Fields, Particle in particular the Higgs Field


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

A field is just an assignment of a quantity to every point in space-time. It's a technical way of describing the "stuff" that the laws of physics act on.

Naomi,

Bull.

Fields like gravity are physical.

They exist.

When you deny the obvious with gobbledygook, all you get left over is gobbledygook.

But you have your own jargon, I guess.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bob,

I have heard it said that dark matter and dark energy are fictions made up by agenda-laden scientists to make their previous math work with inconvenient observations.

They get sloppy too, talking about the "form" of dark matter and dark energy, which are supposed to be form suckers (if the math is to be believed). :smile:

Michael

It is an observed fact that the cosmos is expanding at in increasing rate. We don't know why. It is also a fact that the rotation curves of stars at the outer part of galaxies do not have Keplarian motion. It could be that our gravitational theories are wrong or it could be there is some kind of gravitating matter out their which we cannot see in the electro-magnetic spectrum.

The terms "dark matter and "dark energy" are currently place-holders for our ignorance. Either way it is a problem that has to be worked out.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

I have heard it said that dark matter and dark energy are fictions made up by agenda-laden scientists to make their previous math work with inconvenient observations.

They get sloppy too, talking about the "form" of dark matter and dark energy, which are supposed to be form suckers (if the math is to be believed). :smile:

Michael

For galaxies to spiral, there must be far more mass than accounted for by a summation of all the masses of the known stars withi

Likewise, light is bent in places and intensities in which gravitational fields are said to be far too weak to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

I have heard it said that dark matter and dark energy are fictions made up by agenda-laden scientists to make their previous math work with inconvenient observations.

They get sloppy too, talking about the "form" of dark matter and dark energy, which are supposed to be form suckers (if the math is to be believed). :smile:

Michael

It is an observed fact that the cosmos is expanding at in increasing rate. We don't know why. It is also a fact that the rotation curves of stars at the outer part of galaxies do not have Keplarian motion. It could be that our gravitational theories are wrong or it could be there is some kind of gravitating matter out their which we cannot see in the electro-magnetic spectrum.

The terms "dark matter and "dark energy" are currently place-holders for our ignorance. Either way it is a problem that has to be worked out.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Rotation of outer-end stars correspond to Wyl geometries (Riemann). Kepler would not be expected.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eva,

Heh.

Field is nothing but an illusion?

Or better, fiction?

Sounds real scientific.

I think I understand...

:smile:

Michael

A field is just an assignment of a quantity to every point in space-time. It's a technical way of describing the "stuff" that the laws of physics act on.

Sometimes these quantities are just ordinary numbers, like in scalar fields. Or they can be vectors, like in vector fields. In General Relativity, space-time and matter are both described in terms of tensor fields. And if you want to know why nobody understands Quantum Mechanics, it's because quantum mechanical fields are really fucking abstract. A quantum mechanical system that only has pure states is described by an infinite-dimensional complex vector at each point in space-time.

Obviously, the 'illusion' citation is a mis-attribution by Michael.

Scalar, vector,and tensor are three ways of measuring fields. What we assume are particles that cause a perturbation that causes an energy ripple sort of like assuming that if you see a wave on a pond, something was thrown in to have caused it.

But the energy ripples are clerarly there....I'll be happy to elaborate if you like.

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The terms "dark matter and "dark energy" are currently place-holders for our ignorance.

Bob,

It wouldn't bother me if that were the way it was presented to the culture.

But that's not what they say. They make it sound like this is fact, albeit sometimes with some mumbled qualifiers that we don't know for sure.

I asked a question once and nobody answered it, so I will ask it again. What if the universe were alive? The expansion of the universe very easily fits a growth pattern (like with a fetus) without having to make up fictions like dark matter and dark energy. It's just slooooooooowww... Cosmic level. And the big bang certainly fits the pattern of conception. (I shudder to imagine what went on before that in this speculation. :smile: )

So long as we're making up stuff as "place-holders," I think that's a fair question.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The terms "dark matter and "dark energy" are currently place-holders for our ignorance.

Bob,

It wouldn't bother me if that were the way it was presented to the culture.

But that's not what they say. They make it sound like this is fact, albeit sometimes with some mumbled qualifiers that we don't know for sure.

I asked a question once and nobody answered it, so I will ask it again. What if the universe were alive? The expansion of the universe very easily fits a growth pattern (like with a fetus) without having to make up fictions like dark matter and dark energy. It's just slooooooooowww... Cosmic level. And the big bang certainly fits the pattern of conception. (I shudder to imagine what went on before that in this speculation. :smile: )

So long as we're making up stuff as "place-holders," I think that's a fair question.

