Says Prof. Eliezer Rabinovitch from the Hebrew University located in Saran in a special interview with the Hidan website. Prof. Yoram Rosen of the Technion: "We have completed the puzzle of the standard model, now we have to go look for the new physics"
"The discovery of the Higgs particle as announced at the event at the Sarn particle accelerator in Geneva is a celebration of the systematic effort that bears fruit in contrast to our culture that devotes superficial effort and teaches that everything is instant."
Says Prof. Eliezer Rabinovitch from the Hebrew University, who is also the chairman of the Committee for High Energies and the most senior Israeli in the Saran particle accelerator, in a special interview with the Hidan website. "This is an example that when a large group of people work for many years, in the end they reach a goal that seems impossible when they start it." he explains. "In order to achieve significant achievements, you need patience, perseverance, curiosity and methodicality and not expect to buy the stock that increases by 200% within a day."
Prof. Rabinovitch was at the accelerator at the meeting where the heads of the Atlas and CMS experiments announced the discovery of the Higgs boson, the particle that gives the universe its mass and that the race for it has been going on for decades."
"The feeling is excitement. Nevertheless, this is a moment when even scientists become human. An effort of decades in the theoretical part and of about twenty or so years experimentally. They set up a technologically exceptional system here. There was cooperation between countries that did not stop despite economic situations that were not ideal, there are 40 different nationalities here."
In the scientific aspect, Prof. Rabinovitch says: "We know what the mass of the particle is. Even if the two attempts don't exactly agree I guess it will be somewhere between 125 and 127GeV. If you divide by 0.9 you will get how many times more than the mass of a proton - 140 times the mass of a proton. It is clear that the particle is a boson, every particle has two properties: mass and spin. A spin can be either full or half. Whole spins have one property and half have another property. The electrons and protons that make us up have half a spin and this particle obviously has a full spin."
Does it behave as the theoretical model predicted?
"There is a lot of evidence, according to what we have seen so far, that the Higgs behaves broadly like the standard Higgs, but if it does, it also behaves in small details. For that we will have to wait a few more months. It is seen decaying into two photons and electrons and tau muons (three very similar particles but differing in weight: the tau is heavy, followed by the muon and the lightest electrons), and all kinds of other particles. But if it is the source of the mass of particles, I hope they will know that later."
There were those who were disappointed because the discovery confirmed the Standard Model. What can you tell them?
"Today it is impossible to say whether it confirms or not. It depends on the details. You can be disappointed because we are looking for something new, we thought about the existence of the Higgs for a long time, so for those who are looking for thrills, of course they hope for the unexpected, but welcome after so many years to the man we more or less thought existed."
As the head of the High Energy Committee, which links the government to the accelerator, we asked Prof. Rabinovitch about Israel's part in the project: "The construction of the accelerator has several components. First you have to build the accelerator itself, Israel's contribution to this stage is zero. The next step is to participate in the construction of the detector - Israel participated in the construction of the detector in a significant way, and a decision was made after many discussions, to concentrate the efforts in one subsystem in one detector - Atlas.
As a result, Israel has a very important contribution in the analysis. The Israeli physicists also have a contribution to the theory of the subject. But we must remember that we make up one percent of the partnership. I estimate that our influence is several times greater, but several times a percent is not much."
In any case, Prof. Rabinovitch says: "It's a day like at the end of the Euros when the whole team hugs together and it's not who gave whom the pass that scored the goal. "
Prof. Yoram Rosen, Technion: The time has come for a new physics
We asked Prof. Yoram Rosen from the Faculty of Physics at the Technion and a member of CERN what prevented the discovery of the Higgs boson until today?
"We have been looking for the Higgs boson for 40 years. Today when we know its mass it is quite clear to us why we did not discover it before. In the beginning we had accelerators with lower energies and there was nothing to talk about. This is the first machine that can easily reach energies where they will be produced in detectable quantities."
"The Tevatron, which works with an energy of a quarter of ours, can produce it and it will be at the edge of production capacity. It will not be produced enough times to discover it. Indeed, from the moment we decided it was only a matter of time until enough data was accumulated. As for its mass, CMS sees it at 125.3 and we at 126.5 it's a small difference when you consider its width. It's OK."
Prof. Rosen is not moved by the question of whether we have reached 5 units of confidence interval (sigma). According to him, this is more of a psychological issue.
"The 4.9 sigma confidence interval is what they saw in CMS, we see a similar number. 5 Sigma is psychology, not physics. If I tell you there is a 90% chance it will rain tomorrow, tell your friends it will rain tomorrow. In our science, 90% is not enough, neither 95% nor 99%. For us it is 99.9995%. People will say it's absurd, it's actually 9.9995 percent, but there is no 99.999 in science. And to decide that it should be 5 and not 4.9 and that's it, it's a psychological decision. Somewhere we have to decide when to settle down and get comfortable. Five Sigma is so deep within the 'OK'. Each of the experiments count (very) close to this number, whether it's 7 or XNUMX doesn't matter. The combination of the two attempts together is of the order of magnitude of XNUMX sigma, nothing to talk about. It's the Higgs."
What are we doing tomorrow morning?
Prof. Rosen: "This is the beginning of the story. We know it exists. This is the only statement we have today. From his features we will learn what needs to be learned. The main work begins now - and that's only when talking about the first puzzle - the standard model of which we found the last part. There is a much more interesting puzzle, the puzzle called new physics - physics beyond the standard model. All those things that we haven't even seen until today and we don't even have a clue what they will be."
"Examples of their names - super symmetric, extra dimensions, these are names of options, not necessarily that one of them will actually be. There is probably something more and he is our real type and it doesn't matter which model he will answer to. The Higgs itself has almost nothing to do with these channels. The new physics is the next puzzle. In the current puzzle we managed to find the missing piece."
Video about the discovery of the Higgs, courtesy of the Weizmann Institute
253 תגובות
So you thought. Happens. If you promise not to do it often, we won't make a big deal out of it
Please Eraf, I thought you said that a particle with mass cannot impart mass to other particles. Aalek circles.
So how suddenly "the answer is yes"?
This is illogical!
Ninety like…
let's leave it
Good morning Israel,
On occasion, please explain what you mean by the word "logical". Until then, I accept your question as follows: "Is it possible for a particle that gives mass to particles to have a much higher mass than those particles?".
To answer it, one must understand the mechanism by which the particle gives mass to the particles. If, for example, a particle has a fixed amount of mass from which it distributes to others, then the answer is yes. But if the modes of operation are different, then there may be other answers accordingly.
You are confusing applied physics and theoretical physics. It is correct to talk about kinetic energy in applied physics, but theoretically you understand yourself that this is a meaningless phrase.
Einstein tried to deal with kinetic energy and radiation, what he got was not something he wanted to be reminded of.
It's not pleasant to come down on you, but you ask questions of 3-year-olds preparing for the XNUMX-unit physics test.
No grown-up likes to return to these realms.
If you think about physical existence, you will see that there is probably an elementary mechanism that is the building block of material existence.
From it to the baryonic substance there is obviously a long way, we, our senses, our ability to measure, are at the top, at the top of the pyramid. What we measure are the phenomena, not the essence of the structure of everything.
We deal with phenomena to develop technologies that will improve our lives. or not.
Knowing how to use a smartphone does not give us any insight into its structure. So too with applied physics.
Yoav
I completely understand your reservation about kinetic energy. After all, in terms of a body in motion, it is at rest at all, because motion is relative to what? So where does kinetic energy come from?
This is not a simple problem. But the very fact that we can calculate the same energy and also convert it into other types of energy - heat, electricity, potential - shows, in my opinion, that it is possible to talk about kinetic energy.
Good night.
Israel, you won!
I raise a white flag
OK. not ice A block of snow, or thick glue that will stop the ball. Can we calculate its temperature rise?
Besides, what about the spring in the question:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-discovery-is-a-celbration-to-hard-work-050712/comment-page-10/#comment-353778
Can't we calculate exactly how much it will shrink just by calculating the kinetic energy of the car?
And I'm sorry if I annoy you.
Israel,
My riddle did not require an answer, but came to show you what your riddles look like. Inertia is true, but from a theoretical point of view, it's an answer that doesn't mean anything, and that's what annoys everyone here.
As for your ice, it will shatter into shards, and the change depends on the size of the shards and the ambient temperature.
As for the boson, he can do anything, after all, he is divine. But I'm satisfied if I can make you puzzle.
Yoav
I believe we will agree to the reason. The inertia of the bag added the virtual 400 grams. No? Is there another answer?
And what about an answer to my question?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-discovery-is-a-celbration-to-hard-work-050712/comment-page-10/#comment-353819
All you have to do is answer yes or no.
Israel,
I thank R. H. Refai.m for helping me with his answer. I guess you're trying to test ideas without risking presenting them explicitly, and expect help from the guys.
I will give you a riddle in your style, and of course I don't expect an answer.
Tanai and his brother Zangati went to the forest to pick blueberries. They collected, collected, until Tanai got tired and picked up the sarita and said, we have more than a kilo. Angular said there might be 800 grams. Tanai grabbed the bag of blueberries and ran towards the house, we'll weigh it on Dad's analytical scales and you'll see that there's over a kilo.
These scales worked from the moment the weight was greater than zero, the weighing took a thousandth of a second and was performed once every 10 seconds. Tanai reached the scales and threw the bag on them: the exact weight showed 1.200 kg. Tanai turned jubilantly to his brother who came panting "over a kilo, over a kilo" he shouted. Angular said, "It's not possible, move and let us see." So he turned his gaze back to the scale display. This time they showed 800.
Tanai, who is a crybaby, that's how Israel made him, started howling "Where is my 400 grams!"
Of course we all know the answer, but if we all also agree on the reason?
jubilee
I will repeat the new riddle (easy grade):
Is it logically possible for a particle that gives mass to particles to have a much higher mass than those particles?
Sorry again * to improve = to improve
jubilee
It's OK. I can't judge you. In my opinion, there were many other things in the puzzle that could have been solved.
jubilee.
Glad you enjoyed the puzzle in retrospect. Here I will simplify to a minimum so as not to annoy.
I also accept that what seems logical is not necessarily so. My reservation is this: how is it possible for a tiny mass, for example a proton, to be equivalent in a collision to a huge mass - for example, the Milky Way.
But apparently that's the way things are. Ehud says that without the Higgs, complex structures like the proton would not exist at all. Too bad he left, I have a million more questions.
Come on, throw in a nice alternative explanation for the essence of inertia. Mine was mentioned in an article in Cosmo.
Well, as my heart is barking, the Jama must have come to poker. Bye.
Leave reason behind. Let me show you something that really doesn't make sense. As "the one who gives head" you are discriminating against me. Doesn't that seem completely unreasonable to you?
I only found the riddle of Israel beautiful in retrospect, after I finally understood it. It's a shame it didn't happen before he volunteered the solution as well. On the other hand, if the main thing wasn't hiding under the pile of literary shatanz, I might have seen the beauty in it even earlier.
*twist = development
jubilee
Thanks again for your reply. I hope my response was not lost, and if so then briefly from the response:
Your model does not match the complex physical reality in which we live, in my opinion. Anyway, good luck in further twisting this model.
Also, I noticed that in retrospect the puzzle looks like a beautiful puzzle to you. And from what I've gotten to know you, you like a lot of imagination and very little logic. Therefore it only makes sense.
We will not argue about the beauty of unity. (And by the way, if you install an electroplastic gear, you can close 500 as well. But that's a joke, don't tell anyone)
And one last question for you for the time being (from the response that may have been lost): Doesn't "a proton that blows the Milky Way to the edge of the universe" seem like a "slightly" senseless sentence to you?
To clarify: by the term "thought experiment" I did not mean the Shatanz cars puzzle, which to me (in retrospect) is a beautiful puzzle.
Israel, I am not so clear about your use of the term "logic". I know it as the collection of the various inflections of the two-place relation NAND ("not-and") or, more simply, of a one-valued relation that appears in the teaching of George Spencer Brown (LAWS OF FORM, highly recommended). You probably mean "amazing" or "wonderful", and give an emotional judgment to natural phenomena.
Emotions have always been my weak point
No problem with the puzzle. According to the data that appears in it, there is only one winner, and that is Susita (her average speed along the journey - about 483 km/h. Those who want can count the others). Anyone who has studied physics knows that problems appear as an idealization - no friction, no heat leakage, etc. This is what I did here, and I also clearly stated.
Whoever thinks otherwise - that is, that the Susita didn't win and the Ferrari didn't come second - let them explain.
jubilee.
You write:
Q: Because if not, it would be possible to shoot an air gun at DHA, and fly it to Andromeda at the speed of light.
A: True. And the opposite is also true. And everything that is right and wrong at the same time.
You may be right, but that's exactly the absurdity I'm talking about: a proton flying the Milky Way to the edge of the universe. Doesn't it seem a bit unreasonable?
Israel, this is not exactly a riddle. I prefer to call it a "thought experiment" (lame)
Q: If it were not for the same mechanism that gives mass to the particles, what would be the final velocities of 2 bodies colliding elastically and recoiling?
A: If there is nothing to give mass then there is no mass and no elastic collision. If you still want to say that the collision is elastic, you will have to give a new definition to this concept.
Q: Doesn't logic require that they recoil according to the ratio of their essays?
A: But there is no mass! From a contradiction you can get everything you want.
Q: Because if not, it would be possible to shoot an air gun at DHA, and fly it to Andromeda at the speed of light.
A: True. And the opposite is also true. And everything that is right and wrong at the same time.
I'm not done being ashamed so I appear here anonymously.
Dark matter generates mass, at least in two familiar aspects of it: gravitation and optical repulsion. We don't (yet) have evidence for its persistence aspect, because we can only measure persistence on bodies we can observe (baryon matter), but a lack of evidence does not rule out existence. My assumption is that the dark matter is in some shows. In one show he is invisible, and in another he builds the bully material. I present the dark matter as being made of two types of particles, and I attribute the difference in the appearances to the quantitative ratio between the particles of the two types. In other words: if we call one of the types "tzapid" (which cannot be invaded) and the other "empty" (which is completely invaded), then the differences in the population density of the "tzapid" particles is the one responsible for the great variation we know in the world of physics.
Yoav,
You got the riddle right. What is "messy" is the wording of the riddle. Perhaps the drafter thought that he would be able to combine - through some semantics/somehow - between classical physics and quantum physics, but it is clear that it will not succeed. And this is what causes everyone to wonder.
