Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?

Exactly

Laid Back

What is your point on this, you just leave your opinion in the Exactly column? You seem to have some direction I hope you continue. -Not sure what it has to do with mass of particles? -

That is like the post saying that Dark Matter 75 percent Dark Matter & 26 percent Dark Energy is just EXACTLY does not have anything...?

I KNOW I missed something on this particular reply.

BTW, I do not know how in the Cosmos someone that should have some type of training state such an opaque theory and then make such a statement of such magnitude.

Best of regards,
Palle

This post has been edited by Palle on Jun 11 2007, 08:29 PM

I don't think you missed much at all!
And my point was Err~ and still IS about everything!

Because acceleration infers momentum and the only way to gain momentum is via force, but force is only possible via momentum..

The analogy is much like Potential and Kinetic energy, in fact it implies much the same.. because Potential Kinetic Energy infers to Energy by way of force in a relativistic convention where a given Force is our Potential but a potential is not possible without a means of exchanging our kinetic Energy first to some Potential Energy..

So if we briefly transpose our Kinetic energy as air being forced into an area "a container if you will", and as long as air is with a momentum resulting in an ever increasing compression we have our kinetic energy exchanged and or implied as increasing a potential energy source.. by way considering that momentum is minimised within the storage area..

if we stopped our compression and considered all the forces contained in our air-compressor we have in effect two solid areas opposing each other where the solid air is exerting in all directions with a force, and the container is opposing this exertion via its respective velocity and or momentum, should we continue with our compression and increase our potential there will come a moment when the potential energy of the air inside will exceed the containers potential energy and with that we have our stored potential energy released as kinetic energy..

All mass behaves the same way in where two forces meet via their respective velocities we end up having an area with compression to it, and where we have compression we have an increase in potential Energy.

Laid Back,

I have some time off today from my normal routine, question --> does this apply to the three forces that seem to hold this universe together?

The three I know of -- gravity - EM - and SNF strong nuclear force.

Best of regards,
Palle

Force means just that!
FORCE and or an exertion..

All forces imply the same opposition according to the definitions we refer to..

Therefore to oppose we need the further assertion and or footing the same thereof to imply ones authority and or exertion of force..

Therefore the inference to three different forces is wrong!

Here are some interesting links that may help save some considerable time...
http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm
http://www.onlineconversion.com/acceleration.htm
http://www.digitaldutch.com/unitconverter/
http://www.onlineconversion.com/ <- This link leads to any conversion one would ever need!


Having played around with the various definitions converting one to another - One should get the general idea that force simply implies to a quanta of the same genre and as we all know any defined and or postulated areas part thereof of our universe consists of a given unit and or quanta of Energy via its acting and or interacting forces and or Potential Kinetic energy, be-it solid, liquid, gas and or near Vacuum, they all exude a presence via force, and the key word here is interacting, which implies momentum between them..

Any questions?

Cheers,
Pete.

Laid Back,

I have read you post and understand I believe your comments?

You do not believe in the Standard Model which just in the past few months has proven the one doubt that was to help unravel it was not true.

It was believe there were four neutrinos, but it has been prove there is only three.

The Standard Model is safe as of today. So you should rethink your point of view I think....

Best of regards,
Palle

This post has been edited by Palle on Jun 17 2007, 02:20 AM

I should point out that is not entirely the case.. As some of aspects of the Standard Model has suggestions that are quite useful to the average schmo...

The standard model is a good bases for BASIC Particle Theory where one can omit proper physics in order to explain difficult aspects, but on further advancements and or research in Physics, and in particular when one needs to consider a postulated and or theoretical particles form, to further consider how it interacts with its environment and or surroundings it becomes blatantly obvious it is a long way from being anywhere near being accurate..

The main failing is its departure from sound physics, and for this reason is an excellent tool to separate the men from the boys.. The men will catch on quite quickly to its failings, whilst the boys will become strong advocates to it..

Ask any one who has not advanced past Particle Theory, to correlate relativity, with the propagation of electron charge and or the electromagnetic spectrum, and they simply cant explain how electron flow in a transmitter is able to transmit photons Err~ that's if the frequency is transmitted within the visible spectrum(Light), More than likely they will attempt to explain it via the overly complex Particle theorem via marbles bouncing around in a void and or via extremely complex gibberish that does not avail anything useful for any industry..

