Conjurer

I see why working in theoretical physics requires using technical jargon all the time which goes completely over everyone's head, so they cannot even make a counter argument against it. You couldn't make it anymore clear why that would have to be a necessity. I didn't say everything was, but that is a popular belief. I was trying to explain the possibility that stuff could be made out of other particles besides photons, based on if they have their own antiparticle or not. I am not trying to say this is not true. You failed to recognize the difference between fundamental and truly fundamental. I already explained this. Two photons cannot collide to create more photons. They will either merge or cancel themselves out. It seemed like other particles with similar properties could have the same type of behavior. Here you have taken one single example and misapplied it to the whole theory. Just because this happens in one special circumstance, doesn't mean it applies to the whole theory. Derp... These theories were mostly given up on due to the discovery of the Higgs mechanism. I believe that it is due to this logical fallacy. Determining if a particle is truly fundamental or not is a core issue or concern in these types of theories. There isn't a known method to know this for sure. Quantum jumps have not been mathematically explained in quantum theory, so technically there are. Why do people still work at particle accelerators? I actually have zero confidence that I could say anything and you will agree with it. The sky is blue. 2 + 2 = 4 My name is Conjurer. Your name is Strange. This is the Science Forums. The name of this thread is Higgs (split from unification?). I am not a bot. Objections?

Then it wouldn't be the derivative. The derivative is the line that intersects a curve at exactly one single point. Then if the change in x was not zero, it would be the equation for a line that intersects at two points on the curve. It is mathematically correct to divide by an infinitesimal in this situation, because it has been mathematically proven that you can divide by an infinitely small number or zero in only this one specific situation.

BTW, I don't think there is a way to work with numbers that explode into higher infinities. I hear it is one of the leading problems in theoretical physics to find unification and describe what goes on in a black hole or the Big Bang. It is a mathematical process that has been sought after, so you would have to invent it. It just so happens that finding the derivative is the only mathematical situation that is known where you can actually divide by zero and get a correct reasonable finite answer. Normally, they say you have to find the limit so it isn't actually zero when you cancel them out, but it actually does nothing to the mathematical operation differently than if you just canceled the zero. Then the derivative can be found where it actually is zero. In this one type of situation, you can get away with dividing by zero, and it makes no difference to the answer. The only way you can find a value from an infinite number is to take the integral, which is the reverse process of taking the derivative. That finds the area under a function and the x axis. Even though variables are infinite in the function, you can have a finite number of area to work with still. The only known method would be to analyze the hyperreal on a coordinate plain as a part of a function and use calculus on it.

Do you know if string theory has ever been able to accurately describe a Z Boson or Higgs Boson? The lowest vibration of a string represents a photon. Then everything is described as being a different vibration of a string. Bosonic string theory is the original version of string theory, developed in the late 1960s. It is so called because it only contains bosons in the spectrum. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory Maybe, I haven't been up to date on what string theory is now, but originally it only contained bosons. Then it is difficult to even get anything legible out of even the writings of people who developed it. All I could find on the internet was this paper about it, Z ′ boson detection in the Minimal Quiver Standard Model, and it says this in the conclusion "The exploration of this model is worthwhile because it is the simplest possible low-energy theory that could arise from a brane-world scenario in a string theory" "Although the prospects for this model being exactly what will be observed at the LHC are slim, hopefully the results here will be useful to future model builders in determining the theory that best explains any upcoming experimental results." https://arxiv.org/pdf/0807.1126.pdf

How do you know if the developer of string theory doesn't even know what a string is? The simplest form of a string is a photon, it would seem like to me that a different vibration of a string would be a different frequency of a photon. I don't know any other way around it. They are all photon-like.

The simplest form of a string in string theory is a photon. In string theory, everything is made out of photons. Then it wouldn't be correct if there are other truly fundamental particles. A string may not be able to describe a Higgs Boson or a Z boson correctly, because they are not made up of photons. You cannot smash the antiparticle with it to get a resulting explosion of photons. You could smash an electron and a positron together, and it would create an explosion of photons. Then you could say that electrons and positrons are made of photons. In a sense, that is what string theory does. Then the standard model doesn't describe them as being made of photons. That would be the hidden variables, since you smashed two things and it broke apart into a different thing. It would have to be made of those things. Electrons are said to be fundamental particle in the standard model, but it is not known if they are truly fundamental or if any particles are actually particles or truly fundamental. Electrons cannot exist in a phase space outside of an orbital around an atom with any probability distribution. This suggest that they are governed by photons which travel the speed of light. Then the photons transferring information at the speed of light would be a hidden variable in the phase space of their orbitals, since electrons do not travel at the speed of light. The Higgs could potentially become a quantum theory of gravity which is completely independent of the GR theory. A grand unified theory (GUT) could exist without GR. It could just end up being a completely different theory altogether. One day quantum physicist could say they have a GUT, and it is just the astrophysicist's problem as to why they never need GR.

