| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"p6" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2005 10:26:46 PM |
| Object: |
Wave/particle duality & Higgs coupling |
In a one-at-a-time electron double slit experiment. Can we say that
before the electron is measured or hitting the detector. There is
a higgs (sorta) disengagement such that it exists as pure waves. Then
upon hitting the detector, the entire wave recouple with the higgs
field such that a single electron dictated by wave angle focus
precipitates at the detector?
In the case of one-at-a-time photon double slit. We can say that
there is a similiar disengagement from a higgs signature such that
when the wave becomes a photon again, the higgs doesn't give
any mass to it only the identity of a particle?
You will argue that if this is so (especially the electron part). A
system before being measured should weight less because of
higgs disengagement. Well. What if the wave has some
coupling to the higgs.
You may reason that if wave has higgs mass. The sunlight
should be pushing the earth. But since photon has no mass,
its wave although there is a higgs coupling.. doesn't bestow
any mass.
This is just wild speculations of course. Pls. share anything that
ties the wave/particle duality to the higgs.
p6
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave/particle duality & Higgs coupling |
14 Jun 2005 10:52:29 AM |
|
|
p6 wrote:
In a one-at-a-time electron double slit experiment. Can we say that
before the electron is measured or hitting the detector. There is
a higgs (sorta) disengagement such that it exists as pure waves.
[snip crap]
Idiot.
You may reason that if wave has higgs mass. The sunlight
should be pushing the earth. But since photon has no mass,
its wave although there is a higgs coupling.. doesn't bestow
any mass.
[snip more crap]
Illucid idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave/particle duality & Higgs coupling |
14 Jun 2005 05:05:42 AM |
|
|
p6 wrote:
In a one-at-a-time electron double slit experiment. Can we say that
before the electron is measured or hitting the detector. There is
a higgs (sorta) disengagement such that it exists as pure waves.
What on earth is "higgs disengagement" supposed to mean?
And no, one can't say that it exists as "pure waves" before it is
measured.
Then
upon hitting the detector, the entire wave recouple with the higgs
field such that a single electron dictated by wave angle focus
precipitates at the detector?
Ouch. What on earth does it mean to say that a wave "recouples with the
higgs field", and why should that produce a particle-like electron?
In the case of one-at-a-time photon double slit. We can say that
there is a similiar disengagement from a higgs signature such that
when the wave becomes a photon again, the higgs doesn't give
any mass to it only the identity of a particle?
Photons *never* interact with the Higgs boson, so this makes no sense
at all.
You will argue that if this is so (especially the electron part). A
system before being measured should weight less because of
higgs disengagement. Well. What if the wave has some
coupling to the higgs.
You have no clue what the Higgs boson actually is, and what it means
to say that something couples to it, right?
You may reason that if wave has higgs mass. The sunlight
should be pushing the earth. But since photon has no mass,
its wave although there is a higgs coupling.. doesn't bestow
any mass.
This is just wild speculations of course.
Based on total ignorance of the subject. As usual.
Pls. share anything that
ties the wave/particle duality to the higgs.
No connection.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave/particle duality & Higgs coupling |
14 Jun 2005 06:15:19 AM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
p6 wrote:
In a one-at-a-time electron double slit experiment. Can we say that
before the electron is measured or hitting the detector. There is
a higgs (sorta) disengagement such that it exists as pure waves.
What on earth is "higgs disengagement" supposed to mean?
And no, one can't say that it exists as "pure waves" before it is
measured.
Then
upon hitting the detector, the entire wave recouple with the higgs
field such that a single electron dictated by wave angle focus
precipitates at the detector?
Ouch. What on earth does it mean to say that a wave "recouples with the
higgs field", and why should that produce a particle-like electron?
In the case of one-at-a-time photon double slit. We can say that
there is a similiar disengagement from a higgs signature such that
when the wave becomes a photon again, the higgs doesn't give
any mass to it only the identity of a particle?
Photons *never* interact with the Higgs boson, so this makes no sense
at all.
You will argue that if this is so (especially the electron part). A
system before being measured should weight less because of
higgs disengagement. Well. What if the wave has some
coupling to the higgs.
You have no clue what the Higgs boson actually is, and what it means
to say that something couples to it, right?
You may reason that if wave has higgs mass. The sunlight
should be pushing the earth. But since photon has no mass,
its wave although there is a higgs coupling.. doesn't bestow
any mass.