The description of the systems in the puzzle is partial, and also detached from reality. This leads to treating the data of the puzzle as meaningless, because any system can be invented and adapted to the data, but then the final result will be different.
For example, if it was a rocket engine style, which of course does not require the vehicle to be in a state of no friction with the ground, and the description of the track system was from reality, then it would be possible to attribute the vehicle's system to a realistic vehicle system, and calculate the movement of the vehicle along the track as it would have happened in reality And it was possible to use the data and get one unequivocal result. for example. (It was also possible to add the lack of friction of the chassis with the ground. Then the results are also different.)
The problem is that the puzzle sometimes referred to both the effect of the engine on the chassis, thus changing the final result. and to the non-effect of the engine on the chassis, which of course has a different result. From time to time the puzzle also presented more data that required changes in the systems which resulted in completely different final results.
But the real difficulty in the puzzle is the request to give one solution to all the different systems in the puzzle.
Therefore I agree with you that the description of things is a mess. But since I don't want to bother Dan Hamitzer (I think he's already retired) with questions about riddles and demand answers from him, I'm glad that you pointed out the problematic nature of that riddle, and allowed me through you to express my opinion, both about that riddle and as a comment to the following riddles Those who want to solve a cool puzzle, and point out for them the problematic nature of formulating systems disconnected from reality that are backed up with half-data. Thank you for your attention. You are of course also welcome to answer back if you wish.
jubilee
Henny, I hope you have already managed to dry off, and come back to us. Although it was expected that you would say what you said, but still, I am satisfied that you are not offended. I really have no such intention.
Well, then, you can move on to the question stage:
You claim that the "mass generating mechanism" is "dark matter" or "dark mass".
Question: How does "dark matter" or "dark mass" "generate mass"? Can you explain that?
Thanks.
Yoav,
I will try one more time.
A rifle bullet that weighs 1000 gram and has a speed of 20 m/s collides in an inelastic collision with a block of ice that weighs XNUMX kg and whose temperature is -XNUMXC. Because of the collision, the temperature of the ice block rises.
I claim that I can calculate the final temperature of the ice block by calculating the kinetic energy of the ball and knowing the specific heat coefficient of the ice.
do you agree with me Yes No.
Thanks.
I claim that mass is the resistance of a body to changing its trajectory, when the claim about a body at rest is true for a limited reference system. The fact that the change has less effect than the relative speed to another body. That's why I call energy speed, because it determines the change in mass, and mass is nothing but a phenomenon of changing the trajectory of a body.
You are talking about a car, and apparently a heavier car has more energy, but if you think of a point body, then the mass of the car is the consideration of all the points that make up the car, the thought of speed will be more acceptable to you. It is clear that the result of a collision of a body with known mass and speed can be calculated, the question is what does this teach us about the mass, and not about the spring. In any case, the energy often appears in a less obvious way than in the case you bring up, also in the name of the differences of opinion, and Boltzmann continues to turn over in his grave, because when the energy appears in the field everything becomes chaotic.
The question is whether Boltzmann was right when he claimed that the field was created by many Israeli cars colliding in a huge chain accident, or is he an elementary entity. And I think you say both and it's just too messy.
Let's see if it works out.
It is said that we weigh the car and find that it weighs 1000 kg.
Measure its speed relative to the ground and find it to be 10 m/s.
The car now collides with a spring attached to a massive wall.
We know the compression coefficient of the spring.
Are you claiming that:
Because the car doesn't have a certain kinetic energy, so we won't be able to know with an accuracy of millimeters how much the spring will shrink?
And if we can - doesn't it require that the car - or the car/wall situation - have a certain quality of which we call "energy", and that this energy has now passed from the car to the spring, which before was slack and is now tense, and that if it is released it will return the energy to the car, That it will return to its previous speed but in the opposite direction?
Israel,
If we accept the assumption behind the statement E=MC2 then all energy is kinetic, I am ready to sign with both hands to such a statement, but then it makes no sense to call a certain situation kinetic energy..
Since the car has an active energy system, it seems that you are projecting on its relative motion as if it has the energy, and also because if the road is the reference system, it changes its place within this system. But what will happen physically when they meet Newton's third law is the whole story.
According to the country's traffic laws, the driver is at fault, but what does the bird care.
jubilee
I don't think the thing with the rope will work after all the weight you've lost.
Shredders: You want to kill yourself, try to land on a Chevy, you missed, you missed, hee ho!
(You will still succeed...)
Good night.
Yoav
Until Yuval finishes hanging himself, let's check your cut in relation to kinetic energy.
In principle you are right. There is only relative motion, not absolute (unless you choose the rest system of cosmic radiation, it is absolute). However, this does not mean that there is no kinetic energy, and I will try to show this using the example you gave with the wall.
Because we can calculate the same kinetic energy, if we know its mass and speed relative to the wall, and if it is massive enough we can also say how much heat energy will be released from the collision or how much a spring will contract that will brake the car. How can we know this if the car does not have a certain and defined kinetic energy?
It is clear, of course, that the energy does not come from the car itself - in fact, as far as the car is concerned, it is at rest - but from the field in which it is located, which is different from the field in which the wall is located. But there is no doubt that what we call kinetic energy exists and is even calculable.
No?
Israel,
I'm going to hang myself. I'll be back when it's dry.
In the meantime, a tip: when you launch a puzzle into the air, please add a difficulty score to it (like the editors of the newspaper Alf Aps do [familiar?])
Israel,
There is no such thing as kinetic energy, there is relative speed and that's it. When a car drives towards a wall, the wall has the same speed relative to the car. Did the fact that the driver went crazy not change the wall in any way, until the moment of the collision of course.
So how can your puzzle be addressed?
The whole matter of potential energy, which you may be referring to in your special way, is also a story full of paradoxes, and it is possible that the riddles have no end, but it is a matter for crossword solvers, which unfortunately I am not one of you.
R. H.,
I have never been so offended in my life.
I'm going to hang myself from the 13th floor.
(Please don't take it to heart. I hope you've already gotten used to people's harsh reaction to your words).
I don't have a problem saying "Ish ma'ain". But it's just boring to repeat the same tautology over and over again.
Peace was a cruel world
🙁
Joseph,
Thank you for stopping by, even though it was short. Next time please let us know in advance so that we have time to prepare coffee and cake
: )
Yoav
I don't understand what you mean. Sharp sharpened riddle. The riddle has a single answer. Is there another option besides the answer I gave? Can there be multiple answers to the puzzle?
In order for you to get to the bottom of my opinion, I will mention that if the route had been shorter, the results would have been different. So it was said that the puzzle had a second step which was: think at what minimum track length would the Ferrari win the competition, or the Formula ahead of the Susita.
Can you give an exact answer without using kinetic energy formulas?
And doesn't kinetic energy depend on who measures it? What would you rather have a car hit you while you are standing still, or while you are traveling at the same speed as it in almost the same direction?
excuse me
I'm withdrawing from this discussion, I'm sorry
Maybe you could refer me to preliminary material on physics first
I took 5 units in high school and I don't remember anything except potential energy =Mgh
Since, apart from Higgs' exercise on the divine boson's power to create asymmetry, no one knows much about it, including Higgs himself, you decided to invent your own Higgs boson, except Yuval, who realized that if Higgs can anyone can and bets on the diabolical Chaikin boson.
Israel, you insist on kinetic energy, and elsewhere you wrote about relative energy, if you try to think simply, and go back a bit to Galileo, to internalize what relative motion and actual motion are, these are obviously things you know, you will not dig yourself endless traps.
After all, what was for Galileo a tragic paradox remains a paradox even now, even after Higgs' sorcerer stories.
jubilee
I understand your problem with the circularity of the Higgs mass - how is it (logically) possible for a particle that gives mass to particles to have mass itself, and so much more.
Your solution - a massless particle. dark mass R.H.'s question - Why is the Higgs mass not the most fundamental, and all other masses are double its mass, as in the case of an electric charge.
So here is another puzzle: is it logically possible for a particle that gives mass to particles to have a much higher mass than those particles?
And my question that has not yet been adequately answered: If it were not for that mechanism - whatever it may be - that gives mass to the particles, what would be the final velocities of 2 bodies colliding elastically and recoiling? Doesn't logic require that they recoil according to the ratio of their essays? Because if not, it would be possible to shoot an air gun at DHA, and fly it to Andromeda at the speed of light.
jubilee
Your private semantic definitions of the Higgs mechanism - that's your problem.
The "mass generator" mechanism is called the "Higgs mechanism" in the language of scientists.
(Please, don't be offended. I hope you've already gotten used to the sharp or overly aggressive way of speaking on my part. I really have no intention of offending you. And I certainly don't intend to ask everyone in what attitude he/she wants me to address him/her.)
If you want to say "yes-mayan" then say "yes-mayan". Why is it so hard for you to speak formally?
Riddle: "Where is the shekel?"
Three soldiers entered the restaurant. They ate and paid ten shekels each - a total of thirty shekels. The waiter gave them back five shekels because "there is a discount for soldiers". The soldiers divided the five shekels among themselves as follows: each took a shekel, and gave the excess shekel to the waiter as a tip. Go out and think: the soldiers paid a total of twenty-seven shekels. The waiter received another two shekels, which brings the total to twenty-nine. But in the first place they paid thirty. Where did the shekel go?
This is in an old unit. There is no obligation to answer. I only bring it up because it occurred to me as a private association from Tanei Riddle.
R. H.,
We call this mechanism the "Higgs mechanism", simply because that's what we're used to. But it is not the boson bearing the same name, the one that has just been discovered, that is responsible for creating the mass, since it itself has mass and we, the scientists, abhor circular definitions. Whether the process that generates the mass is the Higgs mechanism or any other mechanism, its nucleus must be massless.
flowers? Why? who died?
The core of the puzzle is solid and healthy, and I foresee a long life for him. The decorations around him are endearing but confusing and annoying. The impression we got in most of our narrow-minded subjectivity is that you simply enjoy being condescending, and we reacted accordingly.
At first it was quite clear to me that the rocket engine was supposed to be different from the other engines, because these transmit the power through the wheels directly to the ground. But later I thought that the rocket also transfers the power to the ground because it pushes the air system which is connected to the ground indirectly, and that you only bring it to confuse the enemy - us. Therefore I left this line of thought with great frustration.
Do not let your spirit fall, Israel. Your puzzles are beautiful, but you must know how to adapt them to the target audience.
"That inertia is logically required, because of the subject of deterrence", both are obtained from each other by changing the subject of the formula. Inertia and gravitation, as well as optical inertia and at least one other property that I can point to, all owe to one factor, the one that generates the mass. What is it you ask? Well, I believe that it is what we call today "dark matter" or "dark mass". It is itself a massless particle, but the structures created from it have a behavior that manifests itself in all the phenomena we associate with the concept of mass.
jubilee
You are wrong.
It is important to clarify that the Higgs mechanism is responsible for creating mass in other particles (which are not calibration particles), using the Higgs particle. Higgs is a calibration particle (boson). The Higgs mechanism is described - on one foot, and according to the researchers involved and who understand the subject - as a field that 'sucks' virtual particles out of the vacuum, and through the Higgs particle, energy passes from the Higgs field and becomes mass in another particle that is not a calibration particle. (Again, this is on one leg and in a very rough abstraction of things.)
And besides, if there is a mechanism that "generates mass" as you say, what is it? And what about what I said about the fact that inertia is logically required, because of the issue of deterrence?
jubilee
I came out a man - I promised and I kept it.
But robbery and burglary - I didn't get anything other than that.
Because from every direction and past - I was stoned and beaten.
Place flowers on the grave - where my riddle lies.
Israel
A: You came out a man - you promised and you kept it.
B: Higgs also turned out to be a man - his vision came true and the boson was found. But it is not this particle that generates mass, but another particle and another mechanism, and these have not yet been found.
Joseph
I believe what you are actually asking is:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-discovery-is-a-celbration-to-hard-work-050712/comment-page-2/#comment-349216
And the answer given by Ehud is:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-discovery-is-a-celbration-to-hard-work-050712/comment-page-4/#comment-349762
Yoav, Yuval, Yossi, you all start with iodine.
(Oh, me too).
Many people like puzzles. There are whole books of riddles. I thought it would be nice and interesting for the readers, but of course if I had known I would encounter such blatant comments, I wouldn't have bothered to even start.
I tried to build the riddle in the form of a question from the psychometric tests. Hence the Shatanz - a hybrid of ordinary racing cars with foreign engines. The main question, which I repeated several times, is: Does constant power - that is, consumption of a constant amount of energy in a given period of time - give constant acceleration?
The answer is that it depends on the type of drive. In a car with a rocket engine, the answer is yes. In a wheel-driven car - negative.
The reason is the law of conservation of momentum, which is expressed in the concept:
For example: if a person shoots a bullet from a rifle, and the person including the rifle weighs 10,000 times more than the fired bullet, then the speed ratio between the bullet fired forward and the man/gun system being pushed back is also 10,000.
If we consider the energy ratio, it seems that because kinetic energy is proportional to the squared speed, the bullet has a kinetic energy 10,000 times higher than the man/gun system. The small mass takes most of the energy.
Rocket propulsion is like a shooting machine on a platform on wheels: the balls are pushed to one side, the platform to the other. It has nothing to do with DHA, and it would work even without it. Therefore its acceleration is constant.
In a car with drive through wheels, on the other hand, the repulsive systems are the car in one direction and the other in the opposite direction. In this case the car is the small mass, which as mentioned takes most of the energy. However, a problem arose here: if a constant power provided a constant acceleration, we would encounter a contradiction to the law of conservation of energy as I showed in:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-discovery-is-a-celbration-to-hard-work-050712/comment-page-7/#comment-350647
The answer is that the acceleration in this case is inversely proportional to the speed, as can be seen from the applicable formula here: P=FV.
In the case of the rocket (in which the acceleration is constant) there is no contradiction to the law of conservation of energy, if we correctly weigh the energies of the propelled balls and the platform, after weighing the conservation of momentum.
It should be noted that both kinetic energy and momentum are relative concepts, depending on the starting point of the person who measures them.
Hence the momentum puzzle: apparently, there is a contradiction to the law of conservation of energy: we started with a car in motion and a stretched spring, which together contain 100 joules of energy, and ended with a car at rest and a relaxed spring, which contain no more energy. So where did she go?
As Meir said, if we correctly weigh the amount of momentum and energy added to the Earth, it appears that the energy has gone to the ground. (It was invested in real estate, as Father explained to Tanai).
But what does Higgs have to do with it?
