds of properties, empirically it depends on one property and you can only find it out if you carefully measure mass, speed, friction, etc. But if you don't know this in advance, you must check all kinds of possibilities.
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5362084,00.html
This is how the earth will be destroyed
About quarks and mozarons: a British astrophysicist warns - a catastrophe in a particle accelerator could create a black hole or turn the earth into a ball with a diameter of 100 meters
Waiting for who, Godot? to Christ?
Shoshi
If two colliding masses repel each other not according to the laws of conservation of momentum, then there are two possibilities, I believe: either the repulsion ratio is consistent, that is, if they repel for example according to a ratio of the square of the ratio of the masses or any other ratio, then this ratio will remain the same in every repulsion Same or not.
If the answer is no, then we've got a system where the velocity ratio of the recoiling masses is random, get it?
Israel I assumed. Only that the point was not understood is an understatement. The term logically bound was not understood..
Israel
am waiting…
Israel
I understand that evidence must be brought as in a court of law. So here it is - and don't laugh at the last one...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43992/is-wave-particle-duality-considered-a-valid-interpretation-of-the-behavior-of-ph
In particular "Effectively the wave-particle duality is an obsolete concept that had its origin in a technological limitation. Everything around us can be explained using the quantum theory of particles"
http://statintquant.net/siq/siqse3.html#x42-60003
In particular "The definite answer to this question may be found in the results of modern experiments: Wave-like behavior occurs only as a consequence of the collective behavior of a large number of elementary particles and has never been observed by looking at individual events."
https://puredhamma.net/quantum-mechanics-buddhism-buddha-dhamma/quantum-mechanics-a-new-interpretation/photons-are-particles-not-waves/
I asked you not to laugh!!! You wanted quotes - you got...
Ok, my point is incorrect and without the Higgs mechanism or some other mechanism there would be no inertia... Schwinn.
The reason you can't provide a link to the fact that a photon is just a particle is because it is not true, and if it is true then what is written in the wiki and in the books and what is taught in the university is not true. They claim that a photon is dual, both a wave and a particle.
Even if the phenomena of light can be explained using the assumption that a photon is only a particle, this does not mean that this is the case or that Feynman claims it. All the results of the civil war can be explained by assuming that the bullets of the guns they used were made of a certain metallic alloy, but that does not mean that this is what happened in reality.
Israel
You failed to pass a point because it is probably incorrect.
And you didn't answer me about the light because I didn't bring a link...
got it.
The discussion about the photon is secondary, the fact that you can't find a link to the fact that a photon is only a particle shows that it is probably not true and your understanding of Feynman is wrong.
On the subject of inertia, I am trying to convey the point that regardless of the standard model and modern physics, inertia is logically required even without a mechanism like the Higgs. If the point hasn't been understood by now then let's leave it at that.
Israel
You asked - "Which phenomenon of light cannot be described with the approach of particles and amplitudes?"
you did not answer.
You wrote "And if there are no forces, then how does the earth or the moon even exist? What does each of them hold as one unit?"
What does this sentence have to do with the discussion?
Instead of addressing what I write, you throw out irrelevant sentences. If there is no mass then what makes you think the earth and moon exist?
If you don't want to have a discussion, then don't. All in all, I tried to understand what you were saying.
Miracles
Apparently there is no link to the fact that a photon is just a particle for the simple reason that it is not true..
And if there are no forces, then how does the earth or the moon even exist? What does each of them hold as one unit?
And to you and Shushi:
If two masses that collide in an elastic collision do not repel each other proportionally to the mass as the law of conservation of momentum says, then in another collision between them will the results be the same or will we get different results each time?
Israel, I'm not. How can one move forward from the answer to the question "It is said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the earth recoil and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision?"
Let's say the answer to your question is 1 in 100 billion. So what does this prove? And let's assume that the answer to your question is: "They will not hesitate at all, but will pass through each other". Does this prove anything else?
If you mean that this answer proves that inertia is "logically bound" then explain why the Higgs particle is not "logically bound" based on the elementary particles they discovered earlier.
Israel
And I will answer for the last time - they will pass through each other (in my understanding, of course). The reason is that there are no powers between them.
