I'm not sure who here agrees with this rhetoric. Does anyone seriously believe W's assertion here that the precise determination of W boson rest mass is incorrect.
THHuxleynew :So you just deny basics of information theory that is more basic than physics?
THHuxleynew :So you just deny basics of information theory that is more basic than physics?
No - I never deny information theory, which I agree could be considered more fundamental than physics. How about you show me the calculation (because you are wrong). There is a calculation to determine the energy uncertainty in a measurement. Let's see if you can get there, with the correct numbers...
Or, you could just trust all those 50 years of particle physicists.
Just to remind people, here is what W is now going to try and justify (almost none of it is IMHO correct):
This is a very good summary of the CERN fairy tales. The W boson is not a particle as e.g. THH states it lives only a very short time and the energy cannot be measured with high precision. According to information theory you must be able to do 2 measurements within one halve oscillation of the de Broglie frequency of a particle. The halve live of the W is about 3×10−25 s... to be declared particle it should live longer than 10−22 s.
(1) A particle with a relatively short halflife time is not a particle. FALSE
(2) Information theory states you must be able to do two measurements within one half oscillation of de Broglie frequency of particle. VAGUE, and certainly FALSE in any precise sense. Information theory says nothing about de Broglie wavelength directly.
(3) For W to be declared a particle it must have halflife time longer than 10-22s. FALSE
(4) The half live of the W is about 3×10−25. TRUE. NB this is when it is in free space, the VP lifetime in neutron decay (not half-life) is much shorter typically.
(1) A particle with a relatively short halflife time is not a particle. FALSE
(2) Information theory states you must be able to do two measurements within one half oscillation of de Broglie frequency of particle. VAGUE, and certainly FALSE in any precise sense. Information theory says nothing about de Broglie wavelength directly.
(3) For W to be declared a particle it must have lifetime longer than 10-22s. FALSE
(4) The half live of the W is about 3×10−25. TRUE. NB this is when it is in free space, the VP lifetime in neutron decay (not half-life) is much shorter typically.
Classic THH fake information... once more.
(1) "A particle with a relatively short halflife time is not a particle. FALSE" ==> invented nonsense by THH to discredit W. (This is the classic style how a spin doctor - 1st step - tries to influence a community...)
(2) To measure an EM wave/mass this is always true: Information theory states you must be able to do two measurements within one half oscillation of de Broglie frequency of particle.
The Broglie frequency a of particle is the only equivalent (to EM) relation you can give for a particle. Nobody in our real world can measure something else than a potential or a frequency.
If THH as a teacher in electronics and denies such facts I have serious doubts in his teaching qualification. (May be THH thinks CERN measures masses in micro Gremlins...)
(3) For W to be declared a particle it must have lifetime longer than 10-25s. FALSE -- so long THH.. Its is just on edge
Fact What is a particle is defined by information theory, which CERN in its related writings violates since 50 years e.g worst for up-quark.
.
I'm not sure here what your point is. Why do you consider mathematical constructs (fields) that are only related to reality through the forces they exert on particles as more real than mathematical constructs (virtual particles) that are only related to reality through the forces they exert on particles? Because you think things being created and destroyed is magic? Weird.
A field is something real. It isn't just some mathematical construct. In his 1929 essay on the history of field theory, Einstein described a field as a state of space. I think he was right about that. A gravitational field is a place where space is "neither homogeneous nor isotropic". I don't know if you know, but light curves because the speed of light is not constant. Not because light follows the curvature of spacetime. See this:
1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”.
An electron falls down because it is in essence light going round and round. The horizontal component bends downwards. That's half the total, which is why the GR deflection of light is twice the Newtonian deflection of matter. Note that there are no virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
QuoteIn any case physics does not actually care what words you use to describe maths, so I don't see why this matters. And I don't see further purpose from engaging more in arguments about whether some part of a mathematical description of the world (AKA physics) is real. I'm not a philosopher. I think I was dragged into this by your making a meaningless statement (about some types of being physical models being real and others not) and me replying to it! Apologies for going down that rabbithole.
