These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proving That The Higgs Field Theory Is A Fallacy

First post
Author
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#61 - 2014-06-28 16:43:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Kijo Rikki wrote:
Score one for the layman!

Continuing our discussion, I remember this thread a week or so ago concerning the ability to slow light down, in the case of the article linked, down to 38 mph. I am not sure if this will detract or assist your argument but I felt it relevant to share. In this instance I would question whether light moving through this medium carried more inertia.

For now, I do not have a counter argument or another point to discuss.


That's some pretty cool stuff there.


However it is not clear that they are slowing down the speed of light. They could just as easily be slowing down the rate of emission and re-emission at matter's quantum level. The effect they are demonstrating is actually no different than the effect that causes glass to create a prism. Only greatly exaggerated.


In other words they are not slowing down the speed of light in a vacuum and this happens all the time when light passes through glass.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#62 - 2014-06-28 16:52:55 UTC
If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter?

Profit favors the prepared

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2014-06-28 16:55:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:


In both examples you are observing the light beam from a certain reference frame, and it has a certain wavelength in that reference frame.

As in your second example the mirror is moving relative to that reference frame, yes, it will experience the light beam red-shifted.



Riyria Twinpeaks, I don't think you understand what a Doppler shift really is. It does not require an observer, light thus red shifter or blue shifted is detectably so no matter what frame of reference you are looking at it from. Anything falling towards or away from a photon will red shift or blue shift said photon.


The frequency of light is what it was prior to it being reflected and the Doppler shift is what the frequency is after it is reflected. All motion is relative to the speed of light and that is all that matters.




Changing This Analogy To Cars

If 2 cars that are 100% reflective to one another are traveling down a highway they may have a radar beam bouncing back and forth between them continuously. You seem to think that there will be no Doppler shift between the two cars because they are traveling at the same speed. This is however incorrect.

The speed of both cars are not being factored vs each other... they are being factor against the fixed speed of light and it's vector (it's direction). So when the radar beam impacts the rear car and is reflected back it picks up some blue shift because the car is falling towards the path of the light beam. When that same beam hits the forward most car in picks up some redshift because the car is falling away from the path of the light beam.

This is simply how it works. P


It is not about the cars relative to each other it is about the cars relative to the velocity of the photon (and it's direction) upon impact.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#64 - 2014-06-28 17:22:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Evei Shard wrote:
If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter?



I'm gonna say no.

When you hear most "smart people" talking about photon and particle mass, relative or otherwise, they do not use the term "relative mass" much. The reason why they don't is because they find the term a bit cumbersome. Since the mass of particles change at different velocities it is allot harder to say "Particle A. having a vector vs this frame of reference" than just "Proton has said resting mass"

Most people that you talk to will site Einstein and relativity and tell you strait to your face that the universe has no existing frame of reference. This is similar to the philosophical debate "there is no truth" which I always find amusing to participate in P



The Implications Are Huge

In theory, if you disregard all time distortions caused by gravity then in theory the CMB Rest Frame could give us a common frame of reference for all velocities, vectors and the passage of time. We could for the first time determine the actual " time" of the universe and thus compare all effects of time dilation do to velocity and gravity. We would know what was being dilated and how much and thus we would for the first time be able to determine how temporal effects act upon everyday phenomena everywhere.

We would have a way to tell up from down in a vacuum and even what direction we were actually traveling in.



But don't hold your breath because people are not really interested in this. You will keep going to lectures and classes and they will keep telling you that everything is relative to the observer and there is no true frame of reference. They will site Einstein and relativity (and various misunderstandings) and just like that philosophical truth that is so impossible to find.... that will more or less be the end of the discussion.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#65 - 2014-06-28 17:28:51 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:

But don't hold your breath because people are not really interested in this. You will keep going to lectures and classes and they will keep telling you that everything is relative to the observer and there is no true frame of reference. They will site Einstein and relativity (and various misunderstandings) and just like that philosophical truth that is so impossible to find.... that will more or less be the end of the discussion.


That sounds almost as if they don't *want* there to be a frame of reference. Weird.