Michael

Every genuine physicist I have heard or read recently admits our ignorance of the phenomena. The anomaly in the rotation curves of stars at the periphery of their galaxies was noted by Franz Zwicky back in 1932. The current hypothesis is that the non-Keplarian motion is due to the gravitational effects of matter that does not emit light (electro-magnetic radiation). That might be the case. It also might be the case that our gravitational theories are not right. This is matter they remains to be resolved.

I never heard a physicist say otherwise. Do not read scientific matters as reported by journalists in the main stream media. The journalists tend to be total ignoramuses when it comes to scientific matters.

The acceleration on cosmic expansion was a total surprise to the cosmologist and astrophysicists back around 1990. These findings have been corroborated multiple times since. There is very little doubt the the cosmos is expanding at an accerlating pace. No one knows why yet. If you listen to physicists like Sean Carrol, you will find out that the Dark Matter and Dark Energy problems are real and the physicists have not yet come up with a solid explanation.

That is what makes genuine science fun. People keep finding out New Stuff for which there is not a ready answer.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

I notice my question still goes unanswered.

:smile:

I have no doubt "Dark Matter and Dark Energy problems are real and the physicists have not yet come up with a solid explanation."

It just sounds to me like a theory trying to make reality fit it rather than the other way around. :smile:

(Kinda like the man-made global warming monkey-shines. Well... not as bad as that... )

I don't blame them, either.

That's a hell of a lot of peer-reviewed number crunching to throw away if the explanation lies elsewhere.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A field is just an assignment of a quantity to every point in space-time. It's a technical way of describing the "stuff" that the laws of physics act on.

Naomi,

Bull.

Fields like gravity are physical.

They exist.

When you deny the obvious with gobbledygook, all you get left over is gobbledygook.

But you have your own jargon, I guess.

Michael

Never said otherwise, just thought you'd wanna know what "field" means in the context of physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>There is very little doubt the the cosmos is expanding at an accerlating pace.>>>>

The 'why' is that it's simply allowable in terms of general relativity. The big bang is not an explosion. Rather, it's like a gazillion balls rolling downwards from a slope of increasing curvature. This is to say that of the four possible Reimannian tensors, the 'increasing positive works to explain the phenomena.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>The current hypothesis is that the non-Keplarian motion is due to the gravitational effects of matter that does not emit light (electro-magnetic radiation). That might be the case. It also might be the case that our gravitational theories are not right. This is matter they remains to be resolved.>>>

Wyl geometry does give the correct calculations for this. It's the (non-Keplarian) math 'of' gravity, not a 're-calculation of gravity itself.

in other words, the Wyl model, borrowing from Einsteins; mathematical source (again, Riemann) demonstrated general relativity in places unknown at the time of Einstein himself.

He, btw, believed in an 'infinite universe' at whose farthest point the spacetime continuum would pass into a useless singularity, due to the non-presence of gravity itself.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>There is very little doubt the the cosmos is expanding at an accerlating pace.>>>>

The 'why' is that it's simply allowable in terms of general relativity. The big bang is not an explosion. Rather, it's like a gazillion balls rolling downwards from a slope of increasing curvature. This is to say that of the four possible Reimannian tensors, the 'increasing positive works to explain the phenomena.

EM

The term in the Einstein Field Equations was originally put in to produce a static (non-expanding) universe. Einstein later declared that term was his greatest blunder. Now it is used to explain or at least describe the accelerating expansion.

Even Einstein's mistakes prove to be of value.

However non of this explains so-called "dark matter". The rotation curves stars way out from the galactic centers have non-Keplerian motion. Why? Qien Sabe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>There is very little doubt the the cosmos is expanding at an accerlating pace.>>>>

The 'why' is that it's simply allowable in terms of general relativity. The big bang is not an explosion. Rather, it's like a gazillion balls rolling downwards from a slope of increasing curvature. This is to say that of the four possible Reimannian tensors, the 'increasing positive works to explain the phenomena.

EM

The term in the Einstein Field Equations was originally put in to produce a static (non-expanding) universe. Einstein later declared that term was his greatest blunder. Now it is used to explain or at least describe the accelerating expansion.

Even Einstein's mistakes prove to be of value.

However non of this explains so-called "dark matter". The rotation curves stars way out from the galactic centers have non-Keplerian motion. Why? Qien Sabe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You're asking two questions which, to a certain extent, are un-related.