That was the basis of my argument in why I choose the comments I choose that created this thread. Not in the standard model, but it is thought that a grand unified theory would require to go beyond the standard model. Then things like this come into question if you desire to describe the standard model in a different way. If photons are required to be a part of the hidden variables in QFT for traveling the speed of light and it is truly fundamental, then it is possible that the Z boson is a part of the hidden variables of the standard model, since it is also truly fundamental. I reasoned this by it being it's own antiparticle, which is identical. When I was talking about this before with someone, it was a big question that was raised, and I proved my point in going this direction based on matter/antimatter collisions. They always result in an explosion of pure energy or photons, so it proves that photons are truly fundamental. It would be impossible to ever discover a particle by smashing photons together. The z boson has similar properties of this fashion. I don't really. I just think it is the best way to unify gravity with the other forces of nature or QFT.

I thought unification was a more general term with the goal of unifying the forces of nature. Combining QFT with GR is one way to accomplish that goal, but I didn't see it as a requirement. Then I started mentioning other areas of physics I thought could accomplish that goal, since unification would encompasses all of the laws of physics by including a combination of all the forces of nature. Then it could be treated as a particle that is a constituent of every other particle. You wouldn't have to worry about it possibly being composed of any other particle that has not yet been discovered. Then it could prevent the theory from being proven false by the discovery of a new particle. It opens the possibility that other particles have it as a part of it's constituents. You seemed to be the only one that had any idea what they were talking about in trying to approach a unification theory. It made it seem like more work needs to be done with the Higgs Field to accomplish unification of the forces of nature. That would be the best approach to take.

I understood unification as just meaning the unification of all the forces of nature. Then if there is a description of gravity in QFT, then that description would only need to be completed to unify all the forces. From what you said, it sounds like you believe that we already achieved unification. I thought they would have to assume that the z boson is truly fundamental to accomplish this, like they had to assume that the photon was truly fundamental to advance this part of the theory. Then I thought the discussion was over. I not sure how to react to these new threads and getting a warning when I was already done talking about what I wanted to say about the topic.

I thought this discussion was over. I don't see why it was made into a new thread we were finished talking about. I thought we came to the conclusion that the closest we have come to being able to make unification would just be discovering how the w and z obtains mass. That seemed to be the answer of the question of the thread at this point, which was ripped out of it.

The standard part of any infinitesimal is 0. Thus if N is an infinite hypernatural, then 1/N is infinitesimal, and st(1/N) = 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_part_function

I don't see how real numbers could possibly behave in the same way as hyperreals, because the equation for the standard part function would divide that number by zero. Then the limit isn't taken for it to find the derivative. The limit has to be found to divide by an infinitesimal for all real numbers.

The reason why I believe it actually does age is because I was able to solve the Light Clock problem in Minkowski spacetime to get the proper time equation. In the proof, time dilates, because the speed of light is constant. Under the constraint of having to form a right triangle, the values of the other variables have to be altered, when considering distance as ct. Then there is a sort of mechanical connection between the sides of the triangle that force the time variables to change based on what the time variables are on the other side of the right triangle, in order for it to remain a right triangle. It comes from it being treated as a sort of rigid body that has to make connections to form an object or right triangle. An observer on a space ship traveling close to the speed of light would observe light to travel straight up and down a distance ct'. They are in a different frame of reference, so their time is t'. An observer at rest would measure the light clock to send a beam at an angle a distance of ct. The ship would travel a distance of vt. (ct')^2 + (vt)^2 = (ct)^2 c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 - v^2t^2 c^2t'^2 = c^2t^2 (1 - v^2/c^2) ct' = ct sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2) t' = t sqrt (1 - v^2/c^2) Then you have t' = tau, and the light clock problem has been solved in Minkowski Spacetime. Previously, that was the only reason why relativity wasn't seen to be real or a possibility that a biological entity would not age, because no one was able to solve this problem. Then I solved it, so there should be no other reason why it shouldn't, that I know of. It makes it clear that it is actually a property of spacetime itself.

In mathematics, the system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_part_function Briefly, the standard part function "rounds off" a finite hyperreal to the nearest real. The reason why it is a standard part function is because they are not standard real numbers, like 31. It rounds it off to the nearest real number. The equation they use to do this is the same as the equation of a derivative. It associates to every such hyperreal {\displaystyle x}, the unique real {\displaystyle x_{0}} infinitely close to it, i.e. {\displaystyle x-x_{0}} is infinitesimal. Then the hyperreals are infinity close to the real numbers.

The sheer notion of this completely boggles my mind. Pie can also be expressed as a fraction of the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter, but that doesn't make it a rational number. You couldn't know the exact value of both the circumference and the diameter with 100% accuracy, so you could only approach a slightly better estimate for it by making more accurate measurements of a perfect circle. Then there exist computer programs that can calculate it to a further degree of places. That doesn't change the fact of it being irrational. Everyone I have ever heard teach about this aspect of math uses that type of lingo. that contain anything greater in the form 1+1+...+1 31 doesn't contain anything greater in the form of adding an infinite number of 1's. Therefore, it fails to meet the requirement. It is trying to deal with infinities that are greater than an infinity of adding an infinite number on single digits or counting to infinity by integers.

