Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #460839

Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available

Show all headers | View raw

On a sunny day (Thu, 18 May 2017 12:51:35 -0400) it happened rickman
<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote in <ofkj8d$jof$1@dont-email.me>:

>>>>  (This is a bit confusing.. but says the
>>>> same thing.)
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#Quarks_and_the_mass_of_a_proton
>>
>> For the math:
>>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
>>
>> I started on it late last night, and got stuck,
>> so obviously need to read up on that.
>>
>> But whenever somebody says 'field' I think 'screen'.
>> That works for everything I know, (electro static, magnetic, RF, .. )so why not for Higgs field.
>> Some google searching found many people had the same idea (from scifi to more serious views).
>
>I read this in the Wikipedia article. "In the standard model, at 
>temperatures high enough that electroweak symmetry is unbroken, all 
>elementary particles are massless."
>
>What impact would this have on matter falling into a black hole or 
>matter at the core of a black hole?

It is a tricky game,
'in my view (tm)' anyways at some point some decennia ago it was postulated that you could
look at / represent all particles in that standard model as a wave,
There is a problem with that, nothing has mass.
In those big accelerators with all the photomultiplier detecting basically ... photons....
no wonder the whole model is 'wave'.
And a 'photon' is (again IMNSHO) just a mathematical construct, most definitely not a particle.
So they needed to fix that mass thing (they already had plenty of math things),
here comes the Higgs,

Yes, at very high temperatures, but define 'temperature' if you (they) do not even have a clue as to what mass really is, gravity really is,
that space-time jive holds no mass... -)
BUT I admit at this point I have no clue, but find it fascinating,
Something in QM and related reminds me very strongly of epicycles:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
a basic idea, math let lose on it, 'and there is QM',
 (Feynman lectures are online somewhere)
cats are both dead and alive, all is 'chance' and 'probability', multiverses, 
strings, and Elvis of course.
I do not like QM I am with the Broglie's pilot wave theory:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

So, just like we at some point had to see everything (and the math) was so much more simple if earth and other planets orbited the sun,
and not all that stuff the earth, we need a simple breakthrough because OBVIOUSLY our theories suck, 'nature' is by nature
so to speak usually taking / going for the simplest way.

This does not answer your question, but OK, :-)
But interesting stuff.

As to CERN,
do you think that by shooting 2 Tesla cars at 1000 km/h into each other you will get a better idea how its autopilot works?
Just like the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and Trump mentioned it was the second most powerful industry in the world (he learns)
there is the Scientific Industrial Complex, they build everything from large tunnels to laser fusion,
and it creates jobs in the same way, the goal is jobs, profit, NOT science and result.
As long as things get to be bigger and more expensive, and you the taxpayer pays for it
But it does create some on the side things like maybe every now and then something useful,
but forget about science.
Science it self will likely advance in the next world war, as then what works will win,
things that work will be needed, and not a bunch of right from the school Einstein reciting QM babbling kids.
Just like WW2 gave us rockets, submarines, radar, etc etc, lots of chemistry..
Or we just blow it up and the ants won, I killed a few dozen today that were invading my house.
Seems that fight happens every year.
Mosquitos are tuff to, some mosquito eggs survived on the outside of the ISS for weeks (was an experiment).
But mosquitos still need us, or other warm blooded mammals, ants do not....
So better stop here...
:-)

Back to sci.electronics.design | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 07:57 +0000
  Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 07:04 -0700
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 14:39 +0000
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 14:48 +0000
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 08:28 -0700
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 16:42 +0000
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-16 10:01 -0700
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 19:05 +0000
              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 16:28 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 12:51 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-18 12:27 -0700
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 19:44 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available "Tim Williams" <tiwill@seventransistorlabs.com> - 2017-05-18 16:46 -0500
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNaOnStPeAlMtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-19 19:03 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-19 17:58 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 07:05 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-20 04:13 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-20 09:23 -0700
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-20 20:55 +0000
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-05-18 12:25 -0700
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-18 20:04 -0400
                Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-18 21:07 -0700
  Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2017-05-16 10:07 -0500
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 08:31 -0700
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-05-16 11:58 -0400
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 09:51 -0700
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 19:06 +0000
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:37 -0400
            Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-05-16 19:58 -0700
              Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-05-16 21:30 -0700
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available krw@notreal.com - 2017-05-16 20:37 -0400
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-05-16 13:03 -0400
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> - 2017-05-16 11:21 -0700
          Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:50 -0500
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Tim Wescott <seemywebsite@myfooter.really> - 2017-05-16 13:01 -0500
      Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-18 10:22 +0200
        Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-18 10:26 +0000
    Re: Tritium decay experiment one more year data now available Jan Panteltje <pNa0nStpealmtje@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-16 16:28 +0000

csiph-web