Strange Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Conjurer said: I thought unification was a more general term with the goal of unifying the forces of nature. It may be. But that is not what that thread was about. And it is not what this thread is about, so please stay on topic. 1 minute ago, Conjurer said: Then it could be treated as a particle that is a constituent of every other particle. No. It is not a constituent of any other particle. The W and Z bosons mediate the weak interaction. 2 minutes ago, Conjurer said: 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 don't know why you think the Higgs field is relevant to unifying GR and QM.
Conjurer Posted January 19, 2020 Author Posted January 19, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Strange said: It may be. But that is not what that thread was about. And it is not what this thread is about, so please stay on topic. That was the basis of my argument in why I choose the comments I choose that created this thread. 13 minutes ago, Strange said: No. It is not a constituent of any other particle. The W and Z bosons mediate the weak interaction. 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. 13 minutes ago, Strange said: I don't know why you think the Higgs field is relevant to unifying GR and QM. I don't really. I just think it is the best way to unify gravity with the other forces of nature or QFT. Edited January 19, 2020 by Conjurer
Strange Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 21 minutes ago, Conjurer said: 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. None of this is part of any extensions to the standard model. It is just figments of your imagination. Photons are not hidden variables and neither are Z bosons. There is no reason to think there are hidden variables at all. 23 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I reasoned this by it being it's own antiparticle, which is identical. That has nothing to do with anything in the previous paragraph. Which has nothing to do with the Higgs mechanism. Nor unifying GR and QM. Your ideas are just all over the place. 25 minutes ago, Conjurer said: 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. It would be difficult because they very rarely interact, not because they are fundamental. The earliest particle accelerators used electrons, which are also fundamental (and easy to accelerate because they are charged). 27 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I don't really. I just think it is the best way to unify gravity with the other forces of nature or QFT. As gravity is described by GR, that is the same thing. But why on Earth do you think the Higgs is relevant to this?
Conjurer Posted January 19, 2020 Author Posted January 19, 2020 18 minutes ago, Strange said: None of this is part of any extensions to the standard model. It is just figments of your imagination. 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. 21 minutes ago, Strange said: Photons are not hidden variables and neither are Z bosons. There is no reason to think there are hidden variables at all. 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. 25 minutes ago, Strange said: It would be difficult because they very rarely interact, not because they are fundamental. The earliest particle accelerators used electrons, which are also fundamental (and easy to accelerate because they are charged). 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. 27 minutes ago, Strange said: As gravity is described by GR, that is the same thing. But why on Earth do you think the Higgs is relevant to this? 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.
uncool Posted January 19, 2020 Posted January 19, 2020 10 minutes ago, Conjurer said: In string theory, everything is made out of photons. This is false.
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 1 minute ago, uncool said: This is false. 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.
uncool Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Conjurer said: How do you know if the developer of string theory doesn't even know what a string is? Among many, many other reasons, because I have some basic knowledge from quantum mechanics: photons are bosons, not fermions. 25 minutes ago, Conjurer said: The simplest form of a string is a photon, What does this mean? 25 minutes ago, Conjurer said: it would seem like to me that a different vibration of a string would be a different frequency of a photon. This is not a good argument. Edited January 20, 2020 by uncool
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 45 minutes ago, uncool said: Among other things, because I have some basic knowledge from quantum mechanics: photons are bosons, not fermions. Do you know if string theory has ever been able to accurately describe a Z Boson or Higgs Boson? 45 minutes ago, uncool said: What does this mean? 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 Edited January 20, 2020 by Conjurer
Mordred Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 A string is a vibration mode of a wavefunction. A string in and of itself isn't a particle. Rather each particle will have its own vibration mode.