The problem I see with the whole Higgs issue is this: it was said that there was no mechanism like the Higgs example, and the particles had no mass. So according to what ratio were they repelled? In the case of the person shooting the ball, what laws would determine what the final velocities of the person and the ball would be? Or the balls and the platform? Or the car and so on?
Or as I asked: what would be the final velocities of a tennis ball hitting the ball without the law of conservation of momentum?
Ehud says (or so I understood): There were simply no particles without the Higgs mechanism, and no masses. This is a mathematically correct answer I suppose, but it still leaves many questions, including that of what the Higgs mass itself is. I wish someone could elaborate.
This.
Thank you, Israel. And now, please, if possible, also an explanation - which includes the specialness of the engine.
"If there was no Higgs mechanism", "and particles had no mass", "if the law of conservation of momentum did not exist": from the context you create, I assume that you accept that the "Higgs mechanism" is responsible for the phenomenon of the persistence of mass. But none of these explain its other phenomena. If you are also preparing to bring these as a puzzle, please try to chew the solution for us (at least for me) a little faster.
Everything ends up in the grandmother's wheels.
Israel, you seem to have a lot going on in your head. It is a blessed thing. But let them calm down first, then you can get them without having to hide behind puzzling puzzles.
First Susita, second Ferrari, third Formula.
If there was no Higgs mechanism and the particles had no mass, according to what speed ratio would they recoil in collisions with each other if the law of conservation of momentum did not exist?
Yossi, I'm sorry. I didn't make myself clear. The things I brought were a direct quote from the words of Israel Shapira. He is the one who brought them to the world and I am still waiting for an explanation from him. Please get a link to the source:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-discovery-is-a-celbration-to-hard-work-050712/comment-page-7/#comment-351345
Yuval before going into professional explanations from Israel
You wrote:
("The reason I brought up the riddle at all is because, in my opinion, it relates to the problem I see in the very idea of the Higgs field: is there even a need for a mechanism to explain the issue of inertia, or is inertia logically required?").
Before I accept explanations, I want to understand the framework of the problem at all
Did you mean that the Higgs is self-sustaining as inertia logically requires?
Given the divine question, who determines the mass of the Higgs particle? Or it is the material of the ancient Juli before the beginnings of every ancestor
that the thought does not grasp him.
Joseph,
I cannot explain this sentence, since I do not understand it. Ask Israel. He is the source.
Israel,
Give the solution to the riddle already, please. And if you can answer Yossi as well, bless you.
jubilee
Could you explain the sentence: Is there even a need for a mechanism to explain the issue of inertia, or is inertia logically required?"). I didn't understand the analogy with the Higgs particle
"Not for every car. This is the point" vs "Does constant engine power in a car give constant acceleration? Is this true for all types of engines? If not, how?"
I don't see any inconsistency in this complex sentence. The first sentence says exactly what the second says.
If you are interested in having a business conversation, let me know. I don't have the patience and strength to conduct a discussion that is "substandard by any standard".
"Not for every car. This is the point" vs "Does constant engine power in a car give constant acceleration? Is this true for all types of engines? If not, how?"
And if my conclusion is wrong and you didn't promise to provide an explanation for the mechanism that creates persistence, then please can I come?
The really wise people (Ehud, Meir) have probably already half-laughingly solved it and moved on, leaving us deaf fools to continue tasting the gifts of your generous hands.
In other words: if it's a puzzle of the "where did the shekel go" type (like the "Tanai" puzzle), then it's substandard by any standard.
jubilee.
Can you show me where I said what you claim I said regarding the types of engines?
And why do you claim "you promised to explain the mechanism that creates persistence"? How did you infer this from the quote above?
Thanks.
Israel,
You are inconsistent: sometimes you say that the type of engine does not matter and sometimes you ask if the type of engine does matter. Nevertheless, with me you are still considered eligible. This is because you promised to explain the mechanism that creates persistence ("The reason I brought up the riddle at all is because, in my opinion, it relates to the problem I see in the very idea of the Higgs field: is there even a need for a mechanism to explain the issue of inertia, or is inertia logically required?").
However, if you intend to explain perseverance through perseverance (and there have been things before) I will issue you with a troublesome judgment.
Yaffe Meir, not only the momentum, but also the kinetic energy as it is measured, and it doesn't matter from which point of view. Tanai can be comforted that his energy was not lost - it was invested. Bandalan.
And who wins the Shatanz race? and why?
The momentum of the car was transferred to the earth (the change in the speed of the car multiplied by its mass is equal to the change in the speed of the earth multiplied by its mass)
Seriously guys, I'm in Palm Springs right now and you're forcing me to write from my iPhone with your complaints. If you want the solution, just say and we will release you.
Eighty submissions.
And maybe he (the name) was offended by things that were said here in the past? I have no idea. And if I have anything to do with it, I will be ready to apologize
Although it is not entirely clear to me what that could be.
Another possibility is that he is busy. At times like this people like him don't give up like us and they are busy with the act. And there are things for which silence is beautiful, and maybe there are things in the body..)
We tired him. Maybe we will pass a petition and ask AB to call him?
And it's a shame that the responsible adult, the only one, left us.
I am the one who gives the head... 8)
R. H., your frustration is your frustration.
Israel is maddened by elephants, Shapira sits a few leagues above us and offers us the water of his feet with a wide bow. It's a matter of character and style. In every kindergarten class you can find the biting child, the arrogant child, etc. We don't lack either. Look at Ehud, look at me, look at yourself... every boy and his style
Israel! You are annoying 🙁 Is it on purpose or did it slip out of your mind?
You agreed to simplify, but then you brought a "helper's puzzle" that only complicates the unfortunate victim on duty. Could you please interpret the following obscure text in simple words and without quoting from "The Weekly Drawing for a Child"?
Little Tanai received a toy car from his father for his second birthday.
The car has a spring, and when it is stretched and released, the car jumps on its way.
Tanei and his father flew above the toy in the family spaceship, while the zatot fills the space with squeals of joy and happiness.
Suddenly the serious man started and asked his father: See father, the mass of the car is 1 kg. Its maximum speed is 10 m/s. Therefore its kinetic energy is 50 joules. She got the kinetic energy from the potential energy in the stretched spring, so the energy of the spring is also 50 joules. Now, when the car is at rest, the spring is stretched, and the spaceship is moving away from the car at a speed of 10 m/s, the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ship is 50 joules and the potential energy of the spring is also 50 joules, for a total of 100 joules. However, after the spring is released and the car travels towards the ship, its velocity is now 0 relative to the ship and therefore its kinetic energy is also 0, and there is no more potential energy in the spring. Thus a precious 100 joules were lost (the potential energy of the spring + the kinetic energy of the car).
Father, shout, move, where is my energy? I want my energy back!
Can you explain to Tanei where the energy went?
jubilee
Successfully!
And don't forget to ask for a receipt for the trophy. ))
almost.
Not for every car. That's the point.
Solve the motion puzzle first. She is half way to the Shatanz Cup.
Except that the kid screams loudly, beats his fists on the ground and howls that 100 joules were stolen from him.
Will you, dear readers, be able to find out where Tanai's joules have gone?
Israel,
Thanks for the abstraction and thanks a lot for the formulas. Now that the picture is clearer, I'll try again.
Since the mass and engine power are constant, then the quotient of the square of the distance divided by the cube of the time (in other words: the product of the speed by the acceleration) is a constant size for every car (reminds something of Kepler's laws, and not by chance). So far so good?
R.H (Refai.M)!
Lately I've been dealing with futuristic thoughts. It is clear to me that humanity is moving towards a new evolutionary incarnation, and the best model I can imagine is the transformation of transformers. You and I will leave the DNA world and together we will build the new world.
jubilee
Don't forget, in today's puzzle, to add a Lorentz transformation to the car. so that you can turn back into robotrik.
Or, I remembered, you asked for formulas.
The relevant formula for puzzle A is P=FV. The power P is equal to the force F times the speed V. (You can omit the cosine, it is equal to 1 in this case).
Since F=MA and according to the puzzle data P and M are constant, we get that the acceleration of the car decreases as its speed increases. Which is true, and can be tested by saying that if we put gas at low speed, we will stick to the car seat, and at high speed we will hardly feel anything.
Regarding riddle B, there is no need for special formulas. The kinetic energy of the car is MV^2/2, and the potential energy of the spring is KX^2/2, but that's not what matters.
The surprising solutions of the 2 puzzles are related to each other, and also to the subject of the article (Higgs).
Why simplify if you can complicate?
Here is the essence of riddle A:
Does constant engine power in a car give constant acceleration? Is this true for all types of engines? If not, how?
Here is the essence of riddle B:
If you move away from a car, then relative to you the car has kinetic energy. If the car now invests energy (of a spring for example), accelerates in your direction and now its speed is 0 relative to you, then it no longer has kinetic energy relative to you, and the spring energy has also gone to waste. So what about the law of conservation of energy? Where did the kinetic energy of the car and the potential energy of the spring go?
Apologies for the disappearance. I'm only here for a second. I don't have time to think.
Israel, somehow everything with you is terribly complicated for me. Family stories mixed with physics and semi-obscure formulas. I'm sorry. you lost me If you could rephrase your puzzle in a simple way that is free of idle talk but contains a full breakdown of conditions (including formulas, if allowed), I'll try to give it more time on my next visit.
See you soon inshallah
Yoav.
Nice, but no. With the baby's momentum, it is not true that "the energy went into changing the momentum of the car". There is a law of conservation of momentum and there is a law of conservation of energy. Energy cannot disappear and be created, whereas in the momentum puzzle we are missing 100 joules.
There is no illusion in the car puzzle either. According to the conditions of the riddle, there is a clear winner, there is a second and there is a third. There is no paradox here. It's all Newtonian physics. There is a connection between the 2 riddles, there is a (quite surprising) answer in both cases, and there is a connection in my opinion to the whole Higgs issue.
And the riddle is not only for the disappearing Jubilee.
Israel, since you are a graduate and one of the starters, it is clear to you that the energy went into changing the momentum of the car, and the connection between the 3 cars is to create the illusion that there is a puzzle. Galileo already noticed the paradox of relative motion. Jubilee moves the flood of light towards the merging of all models, all views, all nationalities and all beliefs into one unified and shining thing.
Then we will all agree with everyone, enjoy our heads in agreement all day long, and there will be no evil and no interest. But maybe Yuval will not succeed... and we will continue to be tormented and tormented people.
Okay, whatever.
But what is the answer to the riddle? who first Watch? Why?
jubilee
Do you understand? He only knows one riddle. And it must include 3 cars. (or 2 and another element).
In one word: inertia
In two words: inertia - what?
jubilee.
There is not much to understand. All the data is in front of you. There is an answer, and it is unequivocal. The answer should be: car A arrived first, car B second, car C third. This.
Hint: the answer would be different if the length of the route was different. Actually there are 3 different answers for different track lengths.
(And it's true, I'm using the Enoch Wasp method here. When in high school we expressed our admiration for one of the gymnasists, he cut short: you have no chance, she has a boyfriend. When we pointed out that a boyfriend is not a wall, he explained: True, but that one is not just a friend, he is a friend's pee . When we demanded clarification, he explained: Well, you know, it's one with hair on his legs. And so, ad infinitum - we were unable to understand from him what is so special about that mythological friend. What's more, we were very impressed by the method of clarification that only confuses.)
So here is another puzzle:
Little Tanai received a toy car from his father for his second birthday. The car has a spring, and when it is stretched and released, the car jumps on its way. Tanai and his father flew above the toy in the family spaceship, while the zatot fills the space with squeals of joy and happiness.
Suddenly the serious man started and asked his father: See father, the mass of the car is 1 kg. Its maximum speed is 10 m/s. Therefore its kinetic energy is 50 joules. She got the kinetic energy from the potential energy in the stretched spring, so the energy of the spring is also 50 joules. Now, when the car is at rest, the spring is stretched, and the spaceship is moving away from the car at a speed of 10 m/s, the kinetic energy of the car relative to the ship is 50 joules and the potential energy of the spring is also 50 joules, for a total of 100 joules. However, after the spring is released and the car travels towards the ship, its velocity is now 0 relative to the ship and therefore its kinetic energy is also 0, and there is no more potential energy in the spring. Thus a precious 100 joules were lost (the potential energy of the spring + the kinetic energy of the car).
Father, shout, move, where is my energy? I want my energy back!
Can you explain to Tanei where the energy went?
Solve it - we will also solve the issue of pollution.
Thank you for your great efforts, Israel
I still haven't figured out your puzzle, so I have no idea how to approach it. It is not clear to me why the Shatanz and why different types of engines. And if all these were nothing but unnecessary embellishments, then I am strengthened in my old opinion that you simply enjoy complicating things in order to twist your captive audience.
Thank you again for your willing attempt to solve the essay question I raised using the theories of relativity. Unfortunately, I cannot accept your solution, since it is simply a shifting of the problem to another place. This is because instead of asking how mass participates in both persistence and gravitation processes, you bring me to ask what causes the equivalence that Einstein found.
As we remember from the dark matter, Idush was also discovered in places where no bodies are visible but there is a gravity that is higher than predicted. That is, something exists in the universe (which due to lack of sufficient knowledge we casually call it "dark matter") which simultaneously creates both gravitation and gravity and it communicates with mass but it turns out that it can also appear without it. I won't dig into it now, but I believe it is the key to solving the problem I raised. I would be very happy if you or anyone who has any interest would pay attention to this point as well. Thanks in advance.
I know what Idush is, but why does Yuval stubbornly continue to claim that this is another discovery of mass properties as in the case of inertia and gravity? Is Idush not obligated as I showed in the example of the falling elevator?
Idush is the coach who steals a ray of light from a bully and attractive body.
Yoav
Sign language is a bit difficult for my tired and old head. Is it possible to translate into Hebrew?
And what is this problem with the recycling that you and Yuval insist on? Can I have a link?
Thanks.
To Israel,
So also want to be enigmatic:
Inertia can exist only because it does not exist, and inertia exists for the same reason that gravity exists but not because of gravity.
Yuval El Talshin.
jubilee
A lot of people I know don't like to be given the solution to the puzzle right away, because they prefer to try to solve it themselves. According to Ehud's Higgs puzzle. To Tommy, I thought it was also applicable to my puzzle. Of course, if you are interested in a solution and there is no objection from anyone, I will be happy to give you the solution. If you prefer, allow a puzzle instead of a solution.
The reason I brought up the riddle at all is because in my opinion it relates to the problem I see in the very idea of the Higgs field: is there even a need for a mechanism to explain the issue of inertia, or is inertia logically required?