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Wyl's differential geometry was an update of the 'simple' Riemann stuff of 1840 that was laboriously explained to Einstein by Hilbert--"tensors". It's pedigree came from Abel and Lie, who were accessible to Einstein in terms of time, but not of understanding.

Basically, a Wyl group serves as a co-efficient to the equation of general relativity, demonstrating that both 'far reaches' of the equation can offer meaningful results. There are no real 'singularities', as the Einstein equation indicates, as written.

In other words, in the Wyl universe, far-space is not 'space' because it's a closed system even as it's expanding. OTH, Wyl geometry predicts not only black holes, but escape out the side.

Re dark matter, i believe that it's necessary to stress what we do know. Otherwise, you get bogged down in some philosophical-sounding mumbo- jumbo about 'virtualities'.

I also want to offer my personal pov re knowledge in general, which is hopelessly Kantian, witch-doctorish as it might be. Because we always ask more questions than we can answer, knowledge is by definition always incomplete.

So what can be said of dark matter is that we know enough to say that it causes galaxies to spiral and stars on the outer fringe to wobble.

In other words... without dark matter, and by doing a quick tab on the total mass of stars and an initial inertial frame, galaxies would have quickly collapsed. What both retards this collapse into a spiral is the extra mass, which we cannot identify.

This mass of dark matter can be easily calculated by a reiterative process of padoodling the total MV of the galactic system, then backing out the total MV of the stars themselves. The only thing that's bizarre is that the dark matter total accounts for 80% of the whole!

Moreover....calculating the weak gravity on the far reaches against the constant of dark matter, the wobbliness of outer limit stars is predicted!

So 'dark matter' has a corroboration of singular stellar wobbles and general galactic shape. This is 'something', indeed!

Eva

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>There is very little doubt the the cosmos is expanding at an accerlating pace.>>>>

The 'why' is that it's simply allowable in terms of general relativity. The big bang is not an explosion. Rather, it's like a gazillion balls rolling downwards from a slope of increasing curvature. This is to say that of the four possible Reimannian tensors, the 'increasing positive works to explain the phenomena.

EM

The term in the Einstein Field Equations was originally put in to produce a static (non-expanding) universe. Einstein later declared that term was his greatest blunder. Now it is used to explain or at least describe the accelerating expansion.

Even Einstein's mistakes prove to be of value.

However non of this explains so-called "dark matter". The rotation curves stars way out from the galactic centers have non-Keplerian motion. Why? Qien Sabe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You're asking two questions which, to a certain extent, are un-related.

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Wyl's differential geometry was an update of the 'simple' Riemann stuff of 1840 that was laboriously explained to Einstein by Hilbert--"tensors". It's pedigree came from Abel and Lie, who were accessible to Einstein in terms of time, but not of understanding.

Basically, a Wyl group serves as a co-efficient to the equation of general relativity, demonstrating that both 'far reaches' of the equation can offer meaningful results. There are no real 'singularities', as the Einstein equation indicates, as written.

In other words, in the Wyl universe, far-space is not 'space' because it's a closed system even as it's expanding. OTH, Wyl geometry predicts not only black holes, but escape out the side.

Re dark matter, i believe that it's necessary to stress what we do know. Otherwise, you get bogged down in some philosophical-sounding mumbo- jumbo about 'virtualities'.

I also want to offer my personal pov re knowledge in general, which is hopelessly Kantian, witch-doctorish as it might be. Because we always ask more questions than we can answer, knowledge is by definition always incomplete.

So what can be said of dark matter is that we know enough to say that it causes galaxies to spiral and stars on the outer fringe to wobble.

In other words... without dark matter, and by doing a quick tab on the total mass of stars and an initial inertial frame, galaxies would have quickly collapsed. What both retards this collapse into a spiral is the extra mass, which we cannot identify.

This mass of dark matter can be easily calculated by a reiterative process of padoodling the total MV of the galactic system, then backing out the total MV of the stars themselves. The only thing that's bizarre is that the dark matter total accounts for 80% of the whole!

Moreover....calculating the weak gravity on the far reaches against the constant of dark matter, the wobbliness of outer limit stars is predicted!

So 'dark matter' has a corroboration of singular stellar wobbles and general galactic shape. This is 'something', indeed!

Eva

Dark Matter hypotheses are made on the assumption that our theories of gravitation are correct. In a sense dark matter corresponds to as yet undiscovered gravitating substances to explain the anomaly in the rotation curves, much like an as yet undiscovered planet was postulated to explain why Uranus had anomalous motion which contradicted Newton's Law.