It matters because we do physics to understand the world. Not to give up. And not to shut up and calculate.
QuoteHowever what does matter is whether you understand the SM that you so roundly criticise, and its building blocks, like the quantum description of particles. From the above you persist in asserting that energy must be conserved through short-lived intermediate states - and therefore the standard explanation for photon-photon higher order loop interactions is a fairy tale? Also, presumably, you believe that tunnelling does not exist - since this too requires particles temporarily to have an energy higher than conservation of energy would allow (the length of time depends on the particle speed and the length of the barrier).
Watch my lips: energy is conserved. Full stop. The Standard Model "explanation" for photon-photon interactions is wrong. See the picture below? The usual a caption says “connections denoting which particles interact with each other”:
It says gluons interact with gluons, even though the gluons in ordinary hadrons are virtual. As in not real. It also says photons don’t interact with photons, when they do. According to the Standard Model, electrons don’t even interact with positrons. It's absurd. It has no foundations.
QuotePS - The level of provably and simply incorrect assertions here is getting too high for me - so unless you weasel out of the above contradiction that is probably as far as we can get.
I will hold your nose to this grindstone until I see a scintilla of understanding from you. Or a submission. Whichever comes first.
Display MoreDF thinks the above branch for free neutron decay is a fairy tale.
i'd guess he does not really mind subatomic particles decaying - because it is observed that they do.
The thing he highlights about this path is that the intermediate state: uud + W- is much higher in energy than the initial or end state.
neutron: 0.9395 GeV
proton: 0.9383 GeV
W- boson: 80GeV
So there is in this reaction a 79GeV energy surplus in the intermediate state. Not borrowed from anywhere - just possible because when a particle has a very short lifetime its energy cannot exactly be measured, and therefore its existence is not constrained by conservation of energy.
If you look at the quantum wave functions, and their time evolution, this becomes crystal clear. There is no loss of energy conservation. However the instantaneous energy of the system does not (HUP) have a sharply peaked probability distribution, which allows the short-term existence of the W- . Strictly speaking the instantaneous energy of the system just does not exist - but the very short time measured energy does exist, only with a very broad peak.
This is poppycock. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is merely a feature of the wave nature of light and matter. And I quote: "It has since become clearer, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems [8], and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects". Please don't tell fairy tales. We can diffract neutrons. A free neutron decays in circa 15 minutes because neutrons are unstable when they aren't bound with protons in a nucleus. They decay into protons with the emission of high-speed electrons plus antineutrinos. We have never ever seen an 80GeV W boson. Did you read the Gary Taube article? It was Carlo Rubbia and the discovery of the W and Z. You really ought to.
I will hold your nose to this grindstone until I see a scintilla of understanding from you. Or a submission. Whichever comes first.
I'm not as macho as you JD. I will happily rest with your statements and mine contradictory.This post is my last on these facts. if you post more independently false statements I may however find it difficult to resist correcting them as well.
Background links
here is an insightful Q&A on virtualparticles answering most of these questions
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/…um/virtual_particles.html
energy conservation over intermediate states with VPs: https://www.quora.com/How-do-v…k-the-energy-conservation
are virtual particles real: https://www.scientificamerican…re-virtual-particles-rea/
also - for some info on the alternative (equivalent) idea of VPs being wiggles in the field, which nevertheless interact:
https://www.physicsforums.com/…articles-interact.588831/
DF statements
Watch my lips: energy is conserved. Full stop. The Standard Model "explanation" for photon-photon interactions is wrong.
see above for why VPs don't contradict conservation of energy: look at the QM wave functions for a deeper understanding
It [SM] says gluons interact with gluons, even though the gluons in ordinary hadrons are virtual. As in not real.
Well it is only DF and possibly W, here, who think VPs are not real. See links above or my explanation about mixed states and prob amplitude summing to less than 1 for VP.
It also says photons don’t interact with photons, when they do.
SM says there are no first-order interaction photon-photon. However, an energetic photon can (briefly) turn into a (virtual) massive particle, which interacts with another photon. So we get higher-order interactions.
From quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes: a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a virtual charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks. Thus, two-photon physics experiments can be used as ways to study the photon structure, or, somewhat metaphorically, what is "inside" the photon.
The photon fluctuates into a fermion–antifermion pair.
Creation of a fermion–antifermion pair through the direct two-photon interaction. These drawings are Feynman diagrams.
There are three interaction processes:
The intrinsic quark content of the photon is described by the photon structure function, experimentally analyzed in deep-inelastic electron–photon scattering.[11][12]
For the latter two cases, the scale of the interaction is such as the strong coupling constant is large. This is called Vector Meson Dominance (VMD) and has to be modelled in non-perturbative QCD.
According to the Standard Model, electrons don’t even interact with positrons. It's absurd. It has no foundations.
I've got no idea why you think that? Perhaps you could give a reference. Symmetries allow any particle to anihilate with its anti-particle to energy. Conservation of momentum and energy can always be satisfied with energy carried as two or more photons.
An electron falls down because it is in essence light going round and round. The horizontal component bends downwards. That's half the total, which is why the GR deflection of light is twice the Newtonian deflection of matter. Note that there are no virtual particles popping in and out of existence.
I have no idea why you say this. it is 100% unevidenced. See above for why VPs pop in and out of existence. Light does not go round and round, because photons travel geodesics. But if they did, they would not form electrons since an electron has charge and spin, a photon has neither. Both charge and spin are conserved.
See this long and useful account (with all derivations), of why Einstein in 1915, using complete GR doubled the deflection of light that he deduced in 1911, using only the equivalence principle. This is pure GR, and accounts for this fact with no reference to your "the horizontal component bends downwards".
Display MoreClassic THH fake information... once more.
(1) "A particle with a relatively short halflife time is not a particle. FALSE" ==> invented nonsense by THH to discredit W. (This is the classic style how a spin doctor - 1st step - tries to influence a community...)
(2) To measure an EM wave/mass this is always true: Information theory states you must be able to do two measurements within one half oscillation of de Broglie frequency of particle.
The Broglie frequency a of particle is the only equivalent (to EM) relation you can give for a particle. Nobody in our real world can measure something else than a potential or a frequency.
If THH as a teacher in electronics and denies such facts I have serious doubts in his teaching qualification. (May be THH thinks CERN measures masses in micro Gremlins...)
(3) For W to be declared a particle it must have lifetime longer than 10-22s. FALSE -- so long THH..
: This fact W is not a particle it's only a resonance is defined by information theory, which CERN in its related writings violates since 50 years.
The Z boson e.g. is a simple resonance of the proton so called 3D/4D mass that is a 3 rotation coupled sub-structure of the proton with an exactly calculated mass of 11'396'588eV.
==> Z = 8*11'396'588.2*Mills gamma (1+1/πα2) for photon absorption/emission ===> Z = 91'187'958.2eV measured 91'187'600+-21'000eV ==> within measurement.
This quantity (11'396'588.2eV) is exactly what gets stripped of the proton in the "remaining" Higgs mass measurement too. The Higgs (both masses also the one CERN just sent under the carpet) masses/particles are simple (easy to calculate) resonances of the proton.
==> QED/QFT is just a wild phantasy out born of a heavily disturbed field called particle physics.
.
(1) "A particle with a relatively short halflife time is not a particle. FALSE" ==> invented nonsense by THH to discredit W. (This is the classic style how a spin doctor - 1st step - tries to influence a community...)
OK - so give me an example of a particle with a short lifetime that is NOT a particle, explaining why differ from everyone else in this?
(2) To measure an EM wave/mass this is always true: Information theory states you must be able to do two measurements within one half oscillation of de Broglie frequency of particle.
1) OK - well I'll leave off the trivial reply, which is that you can measure mass via gravitational attraction independently of the de Broglie frequency.
2) More importantly, the de Broglie frequency is not fixed (obviously). it goes up with momentum. Hence it is not helpful to relate db frequency to needed lifetime
3) But particle rest mass need not be directly measured.