You can also write a program that determines the calculation of pi to however many places you want. It is still said that pi continues randomly on forever. That just means that the sequence of numbers do not repeat the same way forever. In mathematics, the system of hyperreal numbers is a way of treating infinite and infinitesimal quantities. The hyperreals, or nonstandard reals, *R, are an extension of the real numbers R that contains numbers greater than anything of the form {\displaystyle 1+1+\cdots +1} (for any finite number of terms). Such numbers are infinite, and their reciprocals are infinitesimals. The term "hyper-real" was introduced by Edwin Hewitt in 1948.[1] You just proved to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. When you have 1+1+...+1 that means it is an infinite series, and it would have to have an infinite number of digits. I bolded and highlighted the part where it says the numbers are infinite. The number 31 doesn't continue on forever or have an infinite number of digits.

The way he was saying it made it sound like 31 could be a hyperreal. When it is not. I guess 333,333,... could be a hyperreal that is rational. The answer I got from putting it into my calculator is 0.3183098862... It appears to continue on forever repeating randomly. It becomes infinitesimally close to a rational number, since each digit after the decimal point is a smaller and smaller description that approaches a rational number. It appears someone has taken the liberty of changing the wiki to be more informal, since you made that response. Now the wiki says, The transfer principle, however, doesn't mean that R and *R have identical behavior. For instance, in *R there exists an element ω such that {\displaystyle 1<\omega ,\quad 1+1<\omega ,\quad 1+1+1<\omega ,\quad 1+1+1+1<\omega ,\ldots .} but there is no such number in R. (In other words, *R is not Archimedean.) This is possible because the nonexistence of ω cannot be expressed as a first order statement.

Infinitesimals have to continue on forever past the decimal point. Then that makes them irrational numbers, because they cannot be expressed as a fraction. That is the definition of an irrational number. A hyperreal could just be a number that continues on forever without a decimal point or an ordinary irrational number. If you put that number on the bottom of a fraction it would make it an infinitesimal, because you would be dividing 1 by an infinite number of numbers. The process would never stop, so you would end up with an infinite number of numbers past the decimal. Therefore, it would become an infinitesimal or irrational number.

I agree. It seems like a lot of them these days get their scientific information from an episode of Star Trek which claims particles are identical being a cover-up, so it doesn't create a public Star Trek Universe scare of people actually being murdered by transporter technology. I don't believe I could have made it any more clear. If you are completely lost, then I am at a loss of what else to tell you about it. I don't even know what this forums stance is on that or what stance you expect me to take here. I made a proof almost a year ago in a thread when I first started using the forum. Then studiot was so convoluted with the idea that I had a problem with relativity, I couldn't even get to a point to rather a biological entity actually ages under the effects of SR or not. I think it was called proof of SR in Minkowski Spacetime or something like that.

You said you learned it by reading a book written by Wheeler, so I am not surprised at all in this type of response to my questions. It was actually expected. There has been more work done on GR with more in depth analysis where it was discovered that the reason why all the values approach infinity is because spacetime actually forms a vertical line at the center of a black hole. Then any derivative of a point on that line would become infinite.

The orbitals are a part of the phase space where it has a probability distribution. They cannot occupy regions in between orbitals with any probability distribution. Since they cannot occupy that region of phase space with any probability distribution, they quantum jump in between orbitals where they vanish and reappear.

It would mean that you could argue that anything even has a color. That is a well known symptom of color blindness. Do you have a reference for that? Changing more than one orbital at a time? I believe that it is due to the frequency of the electron depending on the orbital it is in. Each orbital can only hold electrons that travel around the nucleus at a frequency that is a multiple of a full wave wavelength. Then it jumps to a higher orbital when it absorbs a photon that would change its frequency to a higher orbital, and it loses a photon when it goes down an orbital. So, the reason why things are the color they are is because that is the frequency of the orbital where the electrons can emit a photon, and where other frequencies of photons are absorbed. It puts a block on other frequencies being emitted or absorbed, because it doesn't allow the electron to change to a different orbital. They can only accept photons that would give it enough energy to be pushed into the next orbital, and it can only emit photons where it would change the energy enough to push it down into the lower orbital. The energy required is based on the momentum of the electron in how it changes it's frequency.

I just expanded onto your theory by switching the objects out for other objects. Is there some sort of rule of how or what objects can be used in the description of your theory? The photon frequency is dependent on the frequency of the electron.

According to your theory, a stop sign is the same color as a yeild sign? A stop light is the same color as a go light? Yes, but the electrons have changed frequencies to fit those orbitals. Electrons of different frequencies are not exactly alike or identical. They have different frequencies. The electrons would look different by having different frequencies than their previous selves.

I meant the actual color of them in the visible light spectrum. What we see when we are looking at objects is actually the light coming off of the electrons around the atoms. That is why objects look different colors. It was discovered by Isaac Newton.