Because of the equivalence of inertia and gravity, an answer to this question can also answer the same question that is a recurring motif in your poetry: the explanation for inertia, gravity and displacement.
Hello Israel, remember me? We used to plow this section ☺
You brought us a puzzle about Shatanz cars and shook us up and down the wiki until we had these trips for nothing.
After we messed around with the engines (piston versus turbine) and the gearboxes, she remembers to tell us that the difference between the engines is not relevant. So for what purpose did you even bring us the Satanic description?! After all, a minimal description of the problem would have increased the chance of leaving us attentive to the lesson you tried to convey.
So we have three cars - A, B, C - completing one kilometer, each at its own speed, and the task assigned to us is to calculate any numbers while putting in known formulas (which you didn't bother to provide, at least not at first). It seems to me that you really enjoy trotting the flock of your shepherd.
A continuation will come (perhaps, if you promise to stop acting out [Nah! What are the chances? After all, acting out sits deep in your roots]).
Well done, I need some time off. 🙂
jubilee
waiting
B.
Social justice - this is us.
What do you mean by the way?
Now that you have completed it, maybe you can finally work together for social justice!
I believe that progress in science will not come from huge investments in particle accelerators.
Progress in science will come in combination with the issue of social justice.
The reason:
Many good minds are busy surviving in everyday life.
The people in the weak strata have no less brains than the professors.
There are many people who, if given the opportunity, would become professors and geniuses.
A relatively small investment in these people in order to enable them to learn and progress will yield much better results than a huge investment in facilities such as a particle accelerator.
The best scientific tool is the mind.
jubilee
The problem is this: if constant power gives constant acceleration, what about the law of conservation
The energy?
Let's say that the sausage burns 100 grams of gasoline per minute and turns it into kinetic energy of movement. After the first minute its speed is 100 m/s. What will its speed be after 2 minutes?
If, as you say, the acceleration is constant, then the speed will be 200 m/s. But since the kinetic energy is proportional to the speed squared, what comes out is that we invested twice the energy (of gasoline) and received 4 times the energy (kinetic).
And we - here we come?
: )
As for the plug, I'm not sure... ))
But hello yes.
A handshake and peace?
But no more comments. mutual.
We agreed.
OK. Let's agree that from now on we no longer respond to each other. Ok?
Shapira
You disgrace your name.
Don't contact me anymore, don't you understand?
And ask my father.
And I'm sure he won't block me.
Want to bet?
This time you can see - that I have no influence here. as well as you Only and only Avi Blizovsky will decide whether to block me or not.
And you are also welcome to ask him for it explicitly here and now.
Black on white.
ask him. forward.
I want to know his reasoning (if he even wants to reason) why he blocks/doesn't block me. Or you (because you'll take care of me too... after all... you've developed an obsession, haven't you?)
dear ghost
This is the last time I politely ask you to stop taking care of me.
If you continue, I will ask my father to block you.
Good night.
What happened to Israel?
Was my cap stronger?
Don't cry Israel...
stop whining…
You always act like this when you are put on the spot.
And rightly so, you will be insulted by this!!!!!!
You are an adult!
That's not how grown people behave.
Israel!
A baboon and a chimpanzee….
You know I was born to my parents after,
That you were born to your beastly parents who raised you like that and that kind of loser education must be passed on to your (poor) daughter.
Ghost, you're not awkward.
you are shameful
There must be friction in your world. For example between a baboon and a chimpanzee.
Otherwise, how would you have been born?
Israel
in all seriousness?
I'm embarrassed for you.
Are you serious?
I thought age was taking its toll and you've already matured..
Apparently I was wrong.
All the best.
And another through the back
"In my puzzle by the way, there is no friction." - In your world, it seems, there is no friction..
If there is no friction in your puzzle - then your only way to move the cars is solely if the car is driven with a propeller, or through the thrust of a jet engine.
OK, ghosts.
I understand that in the institution, an integral part of the rehab is to use words that you have no idea what they are. so be it.
I also understand that you are trying your best to break the Olympic record for producing the maximum amount of crap in a given amount of time. Well, that's what I call doubt!
Pee and sleep, snooze.
And yet Israel,
It's still funny when I read 'Determining Your Fact in the Field' the big argument: "At low speed the car accelerates a lot..."
And where does she accelerate a lot, Israel? to the horizon…….
You killed me..
Sorry sorry
I have written:
"Like you usually feel when you land with us with the spaceship".
It should have read: "When you bid us farewell towards Andromeda."
I hope it didn't hurt you..
Israel
you are awkward
"Doesn't the puzzle data speak of the fact that the power is constant and fully transmitted to the wheels wearing the bevel gear?" –
Well, you are right Israel. I did slightly skim over your comments. But it always happens to me when I encounter nonsense in your words.
Right:
You wrote: "... that the supply is fixed and transferred in full..."
And you also wrote about Susita which does not exist in nature.
And you added and hummed about the ha and da of the Newtons.
OK.
Bbbbbssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
We understood you.
She taught physics at Newton.
I'm sorry, I don't have any medals. Since I don't make medals. I can't give you a medal.
I can sew you a flag. Are you interested? If you don't want it, there are addresses of factories that make medals and you can contact them with a request that they make you a special medal that says: Israel Shapira studied Newton's physics.
Leave me at rest, and don't make me crazy about the proton.
And after all this,
you have audacity,
Ask me to explain to you what Higgs is.
Oh and by the way,
If you didn't understand - "and as a result the friction does not increase and the vehicle does not accelerate faster?" - So the same intention only in simple words especially for you:
The more power is transferred from the engine to (of course not 'directly to..') the wheels, the more the torque that is transferred from the wheels to the source of friction *increases. (You will feel it as an acceleration - like you usually feel when you land with us with the spaceship)
* If the source of friction does not rub against the rubber tires of the chassis (let's say the source of friction is ice), the torque (the force that goes from the wheels to MPH) does not increase, and so the acceleration of the chassis does not increase either.
Maybe you want it in really, really simple words:
A car engine - you might be able to understand how it works.
A spaceship engine - you will not succeed. not to build not to engineer. don't understand And I believe you won't even realize it's a spaceship engine even if it falls on your head from the stratosphere.
I got you, ghosts. I accept your words as a Rafaimit translation to: Sorry Israel, I have no green idea what you are talking about, because in fact I have no green idea in physics, Newtonian, Einsteinian, or Gan Yildimit.
I'll give you another chance to improve your poor results in the current nonsense round:
You write: "more power is transmitted to the wheels of the car than in high gear" isn't the puzzle data talking about the fact that the power is constant and fully transmitted to the wheels with the bevel gear?
"And as a result, the friction does not increase and the vehicle does not accelerate faster?" No one but you could have written such a physically meaningless sentence. In my puzzle by the way, there is no friction.
"You think of mass from Newton's laws, a classical concept, and you take the ocean analog too seriously."
You don't need more than Newton's laws to solve my riddle.
So, between us, Rafaiminho, could you tell me and the forum what the doubt is? And what exactly is the Higgs mechanism? And what is the ocean analog? What is meant by the equation P=FV? And why do you take care of people who want some peace?
Well done, Israel!
Besides reciting songs, what else do you know how to do?
The truth is, I was waiting for the cappa, but,... well?.... My neck is getting dry Israel..
"The car puzzle" - allow me to laugh. ))
There is no reason in the world for me to answer such stupid questions.
You are just wasting my time and only to get some information out of me that you can learn from.
So no, Israel!
Do you want us to talk to you like a retarded little child? OK Israel!
I'm not doing your homework for you. Learn by yourself!
LOL
By the way, the world will seem simpler to you, if only you were simple.
Just remember the words of your beloved sensei:
"You're thinking about mass from Newton's laws, a classical view, and you're taking the ocean analog too seriously."
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-discovery-is-a-celbration-to-hard-work-050712/comment-page-3/#comment-349413
The echo, not a witness
Ghosts, with you there is no doubt that all reasoning will not help.
And so, the witness claims, your only solution is to kidnap a little...
And since experience proves that you don't respond to all requests,
So like any other mistake, you should be whipped with...
Answer my car riddle, and give logical reasons.
If not, return to your natural home: the Mossad in Itani.
Israel
Many thanks for the daily joke.
Reporter:
"At low speed, the car accelerates a lot, and as the speed increases, the acceleration decreases." – I understand that mechanics and driving accelerated from you on very quickly?
Or did you mean in low gear (as Yuval tried to explain to you) - more power is transmitted to the wheels of the car than in high gear. And when the car's speed is high, the power of the engine reaches almost a peak (hp) and the value/power of the torque that is transferred from the wheels to the asphalt decreases to a minimum and as a result the friction does not increase and the vehicle does not accelerate faster?
If so, then you are simply a genius!
Listen, you're on the right track to inventing a car. I'm sure it will contribute a lot to humanity, we can finally get rid of the carriages and horse shit on the sidewalks.
jubilee.
"I was hoping you would know." And I did answer you: "What was the Echo's answer to all the requests and demands?"
Do you want me to continue with his answer about what to do when all the reasoning is over?
Cars. You say: "The engine of the fiberglass car does not transmit the power to the vehicle's wheels". So how much does he transfer? And isn't there a contradiction to the law of conservation of energy?
Israel,
I was hoping you would know. It was a long time ago in our country, or maybe something for children (I'm sure not my thimble), when even I was still a dork. It seems to me that it is the parable of Hanania Reichman Zatzukal, but I do not sign it. I only remember one more line at the moment:
"What about the waste"? "Scorn", the echo answers him, "Scorn".
My model starts from absolute "nothing". The road from there to known physics is not short. The impatient commenters asked me to fast forward, but then they didn't understand where all kinds of concepts came from. I realized that with all due respect and good will, comments in their knowledge are not the appropriate stage.
Your puzzle begins to form formulas and concepts. One more little push and maybe we will get the full solution from you in our current lifetime.
Q: Does constant engine power provide constant acceleration?
A: No. The power goes from the engine to the wheels through the gearbox, and these are not fixed. If the dashboard of your car has an engine rev counter and a speedometer (of course) and you use cruise control, you can prove that at a constant acceleration (zero, because it's in cruise control as you remember) the engine rev speed is not constant.
Q: Is the answer correct for all 3 cars?
A: No. The engine of the fiberglass car does not transmit the power to the vehicle's wheels
makes wealth and not in judgment,
"Kikioni" (T) transitory, non-sustainable, short-lived, day-long, temporary, ephemeral, transitory, not permanent, unstable
If you understood something else, please share
To the angry reader
Explain and reason in a minute from you
Not true, expressions like his shame the spirit of the site.
To the reader:
I understand that in your opinion the site is about gagging.
So... not only no, but the opposite, and if anything, expressions like yours shame the spirit of the site.
jubilee
If a = dp/dv , and p is constant, then we got d^2x/dt =C/(dx/dt). isn't that
Do you want me to solve the integral for you? Do you remember what the Echo's answer was to all the requests and demands?
But there is no need. In fact, in this equation in its raw form lies the solution. The main question is: Does constant engine power provide constant acceleration? And is the answer correct for all 3 cars? And if not, how?
You may have brought your model, but you also fired me. Maybe because difficult questions about him made it difficult, I also made it difficult. Want another round, Cizbarandi?
"I also believe that attributing Kikuyan particles to the building blocks of our world is one big joke, and I won't go into too much detail now."
Please stop spreading bullshit in the comment system. You shame the field the site deals with.
Israel the Breaker (the Destroyer? Laaa)
Do you understand why I'm broken? You just like to complicate things and I long for the simplifications ("nonsense", answered the echo, "nonsense").
When you say "acceleration but with acceleration", are you talking about a derivative of acceleration? Answer distance over time in the third?
And I, too, brought my model and brought and brought, until I finally broke.
True Sherlock, this boson did not exist before but was created in an accelerator. The point of Higgs is not its existence or non-existence but the possibility of its existence. In any case, his longevity is one of the bells and whistles.
Please don't misunderstand me. I also believe that attributing Kikuyan particles to the building blocks of our world is one big joke, and I won't go into too much detail now.
To Yuval,
There are patterns to the occurrences of proton collisions, on these patterns Higgs relied, it is clear that with so much power as invested in the accelerator this occurrence had to happen.
But the crucial point is that if the Higgs boson really existed, and was not created at the time of the impact, it must be detected in much weaker accelerators. It was not found, meaning it was created the moment a huge force was applied.
Elementary, dear Watson?
Yoav
The protons being smashed is not exactly like beer bottles being thrown against the wall. These are hybrid beings between protons and energy. Although the beer bottles are also hybrids (for the first time in my life I managed to spell a word with three consecutive Yods), the energy invested in distributing them is infinitely small, and it is not impossible that the quantity determines the quality. So it is clear that you are right in your opinion that the sensors pick up the energy spent in accelerating the protons. On the other hand, in quantum mechanics what interests the experimenters is the unique wavelength. Higgs predicted the existence of a boson whose wavelength is within a certain range, and the community is celebrating this discovery.
And regarding Ehud: although his personal style is somewhat arrogant, but it is a good direction on his part that sometimes he comes down to the people, it's not bad if he also comes down on the people 😀
don't break
The general form of the relationship between power, force, and speed includes cosine. (Obviously, if the direction of the force is towards the ground, the angle between the direction of the force and the direction of movement is 90 degrees and we will not get any acceleration). In this case, the angle is 0, so the cosine is equal to 1 and we get P=FV.
If power is constant, force and acceleration are inversely proportional to speed. We know this from everyday experience: at low speed the car accelerates a lot, and as the speed increases the acceleration decreases. If there was no friction, the car would accelerate forever, but with decreasing acceleration.
Still believe the puzzle is not sophisticated?
Regarding your question about the "mechanism that produces both gravity and persistence" I gave an alternative explanation in the Cosmo article. In fact, this is the same explanation that also explains the constancy of the speed of light in any frame of reference and enables non-locality in quantum entanglement.
But as mentioned, this is alternative physics.
And what is your explanation?
Shapiro, I broke down.
I didn't understand what the cosine was about. Is there some unknown circular movement hidden in your riddle?
Obviously I got the principle of equivalence. I brought up my children in the light (in the mid-1980s on the way down from Jerusalem to Jericho, on the Maale Adumim roundabout, where the escape routes were of no use to many unfortunate drivers). My question is what is the mechanism that produces both gravity and persistence. Since we have already been exposed to Edmund Brechtinger's words, it is clear that from your point of view this Dionchik is closed.
R.H. Rafai.M,
I take disappointments seriously. Please make an effort.