Profit favors the prepared

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2014-06-28 17:40:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Evei Shard wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:

But don't hold your breath because people are not really interested in this. You will keep going to lectures and classes and they will keep telling you that everything is relative to the observer and there is no true frame of reference. They will site Einstein and relativity (and various misunderstandings) and just like that philosophical truth that is so impossible to find.... that will more or less be the end of the discussion.


That sounds almost as if they don't *want* there to be a frame of reference. Weird.



There are quite a few things they don't want, because there implications tugs at the strings of their theory of everything.




Another HUGE one is how randomness can yield all possible combinations. A mathematician says that if you flip a coin infinite times eventually you will turn up heads 10,000,000,000,000 times in a row without a single tales popping up. The math is sound and since there is no existing law that says "a moment/energy/process in oscillation tends to stay in oscillation" there is no way to validate human intuition when it says... no it won't.

Ask these same people if infinite monkeys can accidentally write Shakespeare if given infinite time... they say yes. Ask them if you can set off infinite bombs in the middle of infinite scrabble pieces an infinite amount of times and eventually recreate the text in the bible... they will say yes. Come up with any stupid variation and give it infinite time and the answer is yes.

It's stupid...

But the reason why they HAVE to hold onto it so strongly (and other such ideas) has nothing to do with monkeys, Shakespeare or flipping coins. The truth is that everything based upon the existence of life occurring in the universe and evolution through randomness is rooted in the fundamental idea that "given enough time all possible outcomes are almost certain to happen".




Note:
Even though according to that very same math you would have to flip a coin every second for more than twice as long as the universe has existed (according to current cosmological models) in order to be reasonably certain to flip even 100 heads in a row. I don't remember what the number was exactly and I do not feel like doing the math right now, but it was like 24 to 30 billion years or so.

Now... how many unique combinations (and time) is needed to be reasonably certain that randomness will accidentally create your DNA? It's a hell of allot more than 10,000,000,000,000,000 and a hell of allot more than the time it would take to "oops look I flipped a 100 heads in a row" Big smile


Just some food for thought!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-06-28 17:54:14 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]


Changing This Analogy To Cars

If 2 cars that are 100% reflective to one another are traveling down a highway they may have a radar beam bouncing back and forth between them continuously. You seem to think that there will be no Doppler shift between the two cars because they are traveling at the same speed. This is however incorrect.

The speed of both cars are not being factored vs each other... they are being factor against the fixed speed of light and it's vector (it's direction). So when the radar beam impacts the rear car and is reflected back it picks up some blue shift because the car is falling towards the path of the light beam. When that same beam hits the forward most car in picks up some redshift because the car is falling away from the path of the light beam.

This is simply how it works. P


It is not about the cars relative to each other it is about the cars relative to the velocity of the photon (and it's direction) upon impact.


I think I'm finally starting to get you.
Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.

But if you have an observer between both cars, which moves relative to the cars (for example stands still on the street) and who would intercept the radar waves, he'd indeed see a blue-shifted wave coming from the rear car and a red-shifted wave coming from the front one.
Because then the observer moves relative to the reflector/emitter.

If you'd do the same with a perfectly bouncy tennis ball (or something like that xD) bouncing back and forth between both cars, each driver would see the ball incoming and outgoing with the same momentum, when both are driving at the same speed.
But someone standing on the street between the cars will see the ball fly faster after bouncing off the rear car, than the other way round.

There's actually a momentum transfer between ball and cars or light and cars. If we tie both cars together then the light would alternately accellerate the two-car-construct this and that way. The radiation pressure as you said.

I suppose this is what you meant with your ability to change the momentum of a photon without changing it's speed (assuming massless photons) and mass.

There was no need to make such a set-up, though.
You just need a laser beam pointed at your chest. The laser only emits photons with the same frequency, but once you start moving toward the laser, the light appears blue-shifted to you and you experience higher radiation pressure.

That means the momentum of something depends on the reference frame.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2014-06-28 17:56:06 UTC
\0/ Big smile

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#69 - 2014-06-28 17:59:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
Evei Shard wrote:
If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter?