Strange Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: The simplest form of a string in string theory is a photon. In string theory, everything is made out of photons. No, everything is not made out of photons. They are not "more fundamental" than the other fundamental particles. Quote Then it wouldn't be correct if there are other truly fundamental particles. There are 17 known fundamental particles: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: A string may not be able to describe a Higgs Boson or a Z boson correctly, because they are not made up of photons. All fundamental particles can be described in string theory, not just photons. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: You cannot smash the antiparticle with it to get a resulting explosion of photons. Any particle and its particle will annihilate to create photons. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: You could smash an electron and a positron together, and it would create an explosion of photons. If they had sufficient energy, they would also generate other particles (including Higgs, Z and W bosons, potentially). 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: Then you could say that electrons and positrons are made of photons. No you couldn't. That would be incorrect. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: In a sense, that is what string theory does. No it doesn't. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: 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. That is not what happens when particles are collided. It does not break them apart to reveal what is inside. (The Higgs boson, for example, is not inside the particles collided at CERN.) It is the energy that creates new particles. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: 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. There is no evidence they are not fundamental. While there are some theoretical ideas that particles might be made of more fundamental constituents ("preons") that would be true of all fundamental particles, including photons. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: Electrons cannot exist in a phase space outside of an orbital around an atom with any probability distribution. Yes they can. And do. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: This suggest that they are governed by photons which travel the speed of light. I don't even know what that means. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: 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. Certainly, their interactions are mediated by virtual photons. But they are not hidden variables (they are not hidden, apart from anything else). There are good reasons to think there are no hidden variables. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: The Higgs could potentially become a quantum theory of gravity which is completely independent of the GR theory. No it couldn't. The Higgs mechanism has nothing to do with gravity. It isn't even the source of most mass in matter. It doesn't have the properties required to mediate the force of gravity. In summary, you have made (yet another) post where almost every statement is wrong (or meaningless). You seem to have a large number of fundamental misunderstandings. Either you have read some very misleading sources or you have misunderstood what you have read. Perhaps you could acknowledge this and stop making statements with such certainty when they are usually wrong. It might be better to phrase things as questions or start statements with "I thought that..." Then you could start to learn, instead of spouting off with such confidence. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: 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. And, as you can see from that page, it includes the Z and W bosons. 7 hours ago, Conjurer said: 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. As you are unable to understand it, maybe you should stop talking about it (wrongly) with such confidence.
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 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. 9 hours ago, Strange said: No, everything is not made out of photons. They are not "more fundamental" than the other fundamental particles. 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. 9 hours ago, Strange said: There are 17 known fundamental particles: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle 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. 9 hours ago, Strange said: Any particle and its particle will annihilate to create photons. 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. 9 hours ago, Strange said: That is not what happens when particles are collided. It does not break them apart to reveal what is inside. (The Higgs boson, for example, is not inside the particles collided at CERN.) 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. 9 hours ago, Strange said: It is the energy that creates new particles. Derp... 9 hours ago, Strange said: While there are some theoretical ideas that particles might be made of more fundamental constituents ("preons") that would be true of all fundamental particles, including photons. 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. 9 hours ago, Strange said: Certainly, their interactions are mediated by virtual photons. But they are not hidden variables (they are not hidden, apart from anything else). Quantum jumps have not been mathematically explained in quantum theory, so technically there are. 9 hours ago, Strange said: There are good reasons to think there are no hidden variables. Why do people still work at particle accelerators? 9 hours ago, Strange said: As you are unable to understand it, maybe you should stop talking about it (wrongly) with such confidence. 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?
