Schneibster

Let's try this again: Higgs field -> Scalar field Extremely simple has only one interaction besides self-interactions couples through Yukawa interaction with Dirac field -> Yukawa interaction with Higgs field provides "rest mass" Dirac field is more complex, provides many attributes Dirac field is explicitly relativistic, incorporates Lorentz symmetry Lorentz symmetry acts on "rest mass" (see above) Now mass -> more properly mass/energy or stress-energy tensor Acts upon all three both of Ricci tensor metric tensor cosmological constant And is in turn acted upon by them. Are we good so far? I'm working on it. Please answer if we're good so far. Note, updated once.

No, I made a series of statements. Denying the last one is bad form. Prove which one that preceded it you disagree with. Or prove what's missing from them.

Yes. The Yukawa interaction brings that in from the Higgs field. I believe I just did.

The Dirac theory's relativity acts on the mass attribute determined by the Yukawa coupling between the Higgs field and the Dirac field, is my point. The point being that it's not the velocity that the Higgs field couples to. That coupling is not through the Higgs field but through the Dirac field. The Higgs field's Yukawa coupling strength increases with acceleration.

Ummm, the Dirac theory is relativistic. Explicitly. That's Standard Model. More accurately it is Lorentz symmetric, which is the same thing. Lorentz symmetry is the symmetry of SR. You can look at it as, it's the symmetry that makes the Dirac field anticommutate.

Right. The relativistic mass comes from the Dirac theory of the fermions. The Higgs field gives them mass, and then the Dirac theory makes it relativistic. Mass is an input to the Dirac theory, not an output. It is an output of the Yukawa coupling of the Dirac theory with the Higgs field.

I am wondering if the difference in the magnitudes of the Casimir force as measured in the lab, and the necessary strength of lambda, the cosmological constant, or "dark energy," could be due to the fact that it is offset by a change in guv due to the local density of matter within the galaxy, or within the Local Cluster.

Sam, I'm sorry, I think you're trolling for a reaction and you have confirmed my opinion by denying the Big Bang.

So, again, what's wrong? You're factually incorrect, BTW, my description of rapidity is straight doctrine.

Then why blame relativity for it? Sam, I'm sorry you're upset but you're still just denying, and you're still not answering the essential question, "What's wrong?"

All correct. I worked with an autofocus expert who worked on AFMs. Thing is, if it touches any of those ways you messed up and you usually have to start over, and that's if you didn't damage the sample or the probe and need to replace them. So it's a key point to keep the probe from touching the sample.

Yes. Both events must exist in its light cone. I'm sure we're on the same page. michel could you please define motion?

How come you don't want to discuss Putin?

What "speed?" It's a needle, probing a surface. The needle comes to a point that is a single atom. You see where it starts experiencing van der Waals forces from the surface. It never actually touches it.

The acceleration that makes you go fast enough to see relativistic effects leads to the rotation that makes them inevitable when you reverse direction. In fact, these are both rotations and most of the difficulty you're having is not understanding rotations in four dimensions, as several folks have told you. You are not really to blame; I think the pedagogical technique of "Lorentz boosts" is somewhat to blame. You may or may not have heard of it, but you have clearly, given your questions, read explanations based on it. So everyone knows, a "Lorentz boost" is a truly impossible phenomenon in which an object changes speed without experiencing acceleration. It is used in certain pedagogical techniques for explaining relativity, and is IMO responsible for a great deal of confusion. It is the choice of the direction of acceleration that is responsible for the asymmetry you see, SamBridge. You, by choosing a direction, have fixed a gauge. Now, your twin, BridgeSam, will always be a different age from you unless he, too, accelerates, and furthermore, in that direction, no other. And stops when you do. Your own example fixes the gauge, which creates the asymmetry. Later: Also a note on more relativity: You can either have the little increments all the way along the journey with the big reversal and then unincrements (heh, I made a neologism) all the way back, or you can disperse the reversal along with the increments and unincrements all along the way. It all integrates to the same answer, either way. That's why it's called "relativity." Personally I prefer to use Poincaire hyperbolic geometry rather than Lorentz algebra. It's more graceful when you turn it into scary integrals.

I learn something new every day. Thank you. However, I'll also point out that there is still a horizon. Also, its worth saying that another explanation for greater-than-c-spacetime-expansion is that it is empty space being created everywhere between, somewhat offset by other geometric effects. This is clear from the Einstein Equation, which is the master equation from which the ten equations of the gravity field are derived: Guv + Λguv = 8πG/c4 xTuv Lambda, then, Λ, is pushing space apart, except where it is opposed by guv, the metric tensor.

+1, Janus. I could never figure out what Sam was asking. Let this be a lesson to you Sam: always make sure you bring out all the context and stop trying to trick people. This isn't law, it's physics. We can't answer your questions if we don't know what they are and your assumptions that we would intrinsically link your questions to the subjects you are talking about are incorrect. You're assuming that we know how Clovis points were made because we know the orbit of Mars.

In the interest of absolute accuracy I will point out that the clock passes through both events as they occur. This means there is no definition of "proper time" between events that are outside one anothers' light cones. Are we on the same page? I'm very careful in relativity discussions it's so hard to go astray.

Well, it was implicit, but I indicated that your use of "proper time" appeared incorrect. If I'm right it invalidates your argument. Could you please explain this apparent discrepancy, or ask questions if you're not sure what it is?

Swansont, there is a problem with the infrastructure investment for poor countries. There are also environmental impacts of wind and tide mechanisms, and capacity trouble. A base load must be provided for at all times. Wind and solar are intermittent and our storage technologies are weak.

Strange, do you have any answer for my question in post 77?

So because they made some people claim they got butthurt, you kill their babies? So, how many babies to you propose to kill per "insult?"

What does "There is absolutely nothing that works that little bit" mean on Earth?

Define motion. If you do your interpretation will fail.

It's microwave. Stars don't radiate that much microwave.