And regarding the photon - what phenomenon of light cannot be described with the approach of particles and amplitudes?
Do you still claim that a photon is only a particle and not a wave? So bring a link. The quote you brought from Feynman says the opposite.
Let's try one last time to get a simple answer to a simple question:
"It is said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the Earth and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision vibrate?"
Israel
Replace the word "electron" with "photon" - the sentence will not be correct?
Massless "bodies" cannot collide elastically. They will pass through each other. I don't understand what bothers you about that.
To remind you - what causes recoil is electrical forces, not the mass of the particles.
Miracles
In case you haven't noticed, everything you brought is talking about electrons and I'm talking about photons..
And to you and Shushi from my first post:
"It is said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the Earth and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision vibrate?"
Answer it, we can move forward.
Israel
Feynman writes:
We conclude the following: The electrons arrive in lumps, like particles, and the probability of arrival of these lumps is distributed like the distribution of intensity of a wave. It is in this sense that an electron behaves "sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave."
of: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html
Israel
You have not explained why persistence is logically required. And you ignored everything I write, which explains why I think differently.
Israel
Is it not true that Feynman claims that all the properties of light can be explained by "connecting the arrows" that he describes? Isn't that all the book says?
Maybe I'm wrong, but he doesn't talk about wavelengths and frequencies...
Israel Shapira
From what I understand, if it weren't for the Higgs the particles wouldn't have been created as they are in the first place.
Israel, I didn't understand. What do you mean by the term logically bound?
I think you mean that based on our observations of elastic collisions then inertia is logically required. So what.. According to our observations of particle accelerators, the Higgs particle is also logically bound. In fact, they predicted that such a particle existed before actually discovering it.
If anything, the status of the Higgs particle and its fellow elementary particles is more fundamental than the status of inertia and Newton's laws, etc. Because all the interactions you describe - elastic collisions, etc. - can be explained by an interaction between many elementary particles. But not the other way around - what you see in a particle accelerator cannot be explained by inertia or Newton's laws.
"Why is inertia a logical imperative?"
If she doesn't make a logical commitment - then what will happen to Israel if you shoot her with a Toto gun? Will she accelerate to the speed of sound? the light? the bull?
Why is inertia a logical imperative? If I live in a closed room and there are no 2 bodies in it that can collide, neither plastically nor elastically, why should I assume that this is logically required?
In every university course, in almost every book and article, it is said that a photon is both a particle and a wave due to duality.
You claim that Feynman claims otherwise and with all your diligence sends me to find where?
By the way, all the properties of light and all the properties of matter and all the properties of properties can be explained on the assumption that there is a boss. So this is proof that there is a boss?
Of course I read the book, I was particularly interested in the part where Feynman says that quantum particles have the amplitude to move even faster than light, and that the electron on its short journey from the cathode to the anode also visits Andromeda.. (this is Brian Greene).
Isn't an electron very fast?
"You said that persistence is a logical necessity - I don't understand why."
Gravitation is not logically required, and there is no reason why the moon should not be a meter away from the earth without attraction between them. That is why mechanisms were proposed - space-time curvature, graviton, Lasage, a simple universe, and more.
But as I mentioned, if there is no inertia, then in what ratio will two colliding bodies recoil in an elastic collision, one of which contains 10 bodies identical to the other body?
So what do you need the Higgs boson for?
Remember that about two months ago I brought you the long correspondence I had on the Higgs subject with a professor from the University of San Diego? It begins with his words: "You found a mistake in my analogy! (to the sea opposing the ship).
The interesting thing is that if inertia is logically bound and gravitation is derived from inertia as Dennis Scheima showed, then maybe gravity is also logically bound?
Israel
Feynman explains that all the properties of light - reflection, diffraction, diffraction, refraction and so on - can be explained by assuming that a photon is a particle.
He pretty much emphasizes the issue. Are you sure you read the book???
We didn't talk about Higgs. You said that persistence is a logical necessity - I don't understand why.
"Then read the book - Feynman explains Feynman better than I do."
I read a long time ago, but where does Feynman explain that a photon is only a particle and not a wave? I'm not sure that Feynman explains this but...