Anyway ~ In the above case with the transitions from an electron charge in a solid medium to a NEAR Vacuum medium for instance, is still much the same forces via respective velocities, but one can only understand how and why this is possible if one has the knowledge of what to expect with various densities, to which if one does not understand how various densities are the result of our various meeting velocities resulting in force and or implied compression implying form as a theoretical particle.

If certain areas with velocities are inferred as the theoretical Electron, Proton and or a neutrons just by shifting our attention either way of our given meeting velocities to what correlates with our implied charge in respects to our calculus one should understand why particle theory is totally inadequate, and most move on and apply field theory to our given areas

It is for this very reason my model implies the theoretical protons are fully in contact with surrounding protons throughout the Universe.. and where their velocities meet another proton we can imply the theoretical neutron and or Electron..

If we were able to drill a core sample from left to right of an area consisting of two Atoms we would more than likely experience strong opposing velocities and or force defined in my model depicted below as "<" we would also experience RELATIVE zero velocities and or force defined as "()"
We would also experience in our drilling "velocities" that are equal to our drills velocities defined as ">"

<()>()<()> Here is my postulated core sample where we have a two dimensional core sample of two atoms ..

The protons are depicted as <()> and I have depicted the proton as a compressed area that is decompressing via a positive charge and or exertion in all directions outbound velocities if you will..

the electron depicted is depicted as >()< where it is opposite in charge, velocities and or force.

And the Neutrons in my model are depicted as () and if we consider "<" or ">" as velocities direction and or exertion (force) one should get the message that force and momentum and or Potential and kinetic energy is being implied, we can also imply a <()> as positively charged particle, and the area >()< as a negatively charged Particle.. Note how the neutron is with a neutralized charge and or cancelled out velocities.. a compression or Potential if you will, also note how without two or more theoretical protons the theoretical electrons and neutrons are not possible, also note again how mass is being inferred with the above models along with charge force and energy and or force with considerations to the greater environments physics..

The inference to particles can be a great tool, but when it comes to REALITY one needs to consider the forces that define ones postulated particle, and further more one would have to consider its environments forces and or in principle the velocities that imply each of the forces one is referring to, when one does not adhere to these strict guidelines ones model will simply not work as it does in the REAL world!

To apply oneself in physics correctly, one must be absolutely familiar with Newtons laws on Force and Motion..

And as long as anyone advocates to a perception as a force by way of its own accord, to me implies the individual does NOT understand Physics in a sound manner.. To me that's a BOY that stands before me rather than a MAN.

We cant have force without the forces momentum and we cant have momentum with out force.. Just like we cant have Potential Energy (force) without Kinetic Energy (momentum) which BTW we all should be aware I just referred to mass and or a THEORETICAL Particle "that's if one is still stuck at particle theorem.

Let me suggest an area which is experiencing opposing velocities presents the area with a density and as long as an area experiences said velocities, it can be stated and impied the meeting velocities are inbound as they are outbound (a compression if you will)..

Should the implied area experience yet another exertion (inbound) resulting as an outbound velocity the compression will increase and this increases the area without gaining a larger proportion of ocupancy (compression) which implies an increase in Potential Kinetic Energy to the area..

If we transpose or convert our velocities to the inference to "Charge" the above charged area could be implied as experiencing a negative (exertion) Err~negative charge, which increases its stored energy and or potential seen as an increase in positive charge if you wish, to which if a neighboring area is with less potential (enough opposing velocities) will experience the negative exertions (charge), via the compressed area decompressing upon the less compressed area, yeah I know this may be hard to undersatnd for those that have never worked in the electronics industry at a level where one must consider the Universe as a single mass with various densities to it via meeting velocities at "c", but what the hey its thanks to the above models, Electronics has advanced so much..

I hear you Palle, to many individuals are lacking and or want for more curate data, as for me needing a rethink? well I don't see why I should rethink?