Ultimately some kind of non-radiating gravitating matter will have to found or we will have a modern day version of aether, which was postulated purely to support electromagnetic waves. Waves have to wave in something, right? Actually not.

We shall see how all this goes down in the fullness of time. Aether hung around for several hundred years before it became clear it did not exist as an elastic substance in space that was stiffer than steel, rarer than virtue and did not heat up when celestial bodies went flying through it. Maybe dark matter will hand around for a long time until it is either observed or tossed because a better theory of gravitation has been created.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Then why did he call the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Then why did he call the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

Ellen

Hubble demonstrated empirically using the 100 inch telescope that the Universe was expanding. Hubble actually saw other galaxies (he had the instrument to do it) and he further showed that most of them were moving away from us at increasing speeds proportional to their distance from us.

Einstein then realized that the tensor he added to keep the universe steady state and stable was a blunder. Einstein was a theorist par excellence but he also realized that facts trump theories and philosophical positions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Then why did he call the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

Ellen

Hubble demonstrated empirically using the 100 inch telescope that the Universe was expanding. Hubble actually saw other galaxies (he had the instrument to do it) and he further showed that most of them were moving away from us at increasing speeds proportional to their distance from us.

Einstein then realized that the tensor he added to keep the universe steady state and stable was a blunder. Einstein was a theorist par excellence but he also realized that facts trump theories and philosophical positions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

General Relativity uses two tensors, one for gravity and the other for space/time on a curved continuum.

Upon completion of GR, Einstein immediately converted the equation into a field theory. This, was around 1915, when it was generally assumed that the universe was fixed and stable.

What he then discovered was that the application of GR made the universe unstable. Gravity would push and pull, eventually collapsing everything into a singularity.

The 'cosmo constan't, then, was a fudge coefficient that would enable the universe to maintain a steady state--again, as it was assumed to be.

So the closest Al ever came to admitting an expanding universe was to admit his 'worst mistake'.

And yes, the equation of GR as written cannot explain stellar behavior at the furthest reaches. For this you do need anther coefficient of sorts--said Wyl geometry.

This, however is neither another cosmo constant nor an aether. Rather, it's more like a glorified acoustic expressed as an exotic differential geometric.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>There is very little doubt the the cosmos is expanding at an accerlating pace.>>>>

The 'why' is that it's simply allowable in terms of general relativity. The big bang is not an explosion. Rather, it's like a gazillion balls rolling downwards from a slope of increasing curvature. This is to say that of the four possible Reimannian tensors, the 'increasing positive works to explain the phenomena.

EM

The term in the Einstein Field Equations was originally put in to produce a static (non-expanding) universe. Einstein later declared that term was his greatest blunder. Now it is used to explain or at least describe the accelerating expansion.

Even Einstein's mistakes prove to be of value.

However non of this explains so-called "dark matter". The rotation curves stars way out from the galactic centers have non-Keplerian motion. Why? Qien Sabe.

Ba'al Chatzaf

You're asking two questions which, to a certain extent, are un-related.

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Wyl's differential geometry was an update of the 'simple' Riemann stuff of 1840 that was laboriously explained to Einstein by Hilbert--"tensors". It's pedigree came from Abel and Lie, who were accessible to Einstein in terms of time, but not of understanding.

Basically, a Wyl group serves as a co-efficient to the equation of general relativity, demonstrating that both 'far reaches' of the equation can offer meaningful results. There are no real 'singularities', as the Einstein equation indicates, as written.

In other words, in the Wyl universe, far-space is not 'space' because it's a closed system even as it's expanding. OTH, Wyl geometry predicts not only black holes, but escape out the side.

Re dark matter, i believe that it's necessary to stress what we do know. Otherwise, you get bogged down in some philosophical-sounding mumbo- jumbo about 'virtualities'.

I also want to offer my personal pov re knowledge in general, which is hopelessly Kantian, witch-doctorish as it might be. Because we always ask more questions than we can answer, knowledge is by definition always incomplete.

So what can be said of dark matter is that we know enough to say that it causes galaxies to spiral and stars on the outer fringe to wobble.

In other words... without dark matter, and by doing a quick tab on the total mass of stars and an initial inertial frame, galaxies would have quickly collapsed. What both retards this collapse into a spiral is the extra mass, which we cannot identify.

This mass of dark matter can be easily calculated by a reiterative process of padoodling the total MV of the galactic system, then backing out the total MV of the stars themselves. The only thing that's bizarre is that the dark matter total accounts for 80% of the whole!