On the other hand, I've already gotten used to not being understood. Please believe me that I meant only good.
jubilee
"It seems to me that the cone in the gearbox is limited in length" so that's it, no. Is it in the data?
It seems to him..
I don't think people go to the grocery store!
"The acceleration of Susita is indeed low, but constant for the entire 50 kilometers." Wait, not that I'm coming to state a position, but you didn't read what Ehud wrote:
"A simple calculation shows that in motion at constant power all the energy is converted
For kinetic energy, the acceleration goes like one of the parts of the instantaneous momentum so that the more the momentum
the larger the vehicle, the smaller the acceleration"
Indeed, if P = Fv cosθ
and the angle is equal to 0
and F=ma
So we get: a = cP/v
Or: the acceleration is equal to the product of a constant by the power divided by the velocity.
According to the puzzle data, the power is constant.
And so proportional acceleration becomes speed, doesn't it?
So how: "The acceleration of the sosita is indeed low but constant"?
And why suddenly "accelerations of its competitors are great in the first seconds but drop to zero"?
??
?
seventy submissions.
"Your explanation of the bending of the light beam, which combines the two theories of relativity, is beautiful and interesting" I didn't explain, I asked a question. Are you not allowed to ask questions on this site anymore? I suggested that if you calculate the point of impact of the light beam inside the elevator, and then try to see the same beam outside the elevator, you will get the principle of equivalence and the subject of purification. One can ask why inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass, but if you have accepted the principle of equivalence, nothing is required.
Or did I not understand this time?
Although the timing of the "discovery" or "finding" of the stupid boson was beautifully planned, at the height of the cucumber season, it turned out that the world was not so incarnated after all, and moved on to the next item.
They did not find anything, but created. After all, if he was there all the time, he should have been revealed by Fermi, after all, he is such a powerful man.
But did you need enormous power and such sensitive means of sensing in order to see the bully of the neighborhood?
But if for a moment you agree to assume that the meeting of atoms at such speed simply releases energy, then you will notice that at CERN you did receive a most spectacular show. Millions of different "elemental particles".
Would a reasonable person, not a genius, not a genius, just reasonable, agree that atoms shatter like beer bottles thrown against a wall?
Isn't the most likely thought the one that says the sensors pick up the energy invested in accelerating the protons?
And you Ehud: please, stop sending people to read your "holy scriptures", you understand a text, every text is not such great wisdom, don't be the messenger of God anymore.
jubilee
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but my imagination is not as developed as you might think.
This is a matter of logic - not imagination.
And I think that "...writing things in public can be an unpleasant experience..." - provided you sit on a hedgehog and pee on the ceiling.
I also think that writing things in public, about physics and especially in such a forum, can bring good results from the point of view of science education - at least from the readers' side.
I don't understand the rest of your words.
Brother ya rab ya rab, you got it right 🙂
I feel that you have a developed creative imagination, and in the field in which we deal, this is an important raw material. "Reality surpasses all imagination" is not just a platitude. When you try to explain the nature of the world from things we already know, you don't come up with anything new and certainly not anything interesting.
You are also absolutely right that writing things in public can be an unpleasant experience, which is why I suggested that you write me privately. I promise not to bite. Maximum just bark a little.
Ach, Ya and Ael Ya and Ael
Let's not pull the atom after the proton..
I didn't really understand what you wrote. I confess.
I tried to understand your last words, and the closest I think I've come (and correct me here if I'm wrong) is that you're simply asking me to write you an idea.
Honestly, I really thought about it not long ago.
I actually have a nice idea about gravity, but, to be honest, I don't really feel like writing here either because I don't think others deserve to enjoy it. After all, they (most) will simply disdain.
That's why I also thought of writing you the theory and then asking you to just let those who understand something get an impression of the theory.
As far as I understand, the reference is not to the people in this forum but more people who are in other forums where you are (if you really are in those other forums).
But I'll think about it some more, in the meantime I'd definitely love to hear your ideas and others here.
sympathetic,
On occasion, when you have time, you are welcome to come up with non-mainstream ideas.
To the volunteers of Am Yisrael Hidad,
Thanks for the quote. He is what I thought.
It seems to me that the cone in the gearbox is limited in length and that's why the two foreign cars reached the limit of their speed before exhausting the first kilometer while the horse still hasn't shown everything she has. That is, the acceleration of the Susita is indeed low but constant throughout the 50 kilometers while the accelerations of its competitors are large in the first seconds but drop to zero. Therefore, Susita will arrive first, the formula second, and I am not ready to deal with the third - because you did not ask about it.
Your explanation of the bending of the light beam, which combines the two theories of relativity, is beautiful and interesting, but since we don't know what causes a mass to create gravitation (and acceleration) anyway, I can't see it as a complete explanation. In any case, you deserve thanks for the effort ♥
R.H. Rafai.M,
I love your memory ♥
In the last links you brought, a very early stage in the construction of my physical worldview is mentioned. I apologize now (perhaps better late than never) for not going into your things in depth then. What I understood is that you started from a certain primitive stage which is not the most primitive possible. I implement the construction of the models into a tree with branching. My model and your model obviously start from the same root, but somehow up the tree each chose a different branch. The reason I didn't delve into your words is that I thought I saw a circular definition there, we mean using the laws of physics to define the laws of physics. This is not wrong, because the mass law of a proton is the same as the mass law of a super-galaxy, but at that point in the discussion I preferred to start from the most basic beginning possible - in a reality where the laws of physics do not yet exist, where mathematics is not even zero and logic is less than "nothing".
Since then I have calmed down a bit. I just went back and looked at your comments, and there is definitely something to talk about. The response from February 12 is full of physics, and I would break it down into many factors. On the other hand, although the response from the 9th also has a certain degree of complexity, it is closer to the ideal I am talking about. You present there the "nothing" as a field that contains additional fields, and by and large this is also what I am saying. I suggest that instead of talking about my model (or in addition to it), we talk about your ideas. I would be happy if you also write me an email:
ivrit.yuval00@googlemail.com
☼
Israel,
Unfortunately I don't have enough time in the near future to answer questions.
jubilee,
I have no intention of being mainstreamed here, for that there are books, please go and read them.
Avi Blizovsky
I hope my response is not waiting in vain. Thank you.
Sorry,
this
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-14/#comment-326884
jubilee
I'm not sure I understood your message correctly, but if so, then we have an agreement on Ehud's level of proficiency in the field of physics. As you must have already noticed, his opinions on the subject of physics are welcomed and understood by me.
And by the way, is there already progress on your part in understanding my words in this response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-14/#comments
and this
https://www.hayadan.org.il/astronomers-reach-new-frontiers-of-dark-matter-130112/comment-page-15/#comment-327140
jubilee
Who volunteered why? What is this here, a volunteer unit? If you don't want me to answer, let me know. It seems to me that the answer I gave you with the elevator nicely explains the issue of light bending.
Regarding your questions, I can quote from the words of
EDMUND BERTSCHINGER
Professor of Physics
Head, Department of Physics. MIT
In a lecture he gave at UCLA on March 8 this year:
SCIENTISTS DO NOT KNOW THE CAUSE OF NATURE'S MOST OBVIOUS FORCE: GRAVITY
And you didn't answer my car questions: Who won? Who is second? Why?
Israel,
Since you volunteered to be here for Ehud, please tell me if you know of a model one which simultaneously explains the following three phenomena:
a) How is attraction created between two massive bodies,
b) What causes the fact that in order to change the movement of a body with mass it is necessary to exert a force,
c) What causes the path of a light beam to bend in the presence of a body with mass
Cars: What else will you ask me to add to what I said ("doubt is not power") and I didn't add? Please give directions.
R.H. Rafai.M,
The reason I specifically turned to Ehud is that he represents some sort of broad, "four-square" consensus (what our Israelis Shafirai call "mainstream"). In my opinion, today's physics does not solve my doubts and a breakthrough is needed. Israel volunteered to answer the questions I put to Ehud, and I respect and cherish his initiative and will probably also learn an important fact or two from him, but he does not represent the official line - and alternative theories abound.
We too.
waiting
Ghosts, if you want to fix the terrible impression you left on everyone and return to the family of enlightened nations, stop with the stupid sophistry and start talking physics instead of trying to prove how smart you are and everyone else is dumb.
Start with the question I asked about the cars. If you manage to answer in physics only without getting into personal intrigues, we can take you seriously. If you answer correctly, you will also be appreciated.
But if you're going to continue to be the winning troll of the site, you'll also continue to be everyone's hater.
You have the choice.
Well, Israel, ask already!
Admittedly, you haven't asked yet, but you only asked permission from Mahud to ask a question, and I'm already starting to laugh.
Please, don't deprive us of this pleasure.
Maybe we can help you.
ask me Maybe the idiot knows.
Ask Yuval, he is not as stupid as he seems to you.
I believe that RH is here and he will be able to help you. Still, he really helped you understand all kinds of things.
Come on Israel, what's the question? And why exactly Ehud?
Thanks. ))
jubilee
Thanks for the referral. Indeed, Kony Gear. My idea is similar, but without a belt.
I think it will be easier to understand "what causes the trajectory of a light beam to bend in the presence of a body with mass" if you answer the following question: if you are in a falling elevator and send a laser beam from one side of the elevator to the other. Where will the beam hit the other side? Will it move in a straight line and hit exactly the same line opposite, or will it hit a little higher, because the elevator is falling with downward acceleration?
Don't forget that for you, the passenger in the elevator, you are at rest at all and you are not at all aware that you are in a gravitational field (even if it is 1000,000g). If you think correctly, you will see that the inertia-gravity equivalence principle is required from this simple example, and that your question about the bending of light is resolved automatically. If you ask, I will explain.
What about my cars? Come on, move on, a lot of gambling money is at stake here. who first Watch? Why.
sympathetic
thanks for the answers. They clarified some things for me that I was not aware of.
If it's not rude and if you have the time and desire, there are a few more questions I'd like to ask (not related to Higgs). Let me know if it's okay.
Coney gear, as far as I know, has several patents registered on it. The Dutch company Duff started with it and now Audi is also experimenting with it. His current main problem, in my opinion, is a lot of wear and tear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variomatic
jubilee
Leave, nonsense…
Ehud, thanks for the investment.
Maybe you didn't understand my question. I am not interested in semantic games.
My question is if you know of a model only Explaining a) how an attraction is created between two massive bodies, b) what causes it that in order to change the movement of a body with mass it is necessary to apply a force, c) what causes the path of a light beam to bend in the presence of a body with mass. Later there will also be d) and e) and maybe more. If you don't know about such a model, please say so simply, in one word if possible. Thanks in advance
☺ R.H. Rafai.M ☼ Thank you for the support 🙂
sympathetic
This might sound a little cheeky to you, but,
There is actually such a thing as "an expression of mass".
In Newton's theory, it is expressed in one way.
In Einstein's theory, it is expressed in a different way.
but it does not matter. You did a good job well done, but there is still room for improvement.
Israel,
If the Higgs mass had been calculated, they would have known exactly where to look for it and would not have argued
A new particle with a mass of about 125GeV was found. The theoretical calculations performed were
Estimates for the Higgs mass based on various barriers and not an exact calculation of the mass.
For example, the fermion masses measured precisely in the experiment are also a barrier to possible masses
Laighs
The coefficient μ that appears in the Laganzian is exactly a mass term, where μ is a parameter in the theory and is not
Calculated theoretically. It is the interaction of the Higgs with itself that enables the breaking of the symmetry
the spontaneous
Again Israel: The Higgs mass is a theoretical parameter determined from experiments and not from theory.
jubilee,
There is no such thing as a manifest essay. Mass is a variable in theory in a certain model found for example
Because it is possible to link the mass variable in the Newtonian equations of motion to the so-called variable
Mass in Newton's equation of motion. The assumption of equivalence between the two is the basis
to general relativity. Mass's expressions are not generated. This is a variable in the model.
A mass in field theory that the article deals with is the amount of energy that must be given
into a vacuum to produce a particle. Since it is possible, within a certain limit, to obtain from field theory the
Newton's laws The concepts of mass in both models converge.
In short there is no such thing as expressions of mass just as there is no such thing as expressions of charge
electric.
Not Eridor - Meridor.
jubilee
The term "horsepower" (not horse power!) originates from French farmers, who estimated the power of the first machines to be equivalent to the horses that worked their fields. Indeed, in the first Chettanz race, France was represented by a de Chaubeau car (in French "two horses", which is roughly the power of the de Chaubeau engine).
You ask: "Do you know of a model that explains how all these expressions of the mass are created?". As far as I know, there is currently no adequate explanation for inertia or gravitation. Newton didn't even try, and Einstein gave a mathematical description but no explanation of how. Regarding Idush, why is it another expression of mass?
By the way, do you know the concept of cone gear? This is a theoretical device that I invented in honor of the riddle, although it seems to me that one can be built in reality, and its theoretical energy efficiency is 100%. An explanation will follow if there is demand.
sympathetic.
You actually explained well, but I wasn't sure I understood correctly. You say: "The Higgs mass is not calculated! It is measured." But to my understanding, the theoretical Higgs mass was calculated long before the Higgs was discovered (if indeed it is), so how could they have measured it first?
By the way, from Wikipedia:
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%99%D7%92%D7%A1
"The Higgs potential contains a term of the form λφ4+μφ2 (where φ is the Higgs field) which includes interactions between the Higgs field and itself". Not that it means anything to me.
Regarding the race - you write "if the solution involves changing the mass of the susita, it is disappointing". I forgot to mention that the fuel the cars use is the well-known Eridor gasoline. One drop of it is enough to drive the car around the world and also light up the whole of Ramat Gan, so the problem does not exist.
The problem exists in the following sentence: "The greater the momentum of the vehicle, the smaller the acceleration." Momentum is relative, acceleration is not. From the point of view of the Ferrari driver, the momentum of the Ferrari is 0, but it is quite high from the point of view of the spectators. So how can we know what the acceleration is? After all, there is no debate between the spectators and the driver about the magnitude of the acceleration, so who do we go by? According to the driver or according to the spectators?
This is the heart of the puzzle. The solution will yield the winner of the competition.
Israel,
What is very confusing is the term "horsepower" which is not a unit of power at all but a unit of power. Doubt is not power.