This is just wild speculations of course.
Based on total ignorance of the subject. As usual.
Pls. share anything that
ties the wave/particle duality to the higgs.
No connection.
Bye,
Bjoern
Well. I'm just trying to combine Polasek Dual Space with
Tiller Model and the Higgs field and the particle duality to
see what would happen. Polasek doesn't believe in Higgs
field and didn't comment on particle duality (or maybe I
missed it).
He said there are dual spaces. One space is composed
of our physical world in terms of atoms and structures
only. The second is composed of energy or all the
EM, gravity, fields, etc.
I missed him explaining the particle wave duality so
I wonder what would happen if I'd combine Tiller
Model with his. In Tiller Model. The wave part works
in a reciprocal space composing of frequency in a
de Broglie pilot wave kind of way, while the particulate
is in separae space. It's another Dual Space concept.
So by combining the two. I wonder if it can shed light
on the causal mechanism of the particle/wave duality
as well as explain qi (or scalar energy underlying
electromagnetisms).
Of course it's just initial assessment as I'm still
studying the mechanisms of the Higgs field and the
quarks confinement and their relationship in strings
theory. There is a similarity in concept between
superconductors and the higgs field and it's quite
interesting. In tandem to their comprehension, of
course I'm also reviewing mathematics. So don't
tell me math is the language of physics because I
agree too.
p6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave/particle duality & Higgs coupling |
14 Jun 2005 12:17:56 PM |
|
|
p6 wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
p6 wrote:
In a one-at-a-time electron double slit experiment. Can we say that
before the electron is measured or hitting the detector. There is
a higgs (sorta) disengagement such that it exists as pure waves.
What on earth is "higgs disengagement" supposed to mean?
And no, one can't say that it exists as "pure waves" before it is
measured.
Then
upon hitting the detector, the entire wave recouple with the higgs
field such that a single electron dictated by wave angle focus
precipitates at the detector?
Ouch. What on earth does it mean to say that a wave "recouples with the
higgs field", and why should that produce a particle-like electron?
In the case of one-at-a-time photon double slit. We can say that
there is a similiar disengagement from a higgs signature such that
when the wave becomes a photon again, the higgs doesn't give
any mass to it only the identity of a particle?
Photons *never* interact with the Higgs boson, so this makes no sense
at all.
You will argue that if this is so (especially the electron part). A
system before being measured should weight less because of
higgs disengagement. Well. What if the wave has some
coupling to the higgs.
You have no clue what the Higgs boson actually is, and what it means
to say that something couples to it, right?
You may reason that if wave has higgs mass. The sunlight
should be pushing the earth. But since photon has no mass,
its wave although there is a higgs coupling.. doesn't bestow
any mass.
This is just wild speculations of course.
Based on total ignorance of the subject. As usual.
Pls. share anything that
ties the wave/particle duality to the higgs.
No connection.
Bye,
Bjoern
Well. I'm just trying to combine Polasek Dual Space with
Tiller Model and the Higgs field and the particle duality to
see what would happen.
Ouch.
Hint: a firm understanding of all those things would be very
helpful before trying to understand them.
Polasek doesn't believe in Higgs
field and didn't comment on particle duality (or maybe I
missed it).
He said there are dual spaces. One space is composed
of our physical world in terms of atoms and structures
only. The second is composed of energy or all the
EM, gravity, fields, etc.
And you really think that makes any sense?
[snip more of that]
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "p6" |
|
| Title: Re: Wave/particle duality & Higgs coupling |
14 Jun 2005 03:05:45 PM |
|
|
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Well. I'm just trying to combine Polasek Dual Space with
Tiller Model and the Higgs field and the particle duality to
see what would happen.
Ouch.
Hint: a firm understanding of all those things would be very
helpful before trying to understand them.
Polasek doesn't believe in Higgs
field and didn't comment on particle duality (or maybe I
missed it).
He said there are dual spaces. One space is composed
of our physical world in terms of atoms and structures
only. The second is composed of energy or all the
EM, gravity, fields, etc.
And you really think that makes any sense?
[snip more of that]
Bye,
Bjoern
It's just that there is a possibility we may be attributing
to quantum vacuum what is not there. Polasek suggests that
it could be a whole new space. I have difficulty debunking
Polasek unlike Yoon which one can do easily. Can you
try to debunk the following statements by Polasek:
John Polasek wrote in a separate thread:
"I said that when Current Science talks about quantum vacuum, they
have nothing substantive to talk about at all because they don't know
what's in QV, so they simply estimate that virtual particles are
popping up at random.
