is the higgs boson the relatively equivalent of phlogiston

R

rwjefferson

Registered Senior Member
truth is not pseudoscience
dogma is

How does the Higgs boson differ from phlogiston?

A few centuries ago, dogma dictated fire was carried by a specific particle.
What is the name of the particle that carries the force of fire?
What is the name of the particle that carries the force of gravity?
How does gravity differ from fire?

ron
 
rwjefferson said:
truth is not pseudoscience
dogma is
Click to expand...
All claims of "truth" is pseudoscience. Science merely tells you the best current precise, useful, communicable approximation of the universe known to mankind. Dogma involves belief; science involves hard work, humility, and honesty -- three things not required for an organization's statement of things to believe. Science doesn't care what you believe -- the state of the world's science gets better as people do more science.

rwjefferson said:
How does the Higgs boson differ from phlogiston?
Click to expand...
A meaningful answer requires that you have the basic understanding of what the Higgs boson is and what phlogiston is.
Phlogiston was a hypothetical substance in all burnable matter, that was lost upon burning. Phlogiston theory unified bioenergetics, organic and inorganic chemistry but predicted a substance without properties. Phlogiston theory should have been abandoned as soon as it was realized that some substances gained weight upon burning, but instead drifted into a conceptual framework without grounding in precise empiricism. It was part of textbooks, but not taken seriously -- a state that the luminiferous ether would achive in the later nineteenth century.

http://web.fccj.org/~ethall/phlogist/phlogist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

The standard model of particle physics is a list of symmetries observed in nature. But one of the symmetries, the electoweak symmetry appears to be broken. Photons are massless, and the W and Z bosons are astonishing heavy by the standards of 1930's particle physics. Thus the "weak" force isn't so much weak but gimpy -- held back by its out-of-place mass -- and largely confined in our everyday lives to radioactivity.

The (singular) Higgs boson field is the simplest way to cripple a pure electroweak symmetry to the way we see it now, and is part of the standard model because we don't see a pure electoweak symettry but approach it as experiments go to high energy. As the simplest crippled symmetry, the standard model makes detailed predictions about how this particular particle would interact if it could interact. Indeed, we can write Feynman rules for this simplest-possible-Higgs field just like electrons and photons and this leads to designs of experiment.

So the non-zero expectation value of the Higgs boson field is hypothesized to be the reason why the W and Z have mass and the photon does not. The Higgs boson particle is an excitation of this baseline field, and is the thing searched for.

rwjefferson said:
A few centuries ago, dogma dictated fire was carried by a specific particle.
What is the name of the particle that carries the force of fire?
Click to expand...
This mistates the nature of substance as understood at the time. This mistates the role of science which discovered oxygen and electrons which form principle roles in successor theories to the phlogiston hypothesis. The ancient greeks held that fire was a substance. In the phlogiston hypothesis, fire was a phenomenon associated with the substance phlogiston.

rwjefferson said:
What is the name of the particle that carries the force of gravity?
Click to expand...
Hypothetically, the graviton is the quantum particle associated with excitations of the curvature of space-time.

rwjefferson said:
How does gravity differ from fire?
Click to expand...
How is this question related to the thread title?
 
Last edited:
rpenner said:
Hypothetically, the graviton is the quantum particle associated with excitations of the curvature of space-time.
Click to expand...
Does that mean the graviton is a hypothetical unit of curvature?

And getting back to those Greeks, how small an amount of matter will cause space to curve?
 
who let the dogs out
woof woof

all matter holds force as energy in verse mass by spacetime constant
fire is a state of energy release
gravity is a state of entropy
:)levity is anti gravity;)

I will agree. All claims of "truth" not supported by self-evident observation are pseudoscience.
Yes. There is a difference between self evident truth and science in Name only.
Yes. There is a difference between truth and dogma.

def: dogma
alphanumeric pseudoscience based on false calculations

What is the difference between the particle that holds mass and the particle that holds gravity? What about the particle that holds inertia?

To understand gravity is to understand the force of all and everything.
To differentiate science from dogma, seek self evident truth.

All is fluent by science.
Dogma dictates space is not.

force is mass acceleration in verse inertial pressure differential

Dogma dictates curvature is the same as force.
Science does not.

fluent gravity
To measure the drag and direction of the wimpy headwind, stand on a scale and look up.
Dogma dictates m&m were looking in the right direction.
Dogma dictates this dictate as proof that space is curved.
Science does not.

Drill a hole in an icy hockey rink. Connect this black hole to your most perfect vacuum. Pucks launched with just the right inertia orbit relative lower pressure.
orbit is the dance of newton in verse bernoulli

Science offers kind and well reasoned response to all questions.
What happens as sound energy encounters the supersonic shell around a hypersonic vortex?
Dogma snarls silence!

ItS
truth
r~

How much dirt might be found within a hole 1'x1'x1'?
How dense is the matter found in a bottomless black hole 1'x1'x1'x1'?
 
