Excuses for massiveness

[Norman Albers]

What is the essence of Standard Model talking about Higgs bosons being responsible for mass? This makes no sense to me. If we find a reason why half an MEV worth of light hangs out about a locale electrodynamically, have we not answered the same question? Relativity tells me this is so.

[Severian]

There are two important ingredients to the Higgs mechanism:

 

1. A lowest energy state (i.e. vacuum) where the field content is non-zero. Usually you think of 'lowest energy' as being when there is nothing there. This needn't be the case, and in Higgs models the lowest energy state has a Higgs field present.

 

2. The field which is present in the vacuum state couples to ordinary particles. This coupling is as if the vacuum sort of holds onto the particles. The Higgs field is always there, and grabs the particles, making them appear massive. In fact, the it is the strength of the coupling which determines the mass. The more strongly coupled to the Higgs field a particle is, the more massive it will be.

[Norman Albers]

I am wrestling with understanding of what is the not-vacuum and this is where the discussion lies. I am prepared to envision various energies as "possibly manifest" in some sense, but I have questioned the validity of our quantum mechanics of the vacuum radiation. Beyond that I am just learning our theories. This seems so contrived and top-heavy; I trust my intuitions until my physics takes me further. What of my E&M question?

[Severian]

I don't understand what you mean by the 'not-vacuum'.

[Norman Albers]

I'm just noting that the vacuum is not nothing. If photons are wave packets, then ............................. j=(-lambda^2 + rho/U) A

[Perturbation]

I am wrestling with understanding of what is the not-vacuum and this is where the discussion lies. I am prepared to envision various energies as "possibly manifest" in some sense, but I have questioned the validity of our quantum mechanics of the vacuum radiation. Beyond that I am just learning our theories. This seems so contrived and top-heavy; I trust my intuitions until my physics takes me further. What of my E&M question?

 

Vacuum radiation being what? Virtual particles pairs, vacuum polarisation etc.? This is perfectly well justified and verified physically. Look up some QFT.

[Norman Albers]

Thank you, I have just gotten here by my own peculiar path. I need to know exactly these things, as per current pictures.

[Severian]

I'm just noting that the vacuum is not nothing. If photons are wave packets, then ............................. j=(-lambda^2 + rho/U) A

 

I think herein lies the root of your problems. The vacuum, is (if the Higgs meachanism is correct) not nothing, as you say. Mathematically this is entirely reasonable. The self interaction of the Higgs field means that having them around costs less energy than removing them. So the vacuum naturally has these fields present. This is contrary to the usual perception of the vacuum as being 'nothing' so may feel 'wrong' to you but this gut-feeling is simply a consequence of using everyday experiences to intuitively think abot the quantum world.

 

In fact, although the Higgs mechanism has not been proven (yet), there are other systems which behave this way, most noticably supersonductors. In a superconductor, the lowest energy state is 'not-nothing' too.

[Norman Albers]

In the paper listed in my PROFILE I achieve solution which looks like a superconducting field, for the electron. Such a field depends for its existence on dipolar manifestation. I am approaching the whole thing from a semi-classical perspective and have good results. I observe in my conclusion that there is indeed negative pressure on the dipoles. This was not a priori my construction! What of my question about half an MEV of light which has convinced itself it has a happy phase state locked up thus? What of the polar manifestation I just described for photons? PERTURBATION: Thank you, yes this is where I want and need to learn. I am who I am and come from a unique perspective with some very nice mathematics. I have no problem; rather I am having the intellectual time of my life learning rapidly and offering my unique vision. If quantum physics has already said everythng I came to as necessary from fairly simple semiclassical work, that is a fine answer. I am not hearing this. Do you understand the implications of the above current equation?

[Norman Albers]

I have read much of and understand about half of, Cohen, Tannoudji's "Photons and Atoms", QED text. In Lorentz gauge we create normal variables in k-space; they are defined as transverse parts of the fields. Then our Lagrangian shows up four lovely oscillators: two transverse modes, the scalar and the longitudinal. We said 'oscillators' because if the RHS of the eq is zero then we have a free oscillator. It seems to me that not far from here we lose our nerve in electrodynmamics, or, whatever, choose to quantize things. Can we not create further mechanics by dealing with my right-hand-side? I am investigating here, working on the Fourier transforms. This will be a generally inhomogeneous mechanics with our quantum mechanics as a subset. We create quantum mechanics by looking at our expressions in 'alpha, alpha-star' which are the FT variables of the field, and saying, OK now we 'consider' these to be creation and annihilation operators of quanta. We brilliantly create QM.