Another thing is the power transfer mechanism. In a "conventional" car, the power of the engine is translated into the rotations of the wheels, and these operate on the road. The translation of these data into power depends, among other things, on the gears, and even though these are bevel gears that do not lose a single drop of energy, the power they transmit is not constant. In contrast, the Susita engine does not have a gearbox installed, and therefore the power that the engine exerts is constant.
sympathetic,
Mass is expressed not only in a body's resistance to changing its motion ("persistence" or "momentum". Not "acceleration"). We know of at least two more manifestations of mass (gravitation and optical repulsion, and I suspect the existence of several more). Do you know of a model that explains how all these expressions of mass are formed?
Israel,
Unfortunately I did not explain myself well. The Higgs mass is not calculated! It is measured.
The Higgs mass is a parameter in the standard model and the value of the parameter is determined experimentally.
There is no mechanism that gives the Higgs the mass it is just like that as there is no physical reason
Why the magnitude of the speed of light is the way it is, its value is simply measured experimentally.
Regarding collisions, note that this is not a classic phenomenon, you need to know what the potential is
which acts between the particles to determine their final state when they have mass and when they do not
mass. To understand this, it is enough to count degrees of freedom. After the collision there are 6 variables
It is necessary to determine their value: the momentum of the two particles in the different axes, on the other hand
Conservation of momentum and energy that give us only 4 constraints.
Your puzzle seems to me to be more related to the engine that runs the slowest than to the subject
But the article is fine.
I guess because Susita wins in total it is a blue and white product but whatever helps
This is the engine of Apollo 11. It is a stage engine so that at a certain stage parts can fall from it.
If the solution involves changing the mass of the sosita, it is disappointing.
On the other hand, a simple calculation shows that in motion at constant power all the energy is converted
For kinetic energy, the acceleration goes like one of the parts of the instantaneous momentum so that the more the momentum
the larger the vehicle, the smaller the acceleration, and therefore to add mass in the middle of the race
Has a significant effect.
The riddle is indeed sophisticated, and it touches on a fundamental question that every car faces every day: does constant engine power provide constant acceleration?
The answer is surprising.
Israel!
When I said momentum I meant inertia, but I got smarter and made a rare use of standard Hebrew. As usual, they don't understand me. Who am I toiling for!?
To Tomi, I was hoping that your riddle was sophisticated, and the first thing I thought of was the vehicle's mass loss while driving. But if it's just Newtonian mechanics (which maybe becomes Einsteinian at the 21st kilometer [Baruch Jamili Petah Tikva]) then I'm in a permanent mental block.
There are no tricks here. The 1st line is 1 from the beginning and 49 from the end. Not related to the weight of the fuel and the speed of the straights. This is a fundamental problem in energy and momentum.
I fell and also bent over. without resurrection and without straightness. Can I give you a hint?
moment. a question. What is the distance of the 1 km line from the destination point? 1 km or 49 km?
jubilee
Isn't momentum (did you mean acceleration?) equal to gravity? And why do you write Susita and not Susita, obviously it changes all the data of the problem.
Immediately fall to 50 squats.
Why are you waiting, why?! Because I wrote Susita instead of Susita?
Mass manifests itself in at least three different aspects: momentum, gravitation and optical acceleration. The Higgs field only explains the momentum aspect.
Hint:
The mass of the Prairie hardly changed; The mass of the formula decreased slightly because of the gasoline consumption; The mass of the sow has decreased significantly due to the consumption of rocket fuel.
Ehud, if I understood the matter of spontaneous symmetry breaking correctly (I remember something about a pencil that stands on its edge and has an equal chance of falling in any direction even though in practice it falls in one random direction), then the Higgs mass is calculated to match the known masses of the other particles, thus completing the The standard model. I understand it right?
If indeed this is so, then the discovery of the Higgs (if it really is) is truly an amazing achievement. It also nicely explains what gives the Higgs mass and why it is so high. (so that you mathematically combine with the masses of the other particles).
However, this still leaves open the previous question I asked: if, as you say, "the mechanism allows at high energies for all the particles to be massless" then say when the universe was hot enough and there was still no mass for the particles (and it's true, I don't know at what stage the particles got mass), what would the velocities be The finality as a result of collisions of 2 elementary particles? How can we calculate this without the law of conservation of momentum? Or maybe as I read, at an early stage of the universe the laws of physics were not yet defined?
Well, I also have a little puzzle, it seems to me that somehow it is related to the topic.
Only recreational cars are accepted for the prestigious Shatanz car race, whose manufacturers must meet the following conditions:
1. The car should consist of a chassis of an existing car and an engine of another car.
2. The engine power of each car must be constant throughout the race. The meaning is that in any given period of time the car burns the same amount of fuel, or in the case of an electric car the voltage is multiplied by a constant amperage throughout the race.
The race takes place on a straight salt track in Colorado that is 50 km long.
3 cars reached the final stage of the race:
Italy was represented by a Ferrari car with an electric engine and a bevel gear that turns all the engine's power into driving force without wasting energy.
France was represented by a Formula 17 car with a 24-cylinder petrol engine made by Rolls-Royce and a Koni gearbox as mentioned above.
Israel was represented by a Susita Cubia model 65 car with a crushed fiberglass body, and a rocket engine that is a smaller model of the Apollo 11 engine.
Because of the salt track and the high altitude of the Rocky Mountains, there is no form of friction during the race.
The race has started and here are the initial data:
When the Ferrari reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 200 km/h.
When the formula reached the 1 km line, its speed was measured at 190 km/h.
When Susita reached the 1 km line, her speed was measured at 80 km/h.
Who won the race? who is the second Why?
Hint: Pay attention to all the data.
Israel and R.H.,
I apologize, the disappointing answer is that the Higgs mass is not determined by the model
The standard is simply an external parameter measured in an experiment and inserted, manually, into the model.
The interesting question is why the electron mass or the quark mass is not similar
Simply a parameter that is not defined in theory and is determined by experience. The answer is that it is legal
The symmetry we require from the theory (the standard model) is not allowed
externally define the mass of these particles. according to the symmetries of the model
The standard is for the mass of all particles (except the Higgs) to be zero. Technically
It means that it is not possible to write them in the theory of a mass organ. From experience we are
We know that these particles have mass and this is where the ingenious idea of a mechanism comes in
Higgs. The mechanism allows at high energies for all particles to be massless
But when the energies become lower, i.e. the universe cools, the particles gain mass
different from zero via the Higgs field. The essay as it should be understood from the wording
Its in field theory is such that even at zero momentum energy must be provided to produce
particles from the vacuum. The final energy that must be given to produce particles, i.e. the mass
Theirs is due to the fact that the average value of the Higgs field in vacuum is different from zero
In jargon this is called a spontaneous breaking of symmetry.
sympathetic,
If the Higgs is the one that gives the mass to the other particles my logic says that it will have the smallest mass and all the other particles will have a mass in multiples of the Higgs mass. In other words, the Higgs is a quanta of mass in the same way that electric charge is determined by the number of electrons.
Well now give some answers.
Don't worry, a ghost will pass it. This will be the proof that we all really do not understand anything..
Israel
According to the standard model, there is an upper limit to the amount of pee that can be produced...
sympathetic
little Apart from rolling more, I have no clue. I can also ask you. So what is the answer? Or rather, what are the answers?
1. How does the Higgs give mass to particles?
2. What gives the Higgs its mass? How come she is so big?
3. How is the Higgs mass determined in the standard model?
Israel,
In physics we talk about characteristic scales. What determines whether the Higgs will have the mass of a truck or
of neutrinos? Therefore, it is not clear to me how a particle can give itself mass, what determines the characteristic scale?
I will simplify my question instead of asking what mechanism gives the Higgs particle its mass
I will ask how the Higgs mass is determined in the standard model? Hint: the answer is a bit disappointing...
Obsession, eh? You have learned to speak I see.
The only thing you cause everyone here is depression.
And also a little regression.
Pee and sleep, snooze.
Israel
I see you have nothing to worry about but me. :)
You really developed an obsession with me!
If you are already learning to speak, then learn what else they said:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/single-atom-stores-quantum-information/
- There are several others like him.
(And read the whole discussion if you manage to stand after the truth hits you).
Indeed, from M.R.'s words:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/hawking-on-time-travel-0905104/comment-page-3/#comment-269031
May 14, 2010 at 15:01 pm #
Noam:
It's not weird anymore.
All a ghost does here since the day he cursed us is to belittle science and people.
Unfortunately my father didn't block him but I really think you should try to ignore him (apart from some sting here and there).
sympathetic
Your response is rude.
If you haven't figured it out yet: I'm not praising you here. I still think that in (almost) every subject, you are wrong (and sometimes big). Except for your knowledge of physics, no one will buy anything from you. And it has been proven before.
Are you talking about respect?
Maybe you forgot how you treated me and the ideas I raised, in the past. And for this attitude of yours, you received an adequate attitude from me (and sometimes also from Michael Rothschild).
You have nothing to worry about, don't be a snob like you, be sure I will never turn again.
sympathetic
I tried to Google a little, I got something along the lines of:
"The Higgs boson can interact with itself"
In one of the forums:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/31374/how-does-higgs-boson-get-the-rest-mass
There is also some reference to Wikipedia, but I couldn't extract the information I wanted from it.
I will try to recall from memory the explanation I heard at the time from Prof. JAY HAUSAER, who by the way is currently on the LHC "Council of Sages".
Mass is basically resistance to acceleration. The Higgs bosons give the particles mass so that they interact with them when trying to accelerate those particles. To the same extent, when trying to accelerate the Higgs particle, the rest of its fellow Higgs bosons interact with it, making it difficult for it to accelerate. Thus it turns out that what gives the Higgs the mass is also a Higgs (different, but still a Higgs).
On the other hand, it is of course possible that my memory is deceiving me. it was a long time ago.
R.H. - The compliments were sincere. Also the criticism. If you claim that UFOs are the ones who created evolution, you are serious, but you are probably wrong. On the other hand, if you claim that I am actually a UFO, you are none of my business, although you are probably right. Prepare yourself for what every Palestinian knows very well: if you attack Israel in Kassam, they will destroy half of Gaza for you.
Yuval has been resting a bit lately. Too bad, I miss his stylish nonsense.
Israel,
It is not clear to me how a particle gives itself the mass? I would appreciate it if you could elaborate...
R.H.
In my opinion it is meaningful to ask who gives the Higgs particle the exact mass
Just as it makes sense to ask who gives other particles the mass. the other particles
We get the mass from the Higgs field using the Higgs mechanism. Is there a mechanism that gives
to bite his mass? Is such a mechanism necessary? When is the grantor mechanism needed?
An essay for other legislators?
A note about a field theory essay:
The mass in field theory should be learned from the dispersion relation, the curve that describes the
The energy of the particle in relation to its momentum. A particle that has non-zero energy for
A momentum equal to zero is a particle with mass, i.e. the dispersion curve does not begin
From the beginning there is an initial energy margin.
R.H. ghosts,
If you haven't figured it out yet...
Please don't contact me again. You certainly have the audacity to address me after the rude form
And the bluntness you addressed me in the past. I don't want a person who doesn't know how to treat others with respect
nothing to do with him.
sympathetic
Regarding the riddle:
In my response above to RA there is a link to a video that explains what you asked.
If I understood correctly, then the answer is:
As a result of an interaction between the electric field of a certain quark and the magnetic field in which a virtual Higgs boson is found. did I understand correctly?
R.H
Here is a link where (in the second video, below) there is an explanation about the boson and the field:
http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/online/maagarmada/physics/%D7%94%D7%91%D7%95%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%92%D7%A1-%E2%80%93-%D7%90%D7%91%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%9D
R.H. (ghostless)
Is it possible that the Higgs mass is created from particles/energy moving at a speed higher than that of light?
Israel,
Thanks for the compliments. I liked the "business as usual" with the emphasis on the usual 🙂
By the way, what about your friend Yuval? Did the aliens bring him home?
sympathetic,
to your question In my understanding the Higgs is the mass and there is no point in asking who gives the Higgs the mass. It's like asking who gives the light to a photon. Am I right?
Thank you Ehud. You are not insulting. If you say that without the Higgs there would be no complex particles at all, then of course that solves the problem I raised.
And regarding the question you asked at the time:
"A puzzle for respondents
If the Higgs gives the mass to all particles, who gives the Higgs the mass?"
The answer I gave is that the Higgs itself gives the mass to the Higgs. But that's just a vague memory I have of the standard model, and I'm not sure if that's the correct answer. is it true?
Israel,
Let's start from the end. It is not clear to me what is meant by the particle giving the mass to itself, or did I not understand your meaning?
and back to the beginning. Without the Higgs there would be no protons and no complex structures and complex particles. Therefore it is not clear to me what a collision between a thousand photons and one is, what makes the thousand photons into one group? After all, we are dealing with logic.
When there is a collision between particles, to know what the final state will be, you need to know what the coupling potential is between
the particles Bottom line, Israel, your thinking about billiard balls is light years away from modern physics, I don't intend to offend here, just to point out that it is very difficult to explain concepts from one language to another that does not fit the description of the phenomena.
Regarding the evaporation of a spaceship as a result of cosmic radiation, I never thought about the subject and did not do the calculations, but at first glance it seems to me that the flow of lamentation is too small. It is not enough for the radiation to be energetic, it also has to be at a high enough flux to heat something.
Israel
Thanks for the written correction, and of course for making it clear to me that it's not the same person... R. H. and R. H. Roach
By the way... he is definitely a unique phenomenon, so much hatred, pessimism and inferiority complex. and dangers
Ghost.
Choose a new victim. Pee and sleep.
Israel
I know that one person's success brings jealousy to the other.
No need to be offended. And there is no need to recruit others who will be offended together with you so that you don't feel the only offended.
I also have no interest or need to feed you fish every day.
(In a moment you will also ask me to pay your bills, and take my dog and wife out to the mountains, and feed the hungry children of Africa while the one who has to do it sits like Effendi. Yes?)
What's more, not only I (also Ehud, for the time being) teach you how to fish.
Apparently "an old dog can't learn new tricks".
That's your problem.
(Besides, apart from discrediting the nickname I chose, you didn't say anything. You just demonstrated your ignorance, which puts you in the right and appropriate place for you).
serious
No need to take seriously what a ghost says. He is a well-known troll on the site, whose whole purpose is to harass the commenters and try to show how much he knows and is smarter than everyone else. You will never find a factual response from him. If you ask him a question a little beyond writing in popular science books, he will immediately start cursing and insulting. A complete waste of time, unless you use it like I do as a resting target for reaction arrows. Absolute zero.
Do not confuse him with R.H., who is an intelligent and eloquent biologist, who has encyclopedic knowledge of almost every subject, including the Bible and Israeli thought, and his responses are usually factual.