About the _____ and the wonders...
And you and us:
And if there was no Higgs then the bodies had no mass?
The opening paragraph of this article:
A chapter from a new book by Ian Semple, the Guardian's science correspondent. From English: Atalia Zilber
In the early sixties of the 20th century, three groups of physicists, each working separately, in different countries, encountered an idea that would completely change the science of physics and ignite the imagination of scientists for decades to come. The idea was to find what was later called the Higgs boson - that is, to finally understand what gives mass to things, the last missing brick in the building of life.
Now, after almost fifty years, this particle has been discovered at the massive CERN particle accelerator, and the implications of the discovery are enormous.
Israel
So read the book - Feynman explains Feynman better than I can.
I didn't understand what was wrong about collisions between massless bodies.
And I didn't understand how Newton proved logically that there must be persistence. Is there a logical contradiction in Aristotle's physics?
Israel
So read the book - it explains better than me...
I don't understand why persistence is logically required. Is there a logical contradiction in Aristotle's physics?
And I don't understand where I'm wrong about collisions of massless bodies.
Thank you, that's what I thought too.
Inside a vacuum there are, as already said, quantum fluctuations.
The Higgs field "draws" its energy from the vacuum field...
A question for the smartest student in the class:
Israel Shapira, what is the energy that creates the Higgs field?
Thanks. good days.
Israel,
The description "gives mass to things" is really bad.
1. The Higgs mechanism was not invented to give mass to things. The Higgs mechanism (or Higgs field) was developed to explain the rest mass of elementary particles - within the framework of the standard model. Details in Wikipedia about the "Higgs mechanism"
2. 99% of the mass of the ordinary matter around us does not come from the Higgs mechanism at all. It arises from the binding energy of quarks that are inside the proton or inside the neutron (which energy is equal to the mass). Details in Wikipedia about "the strong force".
In short, the fact that inertia is logically required even without a particle that "gives mass to things" (as mentioned, a really bad description), is nice. But this does not explain the observed properties of elementary particles - this is what the standard mechanism (and in particular the Higgs field) try to explain.
http://cmap.systemsci.org/rid=1QS8HM93L-NRB6N9-1184/QED_The_strange_theory_of_light_and_matt.pdf
Let there be something to do in the traffic.. I told you not to leave LA, you would go to the beach right now.
Recap: Inertia is logically required according to the physics of Newton and Mach.
Israel
If I manage to get home through the snow - I will quote you exactly from the book.
Note - we said that particles have no mass. If so, they move at the speed of light.
They also have no charge, therefore - there is no life on Earth. There are no atoms so there is no chemistry, or biology...nothing. How they said "And let there be light", and that's it...
So what do we have? Two beams of light - and there is no interaction between the beams of light.
“Feynman's QED book. The Wikipedia entry sums up the book."
Where in the book or about does it say that photons are only particles and not waves?
"In the case you described, the situation is similar to that matter is composed of photons. Photons "ignore" each other.'
Are you talking about the case where the moon passes through the earth? It's hard for me to see how he does this without someone in Israel noticing that they passed through him.
If there is no mass, that means that there are only waves and five, we and the environment will be compressed waves without weight and therefore do not mix like photons do not mix. What's more, we will be exposed to additional dimensions, we will be disconnected from the force of gravity but we will remain in place because nothing will push us like photons cannot be pushed, we will be disconnected from the dimension of time so that time will not be relevant and we will probably never die in such a situation, we will not have to breathe.
Israel
Feynman's QED book. The Wikipedia entry summarizes the book.
In the case you described, the situation is similar to that the matter consists of photons. Photons "ignore" each other.
"Your argument is with Feynman, not with me. Everything I said - from his mouth."
Link?
"Yes - if the moon and the earth have no mass then they will pass through each other."
Beautiful, creative, and maybe even true.
But my point is that inertia is logically required, even before all modern physics.
So why did Newton talk about a rotating bucket? And Mach on the Mach principle?
Yes, what is this ״דברים״ you are talking about.. is it a particle within the standard model?
Higgs is part of the standard model, electron is part of the standard model, photon is part of the standard...