4) If the particle occurs in an interaction in which all other masses and momenta can be measured, then its mass can be measured
5) if the statistics of interactions are known then information on momenta etc can be deduced from the known masses and the conservation of momentum and energy.
So as with most of particle physics the quantities measured are measured indirectly - but there are multiple different ways to do this measurement which can be checked against eachother.
Here is review of W Boson mass measurement:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/221…es/9789814733519_0010.pdf
This fact W is not a particle it's only a resonance is defined by information theory, which CERN in its related writings violates since 50 years.
So why do the words matter? It is, whatever you want to call it. The fact of the SU(2) symmetry group defining the isospin it carries is real. the fact of its mass is real. The fact that the Feynman diagrams including W bosons contribute to the observed amplitudes in particle collision experiments is real.
The Z boson e.g. is a simple resonance of the proton so called 3D/4D mass that is a 3 rotation coupled sub-structure of the proton with an exactly calculated mass of 11'396'588eV.
I realise that you think this, and if you could convince anyone else your calculations were principled rather than being post hoc fits to existing data you might get some traction. But the Z boson as predicted by SM before it was found is well established so you have quite a mountain to climb beating that. All is not lost, the amplitudihedron result has convinced people that sometimes complex Feynman diagram results can be equivalently calculated in a much simpler way. Everyone is open to new ideas. So a principled calculation that replicated known good results would be liked: but not a random calculation that post hoc replicates numerical values. If your stuff is real, you should have no problem in reproducing all the SM masses from a smaller number of fudge values and a set of calculations that make sense mathematically (relating to the relevant symmetries, with a principled and explainable rationale) and are not arbitrarily chosen. Then you can publish.
It does your cause no good to trash structure (SM) that obviously has success and internal coherence, and call all of its successes fudge.
Field is as real for light waves as water surface would appear real for surface ripples. It's just an inertial environment for both. The similarity of field with any massive environment also follows from fact, both mediate an energy in harmonic waves - i.e. it must be elastic. No environment can actually be observed by its own waves and transverse waves impede additional constrains for observation of its reference frame. The special relativity is actually valid for all transverse waves in any environment, vacuum is not special environment at all from their perspective.
Quoteenergy is conserved. Full stop.
Energy is conserved at the water surface neither. A portion of it escapes into underwater due to scattering of surface ripples in underwater. Once we admit, that field remains unobservable, then we should also admit energy dissipation without trace - even in vacuum. And vice-versa: ripples of certain wavelength can gain energy from density fluctuations of their environment. From perspective of water surface observer such an energy looks like being generated from nothing. Strictly speaking, such an energy is moving across extradimensions of hyperspace but from deterministic perspective of low-dimensional observer such a transfer still looks like flagrant violation of mass/energy conservation law as the sink or source of energy cannot be traced by waves of light.
The above picture explains, how extremely sharp pulses of Tesla waves can drain energy from vacuum - the space-time becomes deformed in such a way, that pulse itself becomes selfabsorbing for neighboring waves including omnipresent photons of CMBR. For to achieve such a fast change of energy density Tesla developed very fast interrupters based on magnetic quenching of discharge between their spark gaps.
QuoteWatch my lips: energy is conserved. Full stop. The Standard Model "explanation" for photon-photon interactions is wrong.
Standard Model has fundamental problem with its reference frame, which is attributed to dense nuclear matter instead of vacuum. For example in Standard Model the gluons are considered massless gluons, despite in gauge theory such a bosons should have infinite range. Which gluons of course haven't - they can exchange forces only up to 10-15 meter distance before they decay. This gives effective mass of gluons around 0.12 MeV. This is also average density of nuclear matter if we account to mass and diameter of proton. Not surprisingly all calculations of Standard Model are similarly biased.
Virtual particles of vacuum can be observed in similar methods like virtual particles of water. For example water and atmosphere has blue color from its density fluctuations, which preferably scatter short wavelength radiation. Vacuum exhibits analogous absorption threshold - just shifted toward much shorter wavelengths due to its immense energy density: the GZK limit is about 5×1019 eV. Other than that the wavelength of vacuum fluctuations (~ 0.1 mm) is remarkably similar to this of water (1.73 cm), which points to universality of fine structure constant.