And another little tip: don't write "she didn't understand". The correct Hebrew is "you didn't understand".
Have a good day.
Ehud, thanks for the answer.
Of course I am also referring to the law of conservation of relative momentum energy. My question is mainly logical: if we take elementary particles such as quarks, or rather protons (I assume they can exist even without the Higgs field, correct me if I'm wrong) and let them collide elastically, doesn't logic require that their final velocities be exactly what conservation laws predict The momentum and the energy and that too without a mechanism such as the Higgs? What will be the final velocities of a group that includes 1000 elementary particles with only one particle? Doesn't logic require that the group repel less than the individual particle? And if it is not possible to capture a group, what will be the final velocities of 2 protons for example colliding head-on. Randomness? Everything flies at the speed of light in all directions?
The second question is actually a re-incarnation of a question I asked you before, regarding the ether's preferred relaxation system which the Michelson Morley experiment tried to discover. Because if the Higgs bosons fill the universe, and are what give mass to the particles, and this mass is only expressed in accelerated motion, then there is no preferred resting system for the Higgs "ocean". A body that is at rest relative to the sea will encounter the same resistance to acceleration as a body that is at a speed of 10000 km/s, and this is in contrast to a body that is in a normal ocean, where there is a preferential rest system.
It is clear to me of course that the Higgs field does not create friction or heat with the bodies it comes in contact with, but in this regard I would like you to give your opinion on the answer I received in one of the physics blogs:
Re question 2: Traveling fast will indeed blue shift the CMB and raise it's temperature, and that will heat your ship. In principle if you travel fast enough the blue shifted CMB would vaporize your spaceship.
Is this true? Will a spacecraft moving at a speed of 0.8C for example, heat up due to interaction with the cosmic background radiation?
And one last question: Regarding the question you asked about the Higgs mass itself, is the answer I gave correct? That the Higgs field itself is what gives the Higgs bosons mass? Just want to make sure, so I don't settle for a wrong answer.
"Put pepper on top it makes all the difference. And don't forget to close the lid before you put it in the fridge."
"First of all, in Gaza there is..."
"In my opinion, it stems from ignorance."
"Look, those who damage the Earth's resources are terrorists. "
"Even religious people (especially from the more extreme faction) harm the resources of the earth."
"Of course, all these reasons are delusional."
"Scientists mainly try to satisfy their curiosity."
"The real winners are people like you. who manage to survive in this world - thanks to others - even though you (as I am impressed by your level of knowledge) do not even understand what you are talking about."
"I see that instead of studying, you draw an imaginary picture that looks according to your spirit."
"Don't worry, I didn't really pay attention to the first 6 either."
"I see that you choose to be on the wrong side. My condolences."
"We have already seen that you have studied up to Newton's physics.
After you learn some physics from great physicists who lived after him, you are welcome to say something about the Higgs boson."
"In your last response, you expressed yourself as people who are used to losing are used to expressing themselves.
Come on, bye!”
"And what do you have to say about the subject of the article? is nothing. as usual."
And you contributed a lot.
From what I understand from you, you are smarter, more educated, more understanding, more right.
Maybe.
But your comments sure don't fit the definition of wisdom. At least not life wisdom.
One of the things I learned well from the army onwards is that status is not equal to what the person is worth.
I know that I can learn a lot from a small child even if he is "less than me" in many ways. Even if he is "less than me" in every way.
R.H
It's a shame, as a learned person, that you didn't understand what I wrote to you,
"You don't have better tools than others to understand beyond the laboratory where you live".
You ship people you don't know, their skills, their education, their age, their status, their job, their profession, and more
Start growing up a little….
To all those looking for applications - says what Prof. Elam Gross said in an article for Channel 2: When Thomson discovered the electron and was asked what you were looking for a particle that no one sees, he raised a glass and said "To the useless electron".
Israel,
The law of conservation of momentum does not assume the existence of mass (rest mass) it is more basic than that. To understand this you need to look at the law of conservation of relativistic energy momentum. Photons also obey the law of conservation of momentum. By the way, if there was no Higgs, there would be no rubber balls and the Earth would not exist.
You are thinking of mass from Newton's laws, a classical view and you are taking the ocean analog too seriously.
This is not a real ocean that produces friction. The better analogy is how a (normal) photon trying to penetrate a superconductor gets mass, inside the superconductor. The quantum understanding of mass and in particular the field theory understanding of what mass is is different from our day-to-day classical perception and there is a lot of danger in trying make analogies. In this context, a sea that slows down the movement of bodies in it does not fulfill the law of conservation of energy (energy is conserved, but it
becomes a warrior) because it is friction., for the Higgs it is a fundamental interaction and therefore it conserves energy.
Didn't you say you were retiring?
And when are you interested in the topic of the article? When have you ever addressed something matter-of-factly, other than brandishing words you don't understand the meaning of?
If you want us to take something you say seriously, start answering factual questions, and get rid of personal papers altogether. If not, overlap, as always.
Israel
As I expected from you. 🙂
And what do you have to say about the subject of the article? is nothing. as usual.
ghosts
"If there was no Higgs (as you wished and were deceived)"
I don't remember ever saying anything about Higgs, for or against, in previous articles. We got confused again, snooze?
"After you learn some physics from great physicists who lived after him"
I assume you mainly meant the well-known physicist R.H. Refai.M., known mainly for the temperature experiments below absolute zero, right?
"I'm retiring for now." Well, it's time, boy. Enough to disturb the big ones. Run home to Mama. Pee and sleep.
By the way, Ernst, in your last comment you expressed yourself as people who are used to losing are used to expressing themselves.
Come on, bye!
Israel Shapira
I see you choose to be on the wrong side. my condolences
(I'm not talking about the Smitherler's example, where you decided by yourself that I would choose the wrong option - I guess it's because you knew for sure that I would choose the right option and then you wouldn't have a suitable example. Yours).
We have already seen that you studied up to Newton's physics.
After you learn some physics from great physicists who lived after him, you are welcome to say something about the Higgs boson.
And one more thing:
If there was no Higgs (as you wished and deceived) then the universe in which you would ask this would not have been created.
Since the particle exists (which there were those who did not want it to exist), then this explains why other particles have mass and how the first atoms in the universe were formed.
Beyond that, neither you (probably you couldn't say/explain this to others either) nor I, can say anything about the properties of the Higgs before those who deal with it explain it to us.
I'm retiring for now until I read a comment (not yours) that has content.
waiting
R.H
In addition to your development in the field of science, you will also spend time taking care of your feelings of inferiority, you are suffering
That's hard, young man.
Ghosts, if a loaded semi-trailer collides with a Fiat Topolino, where would you rather sit: in a truck or a car?
If you said fiat, that means you don't know or respect the law of conservation of momentum.
The law says: the total momentum of the system (which includes the 2 bodies) before the collision is equal to the momentum after it.
And since the Semi is much heavier, it will not be nearly as excited by the accident, and the Fiat will fly away.
Momentum is mass times velocity.
That's why all particles with mass, for example forest gerbils, are repelled according to the law of conservation of momentum.
And if a basket that has 1000 zebras collides with a single zebra, it will also throw him away.
Now, if the zebras - or protons or electrons or macrons, had no mass - then we would have no laws by which we could know the results of the collision. In principle, there is no way that if a ping pong ball had collided with the Earth, it would have thrown it to Andromeda. After all, they both have mass 0.
So my logic says that 1000 protons stuck together are 1000 times more powerful than a single proton, and in a collision they will hardly move and the proton will fly away. It has nothing to do with mechanism or field, Higgs or symmetry breaking. Simple logic. This is where the inertia comes from.
And where are Yuval and Meir when you need them, Kibinimet?
Israel
1: It is not true to say "if there was no Higgs, there would be no mass". Except for a photon (if I'm not mistaken) every particle has mass.
A photon is from the boson 'family'. Just like the Higgs boson and the W and Z bosons.
The bosons are the force carriers whose spin is their number. (If that doesn't mean anything to you, then you'll need to learn some quantum physics).
The photon boson is the carrier of the fifth-magnetic force.
The Higgs boson is the carrier of the force that gives mass to the other particles (except for photons and W, Z bosons).
How does the Higgs boson do this? Please Aref.
But, the 'electrical' Higgs particle is similar to a photon/electron - also a magnetic field called the Higgs field.
Yaani, do you see the parcel?
Ya Baba, where have you gone? Just when the festivities started, you Bulls Thadg? You talk all day long and when you need to say something you "talk out of the blues"?
serious
Don't worry, I didn't really consider the first 6 either.
R.H
Refer to the last 8 lines.
sympathetic
If I remember correctly, Higgs himself gives the mass to the Higgs.
I also have questions:
1. If there was no Higgs, there was no mass, and therefore there was no law of conservation of momentum, what would be the result of an elastic collision between a small rubber ball and the Earth? Who will recoil in which direction and at what speed? Is it completely random?
2. It is common to compare the Higgs field to an ocean that opposes the movement of bodies through it. But the ocean resists all motion while the Higgs field resists only bodies in acceleration. So how does the Higgs field detect that motion is accelerating?
Thanks.
R.H
I hope that a person of your level does not start to avoid his words, it is really inappropriate, all that you are supposed to present in order to support your words are facts and parameters and studies that support your wit.
The quality of life, measured - terrorists, they harm resources - there are no existential dangers to humanity, from the introduction - life expectancy is related to the quality of life.
If you do not bring evidence and continue to twist and turn, someone may suspect "that you are distorting reality, so that it suits your needs" regardless of the facts and reality.
You are right, I was wrong again, the correct thing is that: "the high life expectancy is related to the quality of life".
I wasn't wrong, you're really a smart person, if it's not difficult for you, I'd love for you to direct me to the facts
Those who support this, because I'm sure they exist, I'm most intrigued by those quantitative parameters
After all, as a scientist, you won't just write things.
Regarding damage to resources, it is clear to you that as of today, and this is after I was able to barely understand the depth of your words,
I have no more complaints against factories and the like, after all, they are not the ones, according to you, harming the resources, but only the terrorists. I know I won't be able to understand everything, but if it's not difficult for you, I'd love for you to finally refer me
For the facts and studies that support your wonderful words, you don't just write.
serious
I see that instead of studying, you draw an imaginary picture that looks according to your spirit.
I see again that you distort reality to suit your needs. When you realize that it is not happening and your needs are not being met.... Well... you just start talking nonsense (at best) and lies (at worst).
Don't twist my words.
you wrote:
"A little summary of your words, 1. Quality of life is related to the level of life." - Not true. And I didn't write it either.
What is it anyway, according to you, "quality of life is related to a level of life"?
What is a level of life?
And what is quality of life in relation to standard of living?
I didn't write it. That's what you said.
I wrote: "The high life expectancy is related to the quality of life."
I hope this is clear enough.
And this is actually a curiosity: you wrote: "It was realized thanks to technology". - You really are an idiot.
In your opinion, the factories and the cars harm the resources of Israel?
Good. OK.
What do you suggest? Destroy all factories? Disable all polluting cars?
Or do you prefer only a part yes to activate and a part not to activate? Which of course will be decided according to your mood.
4 (Araf please? The last one? According to your private numbering table..): Well, thank you. and golden dreams
R.H
A little summary of your words, 1. Quality of life is related to level of life
2. Those who damage the Earth's resources are the terrorists
3. The high quality of life in Israel……..was achieved thanks to technology……..
4. The apocalypse…….which according to you stems from ignorance….
I admit that I learned, 1. Until today I did not know that there are indicators for determining quality of life,
2. Due to my low level of knowledge, I did not know that it was the terrorists who harmed the resources
And I mistakenly thought that these were factories and cars and all kinds of huge road and bridge projects
And dams and quarries and electricity generation and all kinds of other nonsense, well I didn't know.
3. I am also happy that there is finally evidence that the quality of life in Israel is among the highest in the world
4. I am also quieter thanks to you, because I thought there was truth in those malicious articles that are out there today
Dangers that did not exist before from unconventional weapons that are developing at a tremendous and uncontrollable pace
Lucky that you have such a high intellectual level and knowledge, and were able to understand with full confidence that it was not
Humanity faces any danger from the arsenal of atomic biological chemical weapons and more,
Yes they will multiply like you.
R. H.,
I agree with you that population size does not directly affect the ball,
If so, you often look at the therapist and not at what he is trying to say. And when you're talking to someone, that's what's important.
Processes are ambiguous. And the development of humanity has brought us to a danger to the planet that was not there before, such as weapons of mass destruction, global warming, extinction of living species. The factor that led to the life expectancy in the country is the economy (of course it can go further). I don't see on what basis you are basing the assertion that terrorists and religious are destroying the earth's resources. The last major wars (including the Cold War!) were based on ideology, egoism, economic situation, nationalism, desire to try technologies and obtaining resources. And at the same time within a mono-religious social system religion has contributed a lot to the morality of humanity, however it is philosophical.
Say, was there even the slightest chance that the accelerator would cause the end of the world? If I'm not mistaken then yes. They took that zero risk. And what would happen if they were wrong? impulsiveness. There are studies in which the chance of destroying the world is smaller, and the profit in the short term is greater.
So now you will take something I said and generalize it, but before that you will understand that nothing is unequivocal, not even what I said, and you should understand that.
serious
First of all, in Gaza there are (I don't remember exactly, don't take my word for it) two comma something children per family.
In Israel there is (again I can't remember exactly) one comma eight (or something close to it).
The population growth inside Gaza is higher than it is in Israel.
What, they have a higher life expectancy than us? Definately not. In Israel the life expectancy, if not the highest, then it is in the first three or five in the world (I don't remember exactly, please forgive me). In Gaza - the case is the opposite. There aren't many grandmothers who make feta, let's put it that way.
The high life expectancy is related to the quality of life.
The high quality of life in the country (say what you will but it's a fact) is partly achieved thanks to technology that the country produces/invents/imports.
An increase in life expectancy certainly did not result in a vulnerable world (as you described). The opposite is correct.
People live longer, more active, more productive.
Population growth affects the resources available on the planet, but that doesn't mean anything.
Why? Because there are technologies today that know how to utilize the resources that exist in nature, with very little damage to nature itself. And in return the person benefits from all this, and his quality of life increases. And nature was almost unharmed.
Regarding the apocalypse you described in the rest of your words,
In my opinion, it stems from ignorance.
Look, those who harm the earth's resources are terrorists. And they do it with weapons.
which must be taken care of.
Even religious people (mainly from the more extreme faction) damage the earth's resources.
All of them do this for all kinds of reasons.
Of course, all these reasons are delusional.