The electronics Industries models rely on REAL physics that conforms and complies with REAL world technologies rather than theories that rely on magical gravitons and or theoretical particles that don't fully comply to all physical laws, such as per "The Standard Models gravitons" which I am convinced The standard model was in the main introduced by religious institutions who are in dire need of magic and miracles or any physics that does not need to conform to all the other fields of science..

Cheers,
Pete.

Laid Back, and all,

Laid Back -above-

I understand and you see I am not always able to reply ASAP but as you seem to indicate in your correspondence or comments.

The Standard Model came from decades of very hard work/thinking by hundreds of physicist and theoretical work by this ladies and gents was completed in n 1973 & has held up as of 2007 to a wide array of very accurate experiments which has improves our understand of the elements that surrounds us.

I think this is something that can be improved but not until the technology as progress.

Any comments always welcomed,
Palle

Let me remind you the theoretical Particles as per The standard model simply can not really exist.. oh sure experiments have given past theoretical results to imply certain areas to be with a convenient particle like structure so that our calculus is able to reflect our findings with a degree of quanta...

But the reality is most of the postulated particles do not fully conform to physics beyond their theoretical area with respects to the greater environment..

And this can be made self evident if one considers what real forces and the respective velocities for our given forces which availed us our findings and or detections..

Good Elf, C2, jal, "THEY" & 2, LB, Palle, et al,

I promise to give you some updates of the progress of CERN. I hope this will answer some PF/mail. question.

http://documents.cern.ch/cgi-bin/setlink?b...s-conf-2007-007

ciao_
yquantum

This post has been edited by yquantum on Jun 26 2007, 12:06 AM

Yquantum, GOODelf, and all,

Yquantum, my concern is that this eight maybe nine billion behemoth that is being built -CERN-. Will it truly have the power to take us to the sub-atomic level below the quarks and explain not only the Higgs Bosons, but could it also maybe explain Dark Matter as well?

I truly believe in our IM's you are correct in the comparison with Faraday and the EM field and what products and advancements have come of it when others at first light did not see the application of the result of his findings. Yquantum, very insightful example BTW.

My question what other theories that have some merit could this LHC bring to better understanding.

I have noticed which is not a sign of intuitiveness on my part that the topic has been lost on other tangents, which has been a great disappointment knowing it deals with about every other topic on this site as well as the quantum mechanics site.

Is there any possibility you might be able to contribute more or do you have the time necessary to explain? Your response to me have been short for which I understand but I would as well as many I would hope like to hear you view.

I appreciate your humility but you have much to say I believe because you back up your comments with experiment's that have given credence to the model.

Just wondering and made it public -- hope this is OK?

Regards,
Palle

This post has been edited by Palle on Jul 3 2007, 05:57 PM

Include me in your updates!

What effect would dark matter have on the casimir force? Negligible?

Neil Farbstein, and all,

Neil not aware of your background I find this statement, quiet interesting?

If there is about ninety seven percent of unknown matter/energy how you could ascertain it to be negligible if somewhat a mystery.

If you truly do understand the dynamics of the casimir force, it is only with the knowledge of four percent information at your disposal!

Just a thought and personal perspective...

Regards,
Palle

Palle, Good Elf, C2, jal, "THEY', NF, et al,

I hope this describes in expression of where we hope to be in a few years after CERN/LHC is up and giving us data hopefully that will astound us.

You remember when the quarks, muon--200 x's the mass of the e-, was discovered then the beginning of the SM which we continue to improve on hopefully with the the data ahead.

I hope to be more involve with this post/site & one other even if this has been here longer than I expected but is the cutting edge of not only particle physics but all of science.

I look at the different post and some have been asked at dinner parties, coffee/tea tables around the world for many decades -- but really there seems to be a new frontier just around the curve/magnet run.

I would suggest also to check into the QM site and see what is said on the DSE and the many approaches that have been made. This is just a tool/example to say that there are many theories presented for the LHC -- time will tell ---> this is the goal of what might be.

Best regards to all and HOPE ALL IS WELL Good Elf, C2, "THEY' &2, jal!

caio_
yquatum

By the way, dark matter/energy is on the table and has been presented by many, great question Palle.

This post has been edited by yquantum on Jul 6 2007, 02:08 AM