Cranks will not admit self evident truth. Cranks hide what they don't want revealed.
I know why you cannot answer my questions with reason. I know why you try to bury the truth.

peace
ron
 
Yes the Boson is Phlogiston

The BOSON and Phlogiston are very similar.

BUT that does not make the pursuit of it non-science.

Theory and Law are what the debate really boils down to.

Scientific theory is being subverted and controverted on a daily basis by the best minds we have. FUNDING is the evil mechanic behind this behavior. The need to make advances in order to secure funding leads to things like this:

zeenews.india.com/news/space/world-s-most-precise-boson-measurement-points-to-higgs-mass_761959.html

While the existence of the Higgs Boson in reality (outside of theoretical mathematics) has not been proven we have skipped ahead to define its mass.

Reality is we have partially QUANTIFIED something we have yet to QUALIFY.

As to how this applies to the Phlogiston / Boson relationship:

Phlogiston Theory was disproved because good science was preformed that eliminated it as a possibility AND then went on to PROVE another theory.

I the case of the Higgs Boson, we have not PROVED its existence OR nonexistence but we are trying to measure its mass.

We missed a step. We have researchers proving there is mass and insisting it is the BOSON. Scientific Method requires you prove there is a BOSON before you can measure it.

I could generate a simple sounding theory that a black hole is not powered by an ultra-dense singularity, but instead by a tear in space time creating a vacuum that is actually "suctioning" space. Thereby all matter in the space is also pulled in, but photons, have no mass therefore a "photgraviton" (i made that up for sake of argument) must exist inside the photon that contains no mass but contains space and is therefor pulled into the the suctioning force of the space time tear or black hole.

Further i can portend from the theory i laid out the the tear in space time would create the same dimpling of space time we currently observe in a black hole while having no mass.

Sounds silly, but if i start measuring the the field around my space time tear I'm doing the same thing as we currently are with a boson. Therefor according to the rules being followed by modern scientists, I can claim my theory has "EVIDENCE" that supports its accuracy.

My point is the BOSON is great and Higgs was genius for suggesting its existence. But, lets prove it exists before we try to measure it.
 
I believe the new D0/CDF measurement of the W boson's mass is entirely consistent with the Standard Model and a Higgs boson mass of about 115 GeV.
 
Still meausring something and HOPING its what we want it to be

AlexG said:
Measuring it is how you prove it exists.
Click to expand...

Logic error:

Now you've gone and abandoned 400 years of the proven Scientific Method. Measuring the quantity of an unidentified mass does not determine the nature, composition or properties of the mass.

Measuring the unaccounted for mass of a whole does not prove the that the measured mass is anything in particular. It only proves that there is something there that has mass and must be qualified.

Again as i said before I love the boson theory and Higgs is a genius, but science works by ruling out all other possibilites and not ruling in one possibility because we like it.

That behavior leads to PHLOGISTON.
 
rpenner said:
I believe the new D0/CDF measurement of the W boson's mass is entirely consistent with the Standard Model and a Higgs boson mass of about 115 GeV.
Click to expand...

rpenner you have been obviously actually following this too. I think the boson is a real thing because the theory is convincing, but I just disagree with the methodology here because to my knowledge the boson has yet to be proved to be the mass we are measuring in the experiment. The experiment is simply measuring the leftover mass we are as yet unable to qualify and we are jumping to the boson conclusion, whereas 2 masses or more could technically be the missing bits.
 
Truth be told, people have a very strange perception of gravity. Objects don't attract each other, that is preposterous! Absurd, even!

People have very strange illusions of massive objects magically pulling each other together. I blame Newton for that ridiculous misconception.
 
AlexG said:
Jump off a cliff, and see if you fall up.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you expect the earth to crash into the sun. Let me know when you expect the moon to crash into the earth. When exactly do you predict that the universe will once again be a singularity?
 
Let me know when you expect the earth to crash into the sun
Click to expand...

As soon as it is stopped in it's orbit.

MD, do you know ANY physics? Not a single one of your 'theories' agrees with the physical universe. It's an interesting world you inhabit, but it's not this one.
 
AlexG said:
As soon as it is stopped in it's orbit.

MD, do you know ANY physics? Not a single one of your 'theories' agrees with the physical universe. It's an interesting world you inhabit, but it's not this one.
Click to expand...

It won't be stopping anytime soon, as the orbit is increasing in size. Yes, that's right, the moon is getting FARTHER away from earth and earth is getting FARTHER away from the sun.

Not closer, but FARTHER, as in going away, not towards. Get it?
 
According to the second law of thermodynamics mass evolves to space. Entropy is irrefutable!

According to my world the universe should be expanding, and it is. According to my world the earth should be getting further from the sun, and it is.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Truth be told, people have a very strange perception of gravity. Objects don't attract each other, that is preposterous! Absurd, even!

People have very strange illusions of massive objects magically pulling each other together. I blame Newton for that ridiculous misconception.
Click to expand...

Not to be a heel, but this is a bit off topic. If you wish to connect the dots of the boson theory, the standard model and gravity and how it pertains to THIS subject, maybe it would be best to start another thread.

Open discussion is a good thing, but lets keep different discussions in different threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top