And there are other groups of people, but these are groups whose influence on the Earth's resources is hardly noticeable.
Scientists mainly try to satisfy their curiosity.
Precisely from this egocentricity of theirs, you will be able to discover that the real profiteers are people like you. who manage to survive in this world - thanks to others - even though you (as I am impressed by your level of knowledge) do not even understand what you are talking about.
R.H
First of all, I referred to science in itself, as something truly wonderfully interesting and I am happy for every progress and innovation that there is. The same science through the medical systems has increased the human life expectancy in the last decades very significantly.
However, if we accept the opinion of the majority of scientists and researchers, then an increase in life expectancy has resulted in a significant increase
in the world's population that caused damage to living conditions on Earth (warming, pollution, damage to nature and more)
To the point of being a real danger to health and in general to the future of humanity on Earth. (We can add to the same danger the weapons of mass destruction, which are perfected and multiplied and distributed at an enormous speed like any modern technology, everywhere.
Therefore, it is not at all certain that in a few years life expectancy will not drop to lower levels than they were in the pre-technological/scientific past. And it will turn out that science has harmed humanity more than it has contributed to it.
If you understood and you think it's true, for me that's enough.
Pepper is also a fruit =\
But thanks anyway, I'll check anyway, keep an open mind.
O
Yes.
Put pepper on top it makes all the difference. And don't forget to close the lid before you put it in the fridge.
sympathetic
Anti-photon? )
Can the step in question of projecting the existence of the Higgs lead to technological progress? After all, the huge difficulty of finding it, and that too for a very short time, and without control, casts the difficulty of using it in the near future.
And a technology that would try to use it, apparently to me, would have been applicable even before the last "step", and would have even proved its existence more than the attempt to prove its existence.
So I don't think of a reason why someone could think of a way to exploit the Higgs, if they couldn't think of one before. And thinking about an option to use a particle could be used as the way of proof that one is looking for.
Does anyone have an idea?
A riddle for the respondents
If the Higgs gives the mass to all particles, who gives the Higgs the mass?
Does it have any application in your opinion?
Breeze,
I don't think so, I don't like fruit. [=
I don't think that what Ernest said should be generalized, one can understand how much waste there is in the world. If you convert the disease of obesity into work concepts, you will understand how much energy, time and life are wasted in the world (people die in Africa + people die from obesity, people waste time on eating, consuming, and getting more money for it + people waste time to produce + people waste time to download the fuel they ate + sometimes they will use gyms which will waste more money + treadmills will waste more electricity).
So what do we do? For example, we invest in researching and solving this, and receive a profit many times greater than the investment, which will be enough for many other studies. and benefit from the findings directly. vs. earning potential.
This is just an example of course. Don't be smart, and also grow your head.
There are more tangible problems right now.
Or in summary fruit is fattening.
If no properties of a particle that match the Higgs particle are discovered,
Is it possible to discover a new particle that is an improved model of the Higgs?
Something they didn't take into account?
Because in any case they will discover a new particle that they didn't know about before
serious
Right. I still don't understand what you are talking about.
R.H
I didn't quite understand your response, you probably didn't understand my intention.
I also want to update you on something, it is true that technology and science and all their surroundings are already in the 21st century
They did not get stuck in the 19th century, nor did man at his core, in his nature, in his needs, stay in the 19th century, but long, long before the beginning of the era.
If you accept the opinion of the scientists about global warming and the dangers of it, which according to the researchers, are a direct result of population growth, the product of modern medicine (you probably have more examples than I do), you have no choice but to limit yourself as much as possible in your blessed fields of association, as a painter a musician or a sculptor, and that there is no
You have better tools from them and from others to understand beyond the "laboratory in which you live"..
RH, it is actually very easy to distinguish between the W and the Z
The W's are electrically charged, while the Z's are neutral.
..also their masses are not that close to each other.
But you are absolutely right about the accuracy.
A good lecture on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dClkGPm_hJQ&list=PL4D4F355C4988A8A6&index=7&feature=plpp_video
If Douglas Adams were alive this would surely be in his next book. Thousands of people from a multitude of countries who wear wristwatches, collaborate to create a second particle that will be roughly similar but not sure to the particle that was once here to prove that something that someone once thought could be cool was done, and in general with the same amount of investment they could invent a hovering skateboard that many people think they were promised Because they once saw someone fly to the future who is actually the present and travels in one.
Great
It is important to know exactly the value, since the values of other particles in the same system are in energetic ranges very close to each other. For example, the W boson is very similar in its properties to the Z boson, but still both are not the same.
The difference between them is minimal, so the highest level of accuracy is important so that one particle can be identified and differentiated from another.
If it weren't for the accuracy, we would still be stuck in the 19th century with the knowledge that "the world is made up of a soup of elementary particles".
Rabbi Nachman
The particle was not found, claims that it is supposedly found are pretentious claims.
Currently, the search for the Higgs boson continues. An estimate of its mass should help in the search.
Aryeh Seter and Ehud - OK, I understood the issue,
But still the question arises why is it important to know exactly its mass value?
If this is the particle and it is a deviation of one and a half percent in total...
Rabbi Nachman Mazran - as for your question, is it found or not found; There is a matter of reading comprehension here. The answer to your question is the same as you asked twice: what was said is - the particle is found, but its mass/energy value is not exactly known. The value will be "found" after they can be more precise in the measurements, in the range of 125 to 127 which is really a deviation range of one and a half percent.
In conclusion, fruit is fattening.
I don't think so, I don't like fruit. [=
I don't think that what Ernest said should be generalized, one can understand how much waste there is in the world. If you convert the disease of obesity into work concepts, you will understand how much energy, time and life are wasted in the world (people die in Africa + people die from obesity, people waste time eating, consuming, and getting more money for it + people waste time producing + people waste time unloading fuel that they ate + sometimes they will use gyms which will waste more money + treadmills will waste more electricity).
So what do we do? For example, we invest in researching and solving this, and receive a profit many times greater than the investment, which will be enough for many other studies. and benefit from the findings directly. vs. earning potential.
This is just an example of course. Don't get smart and get big.
Oh, and something else
Instead of grumbling about things you don't understand:
You can contact Nohi Dankner and suggest that instead of buying a new car - he donates his profits to the children in Tiberias next month.
serious
"...where hundreds of poor families are unable to send their children to many classes, arts, sports and others, all of which are so important to every child."
I don't agree with you. you know why? Because there are hungry children in Africa and it is more important to feed them than to send the tabernacle children to classes. Don't you think so?
In my opinion, in general the parents of those children from Tiberias should have thought carefully before making those children. They had to think how they would support them.
They should have known that if they were idle all day or went to the rabbis to ask for a magic spell for livelihood - it would not help them in the future to enroll their children in the class.
You know what? abandoned.
All the money should be given to the Iranian people. Look what poor people live there. They barely have anything to eat. Let's help them!
Let's turn to their leader and tell him that we are from a friendly country called Israel, and we are ready to donate all our GDP to him so that the Iranian people will finally have money with which they can buy food and medicine. Look what a difficult situation they have in the country. Ai Ai.
What a fool I am! I totally forgot about the forests in Brazil!!
Immediately all the money for the conservation of the bat! A-N-H-N-W Z-K-W-K-Y-M L-E-T-L-F K-Z-H! H-M A-W-K-L-Y-M F-Y-R-W-T! We all love fruit, so it is important to preserve this creature.
The surplus that remains will be distributed to everyone and that way they will not remain poor.
problem solved.
You are seriously right.
The amount of wasted resources in the world is huge, and there is a lot of inefficiency.
If so, we are dealing with science, and research has the ability to solve things, sometimes huge relative to the investment. And when you invest a sum of money in research, you try to promote something or solve something. So until they invest and concentrate all these resources for science as they have coordinated in this project... with our people we promote the people who need promotion, not only our hearts were more complete, we had many more people by our side who could help humanity to move faster. But when such a large part of humanity is behind..
Chen and Hanan and Rabi
I am personally excited by each new discovery, also excited by the international cooperation and by the fact that the progress is bursting and branching out in all directions. The truth is that I'm a little jealous, I would also like to take part, want to be published and interviewed, I think it's cool.
But like any other field, in the world of science there are intrigues, struggles, ambitions and interests as in the Knesset, the Synagogue and the House of Culture and in every culture.
On the one hand, I feel that it is a shame that the efforts and budgets did not go to improving the daily lives of millions of people, on the other hand, I feel that the very fact that science often succeeds in acting out of another interest and is a creature of adventure brings it to those amazing discoveries.
Someone talked about budgets here, I recommend him to come and visit the holy city of Tiberias, where hundreds of poor families are unable to send their children to many classes, arts, sports and others, all of which are so important to every child..
And in front of their houses, works are being carried out on a huge scale with huge budgets, not for cultural or sports or music or science buildings, but for rescue buildings, of bones and souls under the city roads, in my estimation every year around ten million NIS are invested there at least. Even at these moments and at every moment during the last few years, the same works are carried out continuously and diligently.
I don't see that the Higgs attributed the same holes, but it kind of gives a feeling, as if he is succeeding.
I am skeptical with safkan.
Indeed, a few days ago they claimed there that they would publish, because they are very close to discovery. As far as I understand, they ruled it out themselves, because it is conclusive proof, and determined that it is possible to discard that it is the Higgs based on predictions.
This is how they built the pyramids, neutralized the mass from the big blocks.
To Rabbi Nachman Mazran
You don't find elementary particles, you see the reserve for their existence from the products of their decomposition.
To illustrate, this is similar to trying to recover an airplane from its wreckage. Because there are no fractional collections
Mass certainty, it's hard to be sure you've found all the pieces.
Raphael Lerner
At the Zarn accelerator they try to answer the most basic questions such as: how the universe was created, what is matter
Around us, what are the basic laws of physics? But I assume for you that you invested money in the programs
Television or football games is much more significant. How much money is invested in the Olympics and how
Does he feed hungry children?
Not convinced!
1. A horrendous waste of money - how many hungry children can be fed with the money this unnecessary research cost?
2. There is no proof that this ridiculous particle was found by researchers who indicate that it may have existed for a moment before its discovery and really disappeared...
It is difficult to predict the many uses the Higgs boson will have. After all, did anyone predict the DOK when they proved the existence of the electron in the late 19th century?
But still, if we manage to remove all the Higgs boson from the room, we will become massless - we will float in the room without the influence of gravity, and our inertia will also be 0: any accidental touch with the wall of the room will quickly slam us into the opposite wall. We will not feel the force of the blow, of course, because there is no inertia.
If we manage to lower the inertia of a spacecraft in this way (and also the gravity of the Earth and the Sun at the same time), the way to the stars will be open.
I did not understand how, after all, the results agree with what the professor said in the article:
"I guess it will be somewhere between 125 and 127 GeV,"
Either he is found or not
, what other options are there?
Rabbi Nachman
Your lack of understanding stems from the falsified news published in the newspapers.
There are phenomena that are interpreted according to the standard model as a phenomenon resulting from the decay of the Higgs particle. The Higgs particle itself is difficult to detect (if it exists at all). Trying to calculate its mass from measurements of the phenomena that were discovered. If they manage to calculate its mass according to the measured phenomena) the researchers will have to use this calculated mass to check if the particle exists at all.
Friends, there is no need to respond to the UFO troll.
I don't understand why there is so much hostility here
When the world is in a state of recession, everyone suffers, including the physicists
When there are more places that require funding, it should be reduced.
Personally, I prefer physics to other fields
And I very much welcome the discovery and best wishes to Prof. Gross
whose journey paid off
But this is the responsibility of the budget department, not the physicists
decide where the funding goes. that's how it is.
Hanan
So what is the problem with presenting your materials from the landing sites to some chemists and biologists, who will confirm that it is something extraterrestrial that has not been seen before?
Why are you hiding such significant information from us, which is so unequivocal?
Why don't you publish your scientific evidence in an orderly manner?
Rabbi Nachman has two different results, one from CMS and one from Atlas.
Hanan Sabat
You're right. Yesterday we watched a sensational discovery at a budget raising party in Iztela. In practice they did not discover anything special.
I did not understand ,
It says: "I guess it will be found somewhere between 125 and 127 GeV."
I mean they haven't found him yet? And assume it will be found?
Can someone explain in simple Hebrew how this fits with the announcement that a boson has been found?
I was surprised to see that there are also ghosts here, who claim to understand the science of the spins of the particle people and to attack those who present the fact that the king is naked, instead of attacking the misleading title of the article.
A. So basically yes. A particle was discovered. No matter the statistics and level of certainty, as long as there is no conclusive proof. Therefore, there is nothing to make bombastic statements.
B. At least I can say on my own behalf that I have more scientific evidence for the existence of UFOs and materials that do not exist on Earth and that have been found at landing sites, than scientists have regarding the identification of the Higgs Boson.
Very interesting article. I would be happy to understand what the potential use of these discoveries will be in the future
Hanan Sabat
"Well - the particle has not yet been discovered with certainty and in the meantime there are only rumors... Isn't this a classic modern day platitude?"
- No.
The particle was discovered. That is, a particle was discovered. The traces left by the particle are attributed to a particle called the Higgs boson. From this we can say that the discovered particle is the Higgs boson. (The level of certainty in this data is at the level of sigma 5. If that means anything to you).
Beyond that, I see superficiality only from your side. This probably stems from a lack of knowledge/understanding of scientific issues.
You also wrote: "Isn't this a systematic effort, not in the field of physics but in finance, when the goal this time is to get a budget and not present information proven beyond any doubt, about the discovery of the Higgs boson????"
- Tell me, please, what are you doing there at the UFOs? Are you (or someone with you) building a budget? Are you getting funds from somewhere to run this whole business? I really don't know.
But I guess you need money for that.
So: "Where is the money" from?
Are you ever required to show proof that you are related to extraterrestrials in order to receive a donation/grant, etc.?
Have you presented such proof?
Did the researchers present proof of the discovery of a new particle?
Are they entitled to a budget to continue working?
Compared to people like you (the representative of the aliens in Israel) - those researchers deserve to receive the entire budget that they deserve and in particular, part of which will be the entire budget of your association that will also finance their research.
The title of the article is: "The discovery of the Higgs is a celebration of systematic effort in the face of today's superficiality"...
Well - the particle has not yet been discovered for sure and in the meantime there are only talks... Isn't this a classic modern-day plagiarism?
Isn't this a systematic effort, not in the field of physics but finance, when the goal this time is to get a budget and not to present information proven beyond any doubt, about the discovery of the Higgs boson ?????