Strange Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I didn't say everything was, but that is a popular belief. You said: 18 hours ago, Conjurer said: In string theory, everything is made out of photons. You never mentioned "popular belief". And I don't believe it is a popular belief, anyway. 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: 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. Stuff is made out of other particles. This has nothing much to do with whether they have antiparticles or not. 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I am not trying to say this is not true. You failed to recognize the difference between fundamental and truly fundamental. There is no such difference. It is a figment of your imagination. 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: Two photons cannot collide to create more photons. Wrong again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: 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. This is not "one special circumstance". It is the way all particle accelerators operate to create new particles. 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: These theories were mostly given up on due to the discovery of the Higgs mechanism. No they weren't. There is absolutely no connection. The people working on preon-like theories are still working on them. 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: Quantum jumps have not been mathematically explained in quantum theory What are you talking about. The emission of photons by electrons changing energy levels (assuming that is what you mean by "quantum jumps") was pretty much the first thing explained by quantum theory. (It got Einstein a Nobel Prize.) If you mean something different by "quantum jumps" please explain. 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: Why do people still work at particle accelerators? Because there is a lot of new physics to explore. 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I actually have zero confidence that I could say anything and you will agree with it. That is because almost everything you write is incorrect. (Apart from the trivial statements you list below. You should stop there.) 36 minutes ago, Conjurer said: 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. If you don't understand what the words mean then (1) you are not in a position to argue against it and (2) you shouldn't be using them. The answer is to learn about the subject before spouting off. 1
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Strange said: Wrong again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics In this case, the photons combine to form a heavier particle. They are not going to break into a lighter particle. This fact doesn't change my mind about it. It could support that the fermion anti fermion pair consist of photons. After this combination, they adopt the trait of having a real antiparticle. That is a trait they didn't have before. Then you can combine a fermion and anti fermion to create photons, or release their constituents. 44 minutes ago, Strange said: This is not "one special circumstance". It is the way all particle accelerators operate to create new particles. What other circumstance does this occur? 44 minutes ago, Strange said: The emission of photons by electrons changing energy levels (assuming that is what you mean by "quantum jumps") was pretty much the first thing explained by quantum theory. (It got Einstein a Nobel Prize.) If you mean something different by "quantum jumps" please explain. They don't know what causes a quantum jump or how to predict when they occur. That is what I mean by quantum jumps. I think that it would have to be described as a phase space to explain it, because that is the only scientific theory I think comes close enough to describing this type of interaction. It could be related to the same underlying principal that governs particle precognition with an action at a distance. That was never able to be explained by Einstein. The electron could choose orbitals before it is even able to know what wavelengths it would require to fill that orbital. Edited January 20, 2020 by Conjurer
Strange Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 2 minutes ago, Conjurer said: In this case, the photons combine to form a heavier particle. They are not going to break into a lighter particle They have zero mass. There are no light particles. 2 minutes ago, Conjurer said: This fact doesn't change my mind about it. Yes, it is quite clear that you immune to knowledge, closed minded and unwilling to learn. Sad but true. 3 minutes ago, Conjurer said: What other circumstance does this occur? What is "this"? Because, to be honest, I am not really sure what you were saying was "one single example" and "one special example". But nothing I have referred to is singular or unique in any way. 6 minutes ago, Conjurer said: They don't know what cases a quantum jump or how to predict when they occur. That is what I mean by quantum jumps. I think that it would have to be described as a phase space to explain it, because that is the only scientific theory I think comes close enough to describing this type of interaction. I am pretty certain you have no idea what "phase space" means. 6 minutes ago, Conjurer said: It could be related to the same underlying principal that governs particle precognition with an action at a distance. What on earth is "particle precognition"? 7 minutes ago, Conjurer said: The electron could choose orbitals before it is even able to know what wavelengths it would require to fill that orbital. Really?
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Strange said: I am pretty certain you have no idea what "phase space" means. I did a little research on it a while back on the internet. Basically, it can be used to consider closed loop interactions in a circuit to determine how to get rid of interference. It also can provide an alternative theory to quantum mechanics, which is supposed to be just as accurate. That is what sold me on it being capable of possibly finding a better description of QFT to find hidden variables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space 40 minutes ago, Strange said: What on earth is "particle precognition"? It is used in radar antenna theory. The antenna is connected to a waveguide that is a multiple of a wavelength of electromagnetic waves and a half wavelength of the electromagnetic waves. Then the electrons being sent out of it are able to know what path to go down before they could even know which one is a half wave or full wave. At a spooky action at a distance, FTL, they choose to always travel down the full wave guide. Then only signals that have reflected at a half wave can be received by the radar, and they can be sent down the same tube without frying the receiver by giving it too much energy. It is like they have to occupy a phase space of a full wave. The particles themselves cannot actually look ahead of where they are going and make decisions, unless God is always riding behind the wheel of them... Edited January 20, 2020 by Conjurer
Ghideon Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 43 minutes ago, Conjurer said: particle precognition 19 minutes ago, Conjurer said: It is used in radar antenna theory. Can you please provide a reference, I'd like to check what I missed when studying antenna basics.
uncool Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 29 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I did a little research on it a while back on the internet. Basically, it can be used to consider closed loop interactions in a circuit to determine how to get rid of interference. It also can provide an alternative theory to quantum mechanics, which is supposed to be just as accurate. That is what sold me on it being capable of possibly finding a better description of QFT to find hidden variables. ...this description, if anything, only confirms what Strange said: you have no idea what "phase space" means.
