JohnLesser

You are not teachers, why do you all presume your explanations are correct? Thread closed again for no reason but your lack of teaching skills. Nowhere else on the internet do I observe such arrogance as this forum....You get my worse forum vote , so you might as well ban me again for about the 30 time. You all think you know it because you explain wiki , in reality can not think for yourselves or even understand your own science. In short not many of you know what you are actually talking about. Bye cya next time around when I might be a teenager or a single mum or some other type sock. Ban my IP so I can just float it and return with my multiplex persona.

Physically observed.

I have asked for an easy explanation, they are not giving an easy explanation or providing any basic easy to understand evidence. How do you expect anyone to accept something to be true if the replies keep talking to people as if everyone is a qualified scientist? To me a particle has physicality, things with physicality reflect light and can be seen no matter how small. So please define particle to me because obviously if they are not providing observation they do not mean a real particle, their definition is of something else. P.s I am not trolling, they are failing to learn me correctly. They are not teachers although some members may be.

Ok, so if it is a real particle, you should have a picture of it? Define real?

I have asked you several times now for evidence, I fyou can not convince an average person like myself with easy explanation, then surely there is something amiss?

Provide this observation of affects?

Yes I am not considering virtual particles, I consider genuine particles.

Data? That means very little. I will look at the data later and no doubt like most do in science, they don't even understand the reality of their own findings.

No, but I can observe gravity and there is plenty of proof of the existence of gravity. However I already know you can not offer no concrete proof of the Higgs Boson, to split a Proton into fragments and try to call each fragment a Boson, is going beyond 0 dimensions into a realm of fantasy theory instead of factual theory, at the very best Higgs is supposition unless you can offer the observation of the existence .

Can you show me a picture of what the Boson looks like?

You miss the point, I discover America , I have not discovered America, I have discovered a land mass and named it America. I discover an Unknown particle, I call it a Boson, I could of called it Africa and then there would be no boson. It would still be an Unknown particle,

I still observe no evidence, let me tell you why, suppose I had discovered a ''Photon'' but called it a boson, how do you know the Boson is not a ''Photon''? Giving something a particular name does not necessarily mean you have discovered the thing you were aiming to discover. ( I am not saying the Photon is a boson).

I do not feel that you have just offered any sort of evidence, can you please provide evidence of an Higgs field or likewise? Words alone do not mean evidence.

Thank you for your thoughts and insight, However the student wants to know if you have any proof of Quantum fields such as the Higgs field, the student feels you are offering subjective thinking with no actual evident proof?

Thank you for the insight, What do you mean exactly by they both must be taken in to account simultaneously?

That can't be correct, the wavelength is created by the ''obstruction'' and the result of obstruction , the ''pressure'' of resistance. A ''grouping'' of photons. Not really in my opinion. The permitivity and permeability stop the photons passing through .

The wave length describes the ''flow'' not an individual Photon particle, a Photon unlike space has difficulty passing through the balloons surface if the balloon is opaque, so the photon is more than space it is something of physicality so although really really small, must have a size?

Detecting something that are ghostly like is not an easy challenge I must admit. However they must have a size and bodily presence or they would not exert a force or pressure. Could we assume a Photon is fractionally 0 small and the smallest thing that exists? A 0 point energy ghostly particle? 0*0*0=0³? or could we do >0*>0*>0=>0³?

Not really, 0 point space is without dimension . but lots and lots of 0 point spaces adjoined make up a volume, however there is probably noway any of you will understand 0²=1. Better leave that one alone though, the conversation will get cut short by the mods. I am trying to equate the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, planck length cubed must be more understandable than 0³.? What is the size of a Photon? Just because you can not relate this it does not mean I can't relate it.

I was talking about 0 point energy, and trying to consider the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement, I was not trying to quantify space. There is no evidence? I thought a Planck length was the smallest conceivable linear measurement? fractionally 0.

We don's measure the volume/size of something in joules. I am giving the smallest possible 3 dimensional measurement? Planck distance cubed. If X = 1.6 x 10-35 m THEN XYZ= 1.6 x 10-35 m³

Yes I agree space is the empty ''bowl'' for the Quantum soup. I believe we can have 0 point space but not 0 point energy, I believe energy has dimensions and if I had to give E a dimension I would measure it at: E=1.6 x 10-35 m³ Not exactly 0 dimension, but as close to the smallest 3 dimensional measurement as possible? To measure how many ''0'' point energies are in a volume I would measure 4 3 π r 3 divided by 1.6 x 10-35 m³ who's clicked dislike? Why what is wrong with it?

I am sorry strange but there is more logical errors in that post that does not explain it very well. Error 1 - ''What we perceive as gravity is the curvature of space-time. '' The curvature of a coordinate system relative to a situate background of space. Error 2- ''Imagine two parallel lines that stretch from the past into the future.'' Both the lines would exist in the present, _____________________ _____________________ Both the lines would be a virtual vector relative to situate ''background''. ''As you move along your line (as time passes) the two lines will stay the same distance apart and you stay in the same (relative) spatial position.'' Ok so you saying the lines are time passing an observer at relative rest? ''Now, if there is some mass present on the other line, then this will cause a curvature of space-time and the lines will no long be parallel but will curve towards one another. As you move forward one your line, you will move towards the other line; i.e. towards the mass. You will interpret this as the force of gravity making you fall towards it.'' No, it will cause you imaginary lines to curve, the force of gravity is linear, the object is being attracted by a linear force. The lines do not exist , the space fabric does not exist, there is nothing of space to curve.

If you can see it you don't need coordinates, it is a bit like shooting a gun, aim and shoot, if you could steer the bullet you would never miss. Defining destination by coordinates is a bit different, this is for when you can't see the destination, other than that point and ''walk''. A guided missile is different to a bazooka.

I can see mars with my eyes like I can see the local shop, have you ever heard of steering ? I do not need coordinates to direct myself to a location I can see. Yes the raisin bread is not a bad one, but it still puts in solidity where space has none.