But it doesn't make a difference. Why would it?
All it does is tell us how we move relative to how the matter moved which emitted the electromagnetic waves we now see as cosmic microwave background radiation.

Edit: don't get me wrong, that is interesting. But it doesn't mean that the CMB reference frame is fundamentally different than other reference frames.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#70 - 2014-06-28 18:00:50 UTC
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:


I think I'm finally starting to get you.
Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.



Oh wait....

Actually no... the rear car will see a redshift and the front will look through it's rear view mirror and see a blue on. The light is actually changing and it has nothing to do with an observer.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2014-06-28 18:02:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
If the CMB makes a difference when used as a reference frame, have scientists figured out how to take that into account when reviewing measurements we've made over the years? Or is it so minimal in effect that our equipment can't measure to an accuracy that would matter?


But it doesn't make a difference. Why would it?
All it does is tell us how we move relative to how the matter moved which emitted the electromagnetic waves we now see as cosmic microwave background radiation.

Edit: don't get me wrong, that is interesting. But it doesn't mean that the CMB reference frame is fundamentally different than other reference frames.


Because it is the only fixed frame of reference.

One frame of reference means one mass at one speed traveling in one direction at one interval of time that everything else could be measured against. It is like discovering the meter stick after having to guesstimate with your shoes how long something is.


Arrow The true mass of something at a true velocity
Arrow The true speed of time
Arrow How much something is actually being time dilated do to velocity or gravity

In other words the holy grail.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#72 - 2014-06-28 18:04:22 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
\0/ Big smile


I still don't see the issue.
If light has no mass and always moves at c, the only way for light to change its momentum is to change frequency. That's what we observe.

So in the end it's just the same argument we had in this thread all the time:
"Momentum without mass makes no sense" vs. "Our equations for massless momentum at the speed of light work perfectly fine with our observations"
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2014-06-28 18:07:42 UTC
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
\0/ Big smile


I still don't see the issue.
If light has no mass and always moves at c, the only way for light to change its momentum is to change frequency. That's what we observe.

So in the end it's just the same argument we had in this thread all the time:
"Momentum without mass makes no sense" vs. "Our equations for massless momentum at the speed of light work perfectly fine with our observations"



Yep that's pretty much it.

Your math is "good enough for you" despite the fact that it violates known physics. It's good enough to predict outcomes that are observable but it does nothing as to explain how or why. It's all virtual relative something or another and your cool with that.



But I'm not cool with it...

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-06-28 18:07:47 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:


I think I'm finally starting to get you.
Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.



Oh wait....

Actually no... the rear car will see a redshift and the front will look through it's rear view mirror and see a blue on. The light is actually changing and it has nothing to do with an observer.


Nope.. that's actually where you are wrong.

You also won't see a difference between the momentum of the ball bouncing off the rear car and the ball bouncing off the front car, when you are sitting in one of the cars. It's the same.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#75 - 2014-06-28 18:09:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:


I think I'm finally starting to get you.
Each driver, no matter which car, will observe the same frequency of the radar beam bouncing back and forth.



Oh wait....

Actually no... the rear car will see a redshift and the front will look through it's rear view mirror and see a blue on. The light is actually changing and it has nothing to do with an observer.


Nope.. that's actually where you are wrong.

You also won't see a difference between the momentum of the ball bouncing off the rear car and the ball bouncing off the front car, when you are sitting in one of the cars. It's the same.



Riyria Twinpeaks we can debate everything up, down, left and right and I will be happy to do it. But this is pretty basic stuff here. Where are you getting your information from? Doppler is not an effect between two object's motion it is an effect between an object and the speed of light.

That is just how it works.


Look a Gif!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#76 - 2014-06-28 18:19:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]

Riyria Twinpeaks we can debate everything up, down, left and right and I will be happy to do it. But this is pretty basic stuff here. Where are you getting your information from? Doppler is not an effect between two object's motion it is an effect between an object and the speed of light.

That is just how it works.