Dual Space does not have quantum vacuum. I just mention it because
possibly you have heard of the concept and it would convey legitimacy.
Dual Space has Espace which is completely blueprinted. For details,
see #10 and #1 papers on my web site.
DS has Espace. In the bulk of our universe where the vacuum is
perfectly empty, (nearly 100%), Espace in a perfect dual, is
correspondingly totally packed with cells that each contain an
uncreated positron and electron. And where our universe contains any
vestige of mass, correspondingly it has been "swiped" from Espace
leaving the same image as positrons (promoted up to elements of
course). (It takes 10Byrs. These things can't be hurried!)
The uncreated pair can get temporarily popped out by cosmic rays
exceeding 1.022MeV, but that's not interesting. Carl Anderson in 1932
examined 13,000 photographic plates before he had 2 that showed pair
production.
Cu. Sc. is trying to find sludge in the form of a Higgs boson. This
phantasm is supposed to effectuate inertia by some spooky kind of
viscous or other drag! It's another case of particles mediating
forces. (What kind of particle would it take to mediate a sagging
screen door?).
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
(2nd message)
"First quantum vacuum and zeropoint energy are just catch phrases.
Science today can't put one number or coefficient to any either
concept. But my Espace has it totally calibrated. For instance, it
takes 1.08 pounds of force to pull an electron out of its cell. (Eq. 8
paper #1).
QV came from Dirac originally with his sea of electrons. Very shaky
too the way I see it.
He took the total energy equation TE = +- sqrt(m2c4 + p2c2) which has
a positive and also negative answer! "It stands to reason" there must
an equal world of NEGATIVE energy and postulated a sea of electrons at
negative energy, positing there would be a hole if you removed an
electron. When the positron was discovered in 1932 he did not think to
marry it up with the electrons. He went on to try and find a magnetic
monopole.
This was in 1928 and at that time not Dirac nor anyone else believed
in permittivity. In fact 90% of old timers don't believe in it. But
blueprinting permittivity is the foundation of Dual Space theory.
Anyway, the old time CGS E&M had an equation
D = E + 4piP,
which means D and E are the same units, call them what you will, even
though E is a cause and D the effect. It says the vacuum is empty and
worthless. But everything in nature has a compliance and responds with
deflection from pressure, electrical or mechanical. He had nothing
about the vacuum to attract him to investigate it further.
On the other hand, the newer (1960) SI or mks E&M has the equation:
D = E*eps0 + ...
That indicates the E volts/m can squeeze eps0 to make D coulombs/m2.
Most students taking such an E&M course do not know the difference
between the two, and likely not their teachers either, but it is
profound.
Other:
You have to make up your mind whether you believe our 70 sextillion
stars were contained in a pinpoint at T = 0 and then simply ballooned
out to the universe we have today. Naturally, you have to believe if
you want to avoid being labeled a crackpot. C'mon. And do you really
think that a mass like the Sun can curve empty space-OK spacetime?
Remember, here's a BB, here's 30 million meters, here's another BB. Do
you think God would have to make something like hyperbolic space just
because Minkowski did? You do? Or haven't thought about it.
No one on this planet knows what makes gravity. Not a soul.
But Dual Space tells you what makes gravity.
Espace is under enormous pressure and when the material for the Sun
was removed from Espace, Espace rearranged itself, caving in a bit
toward the weakened region where material had been removed. The
Navier Stokes equation deals with pressure gradients to give you
gravity immediately
dP/dr = -rho*accel
dc^2/2dr = accel = MG/r^2 = cdc/dr
The equation says c is reduced by gravity (by .2m/s Earth, 635 m/s
Sun) and that accounts for all of general relativity. Those little
velocities are the 4th side of the triangle in Fig. 1 paper #2.
Forget the tensors, light cones, locomotives suddenly turning on their
lights, 11 dimensional string theory. It's all the output of people
trapped in relativity and getting fancier and fancier like Ptolemy and
his epicycle theory. The universe is way simpler than that.
Read the book or study the papers on my website. Sure it's tough. But
I think I have folksy way of sneaking up with my equations!
John Polasek
http://www.dualspace.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