Israel
Your argument is with Feynman, not me. Everything I said - from his mouth.
Yes - if the moon and the earth have no mass then they will pass through each other.
Israel Shapira:
If there is no Higgs the bodies have no mass. And if the grandmother has wheels then the rest is known... what do you really want to say?
Prove that Higgs exists. So what is your question? I did not understand
Good Day.
"All the properties of light can be explained on the assumption that photons are particles".
A photon has a wavelength - does it also have a particle length?
A photon has a frequency - does a particle have a frequency?
A photon struggles and overtakes like a wave - a particle struggles and overtakes?
Can you provide a link to the fact that a photon is only a particle like the quote I brought from wiki to the fact that it is both?
"Waves are for the weak".
Particles are superficial. The second law states that particles are compressed waves. This can be seen in Compton's equation according to which the ratio between the diameter of the proton and its mass is proportional to Planck's constant and the speed of light.
"I don't understand why you think it makes a difference."
Maybe it's not, but you have to be gifted with a creative and very flexible imagination to say that the moon can pass through the earth without impact, which is implied by your statement "the same rubber ball will pass through the earth"...
Israel
All the properties of light can be explained by assuming that photons are particles.
Waves are for the weak.
200 years ago there were no massless particles, and there was no speed limit.
I don't understand why you think it makes a difference.
Vicki: "A photon, like all other particles, has properties of both a wave and a particle, a phenomenon known as "wave-particle duality".
"That rubber ball will pass through the earth."
Also according to the knowledge of 200 years ago?
Israel
Photons are particles - they are not waves. But that doesn't belong in this discussion.
That rubber ball will pass through the earth.
Photons are also waves, and speed has a direction. Therefore, if a rubber ball hits the country, it can either penetrate it or deflect from it or stick to it.
So what will be the result of the collision?
To see why inertia is logically compelling, ask the same question with the knowledge that existed before modern physics, when Newton Mach and others wrestled with the question of inertia and its relation to distant masses.
Israel
If there is no mass then both move at the speed of light (both the earth and the rubber ball). If there is no mass then there is no charge either, so there can be no collision.
And that's how it really is with photons - they don't collide with each other.
"If a particle has no mass then it must be moving at the speed of light, right?"
indeed.
What will happen in the example I described:
"It is said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the Earth and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision vibrate?"
Note that the inference about mass and inertia here is logical and does not require a field particle or a mechanism - inertia and mass simply must exist.
This leads us to an equally important question: since inertia and gravity are derived from each other, must gravity also exist without any mechanism?
Israel
If a particle does not exist then the standard model is wrong. In this case the mass will probably be obtained from another source.
If a particle has no mass then it must move at the speed of light, right? Otherwise, there are all kinds of problems. For example - its momentum is 0, so it cannot collide elastically (ie - we cannot sense its existence).
gift
What book did you read, and whose book?
It doesn't seem to me that all the researchers at CERN are liars, but, maybe I'm wrong...
It seems to me that the meaning is that if there is no Higgs, the theory that includes it is incorrect.
But that doesn't mean there aren't other theories.
In practice, they did not find the particle. The whole story is a justification of a mistake. The data found does not match the data that should have been.
The best proof that they didn't find the particle is that there is no progress in the theory, there is no further research. There is no new phenomenon that is explained by the theory. Think about the theory of relativity and all its theoretical and practical results.
I read a book called "Amazing, Genius, Absurd" which explains the subject clearly.
for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMC_effect shows that there is a discrepancy between what the theory predicted and what they actually measured. (According to the theory the graph goes up and in practice according to the results it goes down). The Higgs scholars do not bother to explain the contradictions and hide behind complicated calculations. The best method to cover up failure is to give a respectable reward. (catch 22)
This will become clear as more time passes.
I don't understand something about the Higgs particle.
After all, he "gives mass to things" - well and good, but if he didn't exist, would "things" have no mass?
It has been said that there is no Higgs and bodies have no mass - so in what ratio will the Earth and a rubber ball hitting it in an elastic collision vibrate?
This means: inertia is logically required, even without a particle that "gives mass to things".