Display MoreI'm not as macho as you JD. I will happily rest with your statements and mine contradictory.This post is my last on these facts. if you post more independently false statements I may however find it difficult to resist correcting them as well.
Background links
here is an insightful Q&A on virtual particles answering most of these questions
You haven't corrected anything from me. The Baez article by Matt McIrvin is junk. He doesn't even get the basics right. He said "an electromagnetic field wiggles in the same way when it possesses waves. Applying quantum mechanics to this oscillator reveals that it must also have discrete, evenly spaced energy levels". It isn't true. Photon energy is E=hf. The f can take any value, and so can E. He later says "the particle that emits the virtual photon loses momentum p in the recoil, and the other particle gets the momentum". That isn't true either. Positronium doesn't twinkle. As for his effort to "explain" an attractive force via virtual photons, it's just risible.
Quoteenergy conservation over intermediate states with VPs: https://www.quora.com/How-do-v…k-the-energy-conservation
There's nothing there. Just more mystic handwaving like "one particle at an instance would transform into combination of two different elementary particles for a very short interval of time".
Quoteare virtual particles real: https://www.scientificamerican…re-virtual-particles-rea/
Oh not, not the Gordon Kane fairy tales again!
Quotealso - for some info on the alternative (equivalent) idea of VPs being wiggles in the field, which nevertheless interact:
Nothing to see.
Quotesee above for why VPs don't contradict conservation of energy: look at the QM wave functions for a deeper understanding
I have the deeper understanding. It's me who knows how a magnet works, not you.
QuoteSM says there are no first-order interaction photon-photon. However, an energetic photon can (briefly) turn into a (virtual) massive particle, which interacts with another photon. So we get higher-order interactions.
A photon doesn't turn into a virtual massive particle. Photons interact with photons, end of story. So the Standard Model is wrong. It falls at the first hurdle. It doesn't describe the photon, or how pair production works, or the electron. It has no foundations. It's a castle in the air.
QuoteFrom quantum electrodynamics it can be found that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they carry no charge, but they can interact through higher-order processes: a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a virtual charged fermion–antifermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple. This fermion pair can be leptons or quarks. Thus, two-photon physics experiments can be used as ways to study the photon structure, or, somewhat metaphorically, what is "inside" the photon. Creation of a fermion–antifermion pair through the direct two-photon interaction.
I've told you that this is patent blatant nonsense. A 511keV photon doesn't fluctuate into a 511keV electron and a 511 keV positron. Conservation of energy forbids it. A 511keV electron and a 511 keV positron do not annihilate into a single photon. Conservation of momentum forbids it. And pair production does not occur because pair production occurred!
QuoteThere are three interaction processes:
- Direct or pointlike: The photon couples directly to a quark inside the target photon.[7] If a lepton–antilepton pair is created, this process involves only quantum electrodynamics (QED), but if a quark–antiquark pair is created, it involves both QED and perturbative quantum chromodynamics (QCD).[8][9][10]
The intrinsic quark content of the photon is described by the photon structure function, experimentally analyzed in deep-inelastic electron–photon scattering...
Surreal! There are no quarks inside a photon. You don't really believe this twaddle do you? Come on man! Get a grip!
QuoteI've got no idea why you think that? Perhaps you could give a reference. Symmetries allow any particle to annihilate with its anti-particle to energy. Conservation of momentum and energy can always be satisfied with energy carried as two or more photons.
I gave you the interaction chart. You know that Feynman diagrams show the electron and positron interact by exchanging a photon. The electron is said to interact with the photon, and so is the positron. But in truth they interact with each other.
QuoteI have no idea why you say this. it is 100% unevidenced. See above for why VPs pop in and out of existence. Light does not go round and round, because photons travel geodesics. But if they did, they would not form electrons since an electron has charge and spin, a photon has neither. Both charge and spin are conserved.