Moreover....calculating the weak gravity on the far reaches against the constant of dark matter, the wobbliness of outer limit stars is predicted!

So 'dark matter' has a corroboration of singular stellar wobbles and general galactic shape. This is 'something', indeed!

Eva

Dark Matter hypotheses are made on the assumption that our theories of gravitation are correct. In a sense dark matter corresponds to as yet undiscovered gravitating substances to explain the anomaly in the rotation curves, much like an as yet undiscovered planet was postulated to explain why Uranus had anomalous motion which contradicted Newton's Law.

Ultimately some kind of non-radiating gravitating matter will have to found or we will have a modern day version of aether, which was postulated purely to support electromagnetic waves. Waves have to wave in something, right? Actually not.

We shall see how all this goes down in the fullness of time. Aether hung around for several hundred years before it became clear it did not exist as an elastic substance in space that was stiffer than steel, rarer than virtue and did not heat up when celestial bodies went flying through it. Maybe dark matter will hand around for a long time until it is either observed or tossed because a better theory of gravitation has been created.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Dark matter is not a 'hypotheses'. Rather, it can be said that we don't know a lot about it.

What makes it a 'reality' is that whatever it is, it causes two observable phenomena: the spiral motion of galaxies and the gravitational instability of the outer stars. Moreover the quantity of matter associated with these two events corroborate against measured gravity at any particular locus within a galactic field.

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark matter is not a 'hypotheses'. Rather, it can be said that we don't know a lot about it.

What makes it a 'reality' is that whatever it is, it causes two observable phenomena: the spiral motion of galaxies and the gravitational instability of the outer stars. Moreover the quantity of matter associated with these two events corroborate against measured gravity at any particular locus within a galactic field.

This sounds like the argument of old that gods who throw lightening bolts out of the sky truly exist. We just don't know that much about these gods. But we do know we see the lightening bolts, therefore the gods have to exist.

So gods are reality, dudes. Get with the program.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark matter is not a 'hypotheses'. Rather, it can be said that we don't know a lot about it.

What makes it a 'reality' is that whatever it is, it causes two observable phenomena: the spiral motion of galaxies and the gravitational instability of the outer stars. Moreover the quantity of matter associated with these two events corroborate against measured gravity at any particular locus within a galactic field.

This sounds like the argument of old that gods who throw lightening bolts out of the sky truly exist. We just don't know that much about these gods. But we do know we see the lightening bolts, therefore the gods have to exist.

So gods are reality, dudes. Get with the program.

:smile:

Michael

No, using the term 'Dark Matter' suffices to indicate that we really don't know much about it (Dark='obscure', metaphorically speaking).

So by the same token, 'gravity' indicates a phenomena that's taken as real, too, although we don't know mush about it. either.

OTH, gods cause lightening only to the extent that one believes in 'god' to begin with...

EM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, using the term 'Dark Matter' suffices to indicate that we really don't know much about it (Dark='obscure', metaphorically speaking).

So by the same token, 'gravity' indicates a phenomena that's taken as real, too, although we don't know mush about it. either.

OTH, gods cause lightening only to the extent that one believes in 'god' to begin with...

EM

In spite of theories that can predict gravitational effects to better than 1 in 10,000 no one knows -the cause- of gravitation even to this day.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In spite of theories that can predict gravitational effects to better than 1 in 10,000 no one knows -the cause- of gravitation even to this day.

Bob,

Unless you believe in gods and call them things like dark matter and dark energy.

This is a question of faith, not reason.

When you, Bob, use these terms, you are using them as placeholders.

When others use them, it's an act of worship.

Uga-uga...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In spite of theories that can predict gravitational effects to better than 1 in 10,000 no one knows -the cause- of gravitation even to this day.

Bob,

Unless you believe in gods and call them things like dark matter and dark energy.

This is a question of faith, not reason.

When you, Bob, use these terms, you are using them as placeholders.

When others use them, it's an act of worship.

Uga-uga...

:smile:

Michael

Who, exactly are 'others'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, again it was Wyl who developed a revision of sorts of the Einstein relativistic field that would accommodate an expanding (non-static) universe. Of course this wasn't important to Einstein himself because he stubbornly believed , to the end, that the universe was fixed.

Then why did he call the cosmological constant his biggest mistake?

Ellen

He added his "cosmological constant" in order to have a steady-state universe. Hubble's observations proved beyond doubt that the universe is expanding. Had Einstein left his equations alone he (or others) would have predicted on the basis of theory that the universe is either expanding or contracting. He would have scooped Hubble just by theoretical means.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now