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ghideon said: Can you please provide a reference, I'd like to check what I missed when studying antenna basics. I don't have a license to access technical manuals. It was in the technical manual of a radar developed in the 60's or earlier for the US Navy, which was out of commission. Back then, they provided more of the full theory of how they were developed originally for the military. That was the one section it claimed to be unable to go into the theory of operation about it, and that was the reason it gave. These days something like that would only provide the bar minimal amount of information needed to diagnose it. It is not something you would see anymore. It worked, so the theory was accepted without a description. I hold an associates in electronics and a bachelors in education.
Strange Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 31 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I did a little research on it a while back on the internet. And this is the reason you have no idea what it means.
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 1 minute ago, uncool said: ...this description, if anything, only confirms what Strange said: you have no idea what "phase space" means. I don't understand how my descriptions always provide this type of interpretation. 1 minute ago, Strange said: And this is the reason you have no idea what it means. I keep falling into a logical fallacy of thinking this type of information means someone else does that can explain it to me. I don't understand why you are always this way. In dynamical system theory, a phase space is a space in which all possible states of a system are represented, with each possible state corresponding to one unique point in the phase space. For mechanical systems, the phase space usually consists of all possible values of position and momentum variables. The concept of phase space was developed in the late 19th century by Ludwig Boltzmann, Henri Poincaré, and Josiah Willard Gibbs.[1]
uncool Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Conjurer said: I don't understand how my descriptions always provide this type of interpretation. Because your descriptions are asserted with much more confidence than is warranted. As well as very often being wrong. Edited January 20, 2020 by uncool
Ghideon Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 13 minutes ago, Conjurer said: It worked, so the theory was accepted without a description. Sorry, that it's not going to work in a science discussion. Why compare something to "particle precognition" if it looks like just some kind of made up thing that does not exist?
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 1 minute ago, uncool said: Because your descriptions are asserted with much more confidence than is warranted. As well as very often being wrong. So then basically, it is just because I already haven't talked to you that much? I haven't allowed you to beat me down into submission. 1 minute ago, Ghideon said: Sorry, that it's not going to work in a science discussion. Why compare something to "particle precognition" if it looks like just some kind of made up thing that does not exist? Unification may have to deal with finding hidden variables or things that have not been mathematically described in physics. That is something that hasn't been mathematically described in physics. Therefore, that could be a source of finding hidden variables.
uncool Posted January 20, 2020 Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Conjurer said: So then basically, it is just because I already haven't talked to you that much? ...no. That's not even close to what I said. I don't even know how you read that from what I said. If anything, I'd say the problem is that you've talked too much. Specifically, you've confidently made assertions that are clearly wrong, and otherwise made statements that fail to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the things you discuss, when such a demonstration is clearly appropriate. For example: in this case, when challenged on your understanding of phase space, you superficially described uses of it. The challenge was about what phase space is. You eventually provided it, but only by copying and pasting from Wikipedia, without showing that you understood what you copied and pasted. Edited January 20, 2020 by uncool
Conjurer Posted January 20, 2020 Author Posted January 20, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, uncool said: ...no. That's not even close to what I said. I don't even know how you read that from what I said. If anything, I'd say the problem is that you've talked too much. Specifically, you've confidently made assertions that are clearly wrong, and otherwise made statements that fail to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the things you discuss, when such a deeper understanding would be trivial to show if you had it. It seems you are looking for someone with a developed long term trauma from talking with you. You have to break their confidence first, before you can trust what they say. You break their confidence at picking everything they say is wrong. Then you would fall under the impression that I am correct, if I allowed my own self confidence to be damage by that. I am forced to always have to change topic, because you and others always start discussing every thing else I mention as being wrong, when using it as a source for the main topic. Edited January 20, 2020 by Conjurer
Recommended Posts