There is ample evidence for electron spin. The Einstein-de Haas experiment, the Stern-Gerlach experiment, circular electron motion in a magnetic field.
QuoteSee this long and useful account (with all derivations), of why Einstein in 1915, using complete GR doubled the deflection of light that he deduced in 1911, using only the equivalence principle. This is pure GR, and accounts for this fact with no reference to your "the horizontal component bends downwards".
You haven't even read it, have you? If you had you would have noticed this drawing:
Light curves downwards because the speed of light is spatially variable. The quote I gave earlier was an Einstein quote. Here it is again: 1920: “Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”. Light curves downward because the speed of light varies. Sonar waves curve downwards in the sea for the same reason:
Image from FAS and the US Navy, see course ES310 chapter 20
Again, see Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper what is spin? He said this: “the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy”. We made that electron along with a positron out of light in gamma-gamma pair production. When we annihilate it with the positron what we get is light. So given that there's ample evidence that spin is real, what do you think is going round and round? Cheese?
Do you know what The Trouble with Physics really is, Huxley? Is isn't String Theory. It's the tragic fact that the people who pimp the Standard Model have been peddling nonsense and standing four square in the way of scientific progress for fifty years. It's got to stop. You might like to read The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker.
Quantum Foam of SpaceTime Scrubs Away Gigantic Cosmic Energy Empty space is filled with enormous energy, but according to a new proposal, this energy may be hidden because its effects cancel at the tiniest scales.
Mainstream physics is finally starting to sniff around physical concept of seemingly "empty space" or vacuum but water surface analogies of space-time in dense aether model already provide multiple clues how to drain this energy. In certain sense our vacuum resembles calm surface of molten iron inside of blast furnace: despite that everything around us is immensely hot, we have no effective ways how to drain such an energy because whole environment is effectively isothermic: there are no temperature gradients which would allow us to utilize energy flux.
But famous drinking bird toy demonstrates how to tackle this problem: once the water surface gets artificially protruded and spread along bird's beak, then the space-time gradient has opportunity to evaporate fast due to its latent heat. In addition, such a "beak" must protrude space-time gradient fast, or the space-time gradient would get enough of time to follow its motion and the beak wouldn't spread space-time at all. This evaporation of space-time gradient into an energy can be even observed directly as so-called dynamic Casimir effect in form of radiation. Low-dimensionality and transient arrangement are thus key for utilization of both vacuum energy both latent heat of matter in form of cold fusion.
Quoteeven though the vacuum energy is huge everywhere, the juxtaposition of expanding and contracting regions creates a patchwork that is essentially indistinguishable from a large-scale spacetime that is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a spacetime can be described macroscopically as having zero cosmological constant. The only major assumption needed for the gluing procedure to work is that the spacetime foam has no intrinsic direction of time.
Before some time I proposed similar concept in cosmological time arrow: the space-time appears expanding from intrinsic relativistic perspective and collapsing from extrinsic relativistic one. Both perspectives not quite surprisingly intersect just at the human observer scale (Boltzmann brain).
Time to scrap the SM as Wyttenbach suggests, then?
The Higgs Fake by A. Unzicker review
The book starts off by claiming that the greatest physicists such as Einstein, Dirac or Schrödinger would have considered the “discovery” of the Higgs particle ridiculous. The reasons, according to the author, are that: “1) the so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated, 2) none of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved, 3) history suggests that the current model is a dead end, 4) with their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results, 5) scientific convictions in the community are established by blind faith in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and 6) the data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody.” Unzicker gives a historical survey of the field, and concludes that particle physics, as practiced since 1930, is “a futile enterprise in its entirety.”
This simple animation illustrates how curved space-time deflects path of light. In the vicinity of massive bodies the space-time gets locally more curved, so that photons are forced to travel along longer paths there. The another question is, why space-time behaves so in presence of massive bodies. The answer may come from presence of two space-time arrows again: the first (classical) one is defined by transverse waves of light which are giving expanding perspective (red shift) at long scales, the second one by longitudinal ("scalar") waves of vacuum which are giving contracting perspective at short scales (blue shift) for us. As one can guess, once transverse and longitudinal waves come in ballance, then the space-time looks flat and steady-state (local expansion by photons is balanced by contraction of space induced by scalar waves). Once one of kind of ripples prevails, then the space-time gets curved locally and it exhibits "lensing" at large scales.