[Norman Albers]

PERTURBATION: I look up vac polarization as virtual e-p pairs. I am taking a semiclassical field viewpoint and simply asking the question, "What must it be like?" For photons, quantized or not, it means the above statement of current is the implied extension of the Maxwell current eq., the RHS.

[Tom Mattson]

Ha. When I read the title of this thread I thought that an "excuse for massiveness" was something along the lines of I'm not fat, I'm just big boned.

[Norman Albers]

I have seen many physicists be unable to converse with each other. I have perhaps original thoughts from mathematics in electrodynamics, which every Ph.D has taken. Not one of many has been able to see what I say, and this is bizarre. You sound like a bio-head, which will be even funnier. The Russian JETP read my first photon part for two and a half weeks and said nothing. USA's JMP said little after a week. British Nature Physics called the whole piece a stimulating treatise too unestablished for them to publish. That was rather nice to hear, refreshingly honest.

[timo]

Not one of many has been able to see what I say, and this is bizarre.

I think a careful analysis of this statement is advisable. It has the potential for new insights.

[Norman Albers]

Is it so, as it reads in the texts often, that at this point of witnessing canonical Hamiltonian constructions we pass from electrodynamics into QM and do not look back? We put into Schroedinger's eq. electromagnetic potentials, no? Have we otherwise thrown out electrodynamics? Some are fond of saying field theory is dead. Maybe the cadaver sits up in church.

[Severian]

Some are fond of saying field theory is dead.

 

Who thinks field theory is dead? It is very much alive! Indeed Quantum Field Theroy is the foundation of all of modern particle physics!

[Norman Albers]

I thought so, but I have been mucking about in the foundations from which we produced this theory. How does QFT relate to the above current which I say is the appropriate extension of Maxwell's current eq. to describe a localized E&M disturbance? At the moment I cannot reconcile my semiclassical work with the definition of a wave function whose square can be interpreted as charge. On the day I figure this we will have a grand discussion. (Maybe I have heard premature reports of death about differential field theories, of which one is General Relativity, yah? It is created with a premise of smooth relationship through a manifold. QM is created utterly the other way.)

[Norman Albers]

You say, I think, "vacuum polarization response". I say "necessary neutral massless plasma, i.e., superconductor".

[Perturbation]

We put into Schroedinger's eq. electromagnetic potentials, no?

 

Not in field theory we don't, if that's what you're saying.

 

Could you actually give some justification to your theory, possibly show us some of your literature? What kind of response do you expect from us if all you're giving us are vague, unsubstantiated clauses?

[Norman Albers]

I don't understand, my papers are at the URL in my PROFILE: http://laps.noaa.gov/albers/physics/na and people got tired of me carrying on in my Speculative post.

[Severian]

OK, I'll bite. From your abstract:

 

Electromagnetic Theory has been incapable of modeling the electron as a field because it represents point charges in a vacuum.

 

So let's start with the first sentence. What makes you think Electromagnetic theory does not model the electron correctly? Do you have any experimental (or theoretical) objection to Quantum Electrodynamics?

[Norman Albers]

I have not so much objections, as I admit I do not know your theory that well and am happy to learn. Indeed, I am here with a novel perspective and looking for knowledgeable, open minds to see if there is something further of substance. The one quantum result that's easy to not like is the vacuum fluctuation energy. Isn't it some ridiculously large number? I say we made a wrong-headed move with our interpretation of the photoelectric effect, and that Planck's constant is not a native characteristic of the field. You have to be willing to look at why I see this. In my Manifesto I declare localization to be distinct from quantization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specifically to be helpful tell me the role of vacuum polarization in electron theory.

[Norman Albers]

If you Google on 'fractional photons' you'll see me about #11. This is highly amusing because, as I read in the first paper, "There is always unit angular momentum", but not in my theory. We made an arbitrary move to assign the "ficticious quantum oscillator" nature to the vacuum. We all agree any q. oscillator has a ground state of 1/2. I do not agree it is wise to make this assignation.

[Severian]

The one quantum result that's easy to not like is the vacuum fluctuation energy. Isn't it some ridiculously large number?

 

I don't understant what you mean. What s the 'vacuum fluctuation energy'?

[Norman Albers]

In Cohen-Tannoudji, "Photons and Atoms", p.189: "...the ground state of the quantum field, that is, the vacuum (0>), has a nonzero absolute energy, and that the variances of E and B in this state are non-zero. This is a purely quantum effect...at every point in space an electromagnetic field with zero mean value and infinite variance." Zero-point energy. I am led to propose a more 'fiscally responsible' vacuum.