Look a Gif!


In that gif, the observer obviously is stationary relative to the "white rectangle", meaning the ground, thus, as the car starts to move relative to the ground, and the observer, the observer sees an increase in frequency when on the left side, a decrease of frequency when on the right side.

But if the observer would start moving with the car, he wouldn't see any difference in frequency.
I'm astonished you can't see that.

Unless we're talking at cross-purposes here. (I had to look up how to express this phrase in english xD)

Edit: And my sources. Well, every article I've found about the doppler effect so far cites it as follows (or similar)
Quote:

The Doppler effect is observed whenever the source of waves is moving with respect to an observer.


And look at the equations here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

Paraphrased from that article:
Let f be the observed frequency, f´ the emitting frequency, v the velocity between observing reference frame and emitting reference frame (for positive velocities they are moving away from each other), and c the speed of light.
Neglecting relativistic effects, which means v << c, the formula is:

f = (1 - v/c) f´

Which means, that observed frequency equals the emitted frequency for a relative velocity of zero, so no doppler shift.
Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#77 - 2014-06-28 18:29:39 UTC
Fun stuff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev9zrt__lec

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2014-06-28 18:34:14 UTC
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]

Riyria Twinpeaks we can debate everything up, down, left and right and I will be happy to do it. But this is pretty basic stuff here. Where are you getting your information from? Doppler is not an effect between two object's motion it is an effect between an object and the speed of light.

That is just how it works.


Look a Gif!


In that gif, the observer obviously is stationary relative to the "white rectangle", meaning the ground, thus, as the car starts to move relative to the ground, and the observer, the observer sees an increase in frequency when on the left side, a decrease of frequency when on the right side.

But if the observer would start moving with the car, he wouldn't see any difference in frequency.
I'm astonished you can't see that.

Unless we're talking at cross-purposes here. (I had to look up how to express this phrase in english xD)



Ok I think you are talking about how two objects moving at the same rate will have proportional red/blue shifts that would appear to cancel each other out if you are moving with them.

I am in fact talking about an independent stationary observer who is capable of detecting the Doppler shift coming off of both cars.


My bad... I was miss reading what you were saying. Now onward with the thread!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#79 - 2014-06-28 18:41:51 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:

Note:
Even though according to that very same math you would have to flip a coin every second for more than twice as long as the universe has existed (according to current cosmological models) in order to be reasonably certain to flip even 100 heads in a row. I don't remember what the number was exactly and I do not feel like doing the math right now, but it was like 24 to 30 billion years or so.

Now... how many unique combinations (and time) is needed to be reasonably certain that randomness will accidentally create your DNA? It's a hell of allot more than 10,000,000,000,000,000 and a hell of allot more than the time it would take to "oops look I flipped a 100 heads in a row" Big smile


Just some food for thought!


Off topic here, but this coin flipping brought to mind something interesting (to me, anyway).

The set of flip combinations containing the same side is both infinite and finite at the same time.

The instant you make that first flip, you eliminate one item in that set of results. If you land heads, you've eliminated the potential for infinite tails. If you keep flipping, the moment you land tails, you also eliminate infinite heads as a member of that set.

Yet within the realm of the infinite, it's still possible, much as .9999999... is seen as being equal to 1.

/off topic

Profit favors the prepared

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2014-06-28 18:46:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian


Neat stuff.

It's amazing how much of that would have to be reinterpreted if a universal coordinate system was discovered. Here is a little tidbit of information... Einstein was wrong about at least one thing. Hubble did not come up with the Hubble constant first, a guy names Georges Lemaître did. He first came up with the idea that the universe was expanding Hubble just got credit. (BTW HIggs did not come up with the Higgs field first either, wtf right? Smile)

When he brought his findings to Einstein, Einstein reportedly said "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious".



Quote:
At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[12] ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.")



Arrow Einstein " Refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe" (oops!)

Since the background radiation was discovered by accident in 1965 and Einstien died in 1955... is it so far fetch to think that his theory of relativity would have been modified if he had known of the CMB rest frame?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]