In dense aether model the massive bodies are source of this disbalance itself due to their ability to shield transverse and longitudinal components of omnipresent vacuum energy at different distance. Analogously to water surface the transverse waves of vacuum bear high energy density, but they're relatively slow. The extradimensional scalar waves are much weaker, but they propagate much faster than the speed of light in similar way like sound waves at the water surface. Every massive body thus shields virtual photons at relatively short distance (Casimir field) but longitudinal waves (virtual neutrinos) at much larger distance (gravitational field). The Casimir field is thus curved in similar way, like the gravitational field and it exhibits attractive force - but it contains excess of scalar waves and it contracts time arrow. Whereas gravitational field contains excess of virtual photons and it dilates the time arrow instead.
I'm loving this discussion, but please ensure it doesn't get too tired and emotional. This is physics and the SM we are discussing in a public forum. Not football in a bar-room.
Quote“Discovery” of the Higgs particle ridiculous
I'd rather call it premature and lucky by accident. This is how relativity has been actually "proven" by deflection of light of stars during 1919 eclipse. On the left is theoretical prediction of Einstein, on the right the actual observation of it made by Eddington: clearly fake, expectation bias or cherry picking of data from contemporary perspective. What Eddington actually observed was turbulent disk of dark matter around Sun trapped by solar corona (the similar turbulence ruined Gravity B probe "proof" of "frame drag" around Earth). Both Eddington both Gravity B observations were thus quite physically relevant - but only very vaguely compatible with general relativity.
The actual behavior of Higgs field is also way more complex than Standard Model implies - but its higher order terms were swept under the carpet for not to delay appraisal of Peter Higgs and investments into LHC upgrade.
This simple animation illustrates how curved space-time deflects path of light. In the vicinity of massive bodies the space-time gets locally more curved, so that photons are forced to travel along longer paths there...
In dense aether model the massive bodies are source of this disbalance itself due to their ability to shield transverse and longitudinal components of omnipresent vacuum energy at different distance...
Zephir, see where Einstein said a gravitational field is a place where space is “neither homogeneous nor isotropic”. He referred to Huygen’s principle and talked about “the refraction of light rays by the gravitational field”. As you know Einstein spoke of space as the aether of general relativity and Newton had a similar view. See Opticks query 20: “Doth not this aethereal medium in passing out of water, glass, crystal, and other compact and dense bodies in empty spaces, grow denser and denser by degrees, and by that means refract the rays of light not in a point, but by bending them gradually in curve lines?” Also see this:
JohnDuffield: Thank You for valuable historical remarks, which are helping to connect the dots. Actually dense aether model explanation of gravity field is fully compliant with deDuillier/LeSage theory of gravity, except that in role of tachyon ("ultramundane particles") shielding utilizes shielding of scalar waves of Nicola Tesla (i.e. hyperdimensional holographic noise in terms of mainstream physics). Whole the history of relativity is pawed by denial of logical understanding of reality on behalf its formal regression, which brings jobs for modern shamans of Western tribe.
BTW the path of light in gravity field cannot be described by refraction rather by scattering. Einstein himself realized in 1908 already, that refraction-based approach to general relativity cannot be fully correct.
Note that this scattering leads to fragmentation of path of light and for establishing of multiple mirage during observation of objects through Einstein's lens - it's "many worlds" quantum effect in fact based on extrinsic perspective of curved space-time.
I'm loving this discussion, but please ensure it doesn't get too tired and emotional. This is physics and the SM we are discussing in a public forum. Not football in a bar-room.
Indeed please, no need for hostility while discussing ideas. Anyone calling something nonsense should be at least able to discuss and explain politely why he thinks the opposing argument is nonsensical, but without attacking the oponent personally. This discusion is deeply interesting BTW, and many are watching.
