Particles have mass, HOW?, Higgs or ?

Hi zephir,

There are no inconsistencies in Special and General Relativity. Special Relativity is not inconsistent with Quantum Theory. Quantum Theory is inconsistent with General Relativity simply because it is impossible to quantize the manifold. The reason for this is basic incompatibility and this is a well known problem. There is "obviously" something wrong with the techniques used to quantize the manifold using Quantum Field Theory or Quantum Gravity Theory or maybe LQG. It could be that "nature" never intended for the manifold to be quantized since it may not be possible. That has been my approach. There are categorically no problems with General Relativity other than neglect of spin terms in the formulation. Not the fault of GR just the people who use it. For this "omission" look here.
Wikipedia: Einstein-Cartan theory
This deals with the concepts of the the way Special Relativity needs torsion terms in dealing with gravitation with spin. This is the "Vierbein" and the way it embeds into spacetime. GR is almost never correctly used. Luckily it is not a problem for many things (I hope). The "Vierbein" are critical in dealing with systems involved with spacetime torsion and this is the issues at hand here. People who neglect this feature which stems from the asymmetry of the Special Relativity transforms do so at their peril. It is an excellent concept that can be extended to as many dimensions as needed.

Special Relativity and torsion in nearly flat spacetime (Minkowski Manifold plus extra dimensions) is obviously easier to deal with and is the best approximation without too much "grief".
Wikipedia: Cartan connection applications - Vierbeins
The underlying Restricted Lorentz symmetry for SU(2). Torsion in "spacetime" seems to be almost a non-issue. Torsion in compact higher dimensions is indeed another matter altogether.
Wikipedia: Lorentz group


Cheers

I must disagree with you on the statement above ^^, QM does support other dimensions in fact I will just name one because it is the most familiar to most not because it is the only one. "The Quantum Jump of the electron". Niggling problems with electrons are nothing new, and Feynman himself acknowledged this in The Feynman Lectures on Physics II. Here is just one more to think about.

One of the biggest problems is that: “today’s electron-electron scattering experiments indicate that the electron’s radius could be infinitesimally small, which causes the energy of the electric field around the electron to be infinitely large.” So in order to avoid completely nonsensical answers, a mathematical procedure called renormalization which you ask about Good Elf, was introduced to remove infinity from equations, so that scientists could find a workable answer to their calculations rather than what amounted to gibberish [dimensions].

So Good Elf, we know there are other realities in QM the very “procedure has become such an inherent part of all quantum field theories, that at present the ‘renormalizability of a theory’ is accepted as proof that the theory is realistic that we can deal with a problem we just cannot answer.”

Good Elf I know how we treat each other, always as gentlemen and no fear of disagreements which I hope shows that we have some intelligence. Eh!

In the intelligentsia community that is very productive is not being paid, as you have said big bucks for just sitting on there thumbs not from my 'Frame of Reference.'

You know if you really think about it many other examples. What is going on between you and Zephier is great and healthy but we have and will find that there is many things beyond our senses as well comprehension but should not evade the challenge?

Best as always,
cio_
yquantum

Hi yquantum and zephir,

Zephir and I have always disagreed about "details". I am sure he is well aware that I am not "down on him". This is purely an intellectual discussion. Naturally I put the argument I think is the heart of the issue.

A healthy discussion is always very good to clarify one's ideas and we are never going to disagree on issues that we both already accept good friend. I really do not want to argue this point (as you know my heart is not in it) but as the devils advocate, I can think of a very good reason to reject higher dimensions based on first principles and the example you have there. In the Copenhagen Interpretation of this phenomenon, the electron (or any particle) when it is making a quantum leap, does not have anywhere to be in 4 dimensions so the problem has "gone away". You have simply an expectation value which will "bring it back" in due course... Heisenberg's Uncertainty relationship. Until the system wave function is collapsed it is a question that needs no answer. Self serving and convenient but devastating and final when confronted by the scientific community's views.

I know recent analysis of this problem on a mathematical argument shows this is not "solid ground" anymore (I can locate this work if you like... it was earlier in the year). Mathematical argument alone will not convince "die hard" points of view. However... the Copenhagen Interpretation was the very same lynch-pin that "downed" Einstein in the eyes of the scientific community many years ago. From that moment in time when Bohr and Einstein had their meeting, Einstein deferred to the stronger argument (not this particular point ... but a linked issue none the less). Consider if Einstein knew then what we know now (including the surprise of entanglement) he would be able to put a very strong case for his view, the course of scientific history would have been quite different.

It is not the way things happen of course. This Copenhagen Interpretation is still the primary interpretation of quantum processes as of this moment and can be called upon as a convenient defense against your objection. As yet no experiment can prove it wrong and mathematical argument alone may not be enough to "win the day". It would seem mathematics is always sufficient to prove things right but never sufficient to prove things wrong. ... thats a joke!

Of course I know you are in favor of higher dimensions but somebody from "our camp" should be putting forward a case that should predict what we will soon find (most probably at CERN). If somebody does not fill the intellectual vacuum, something else naturally will. In "models" with a lot of parameters anything can be accommodated. I am unhappy with "models" no matter how good they are at "modeling". I really do not want to see the Standard Model #2. I want to see a predictive theory like Special and General Relativity... something built on the very stuff of geometry, space, time and energy.

On your other points...

You are dead right about there being many other examples of apparent higher dimensional behavior but there are always very good arguments to the contrary.

The infinitesimally small "apparent" radius of the electron (especially since it has significant magnetic dipole moment) can be explained by the electron being a very stable object in higher dimensions. Surely HEP scattering sees only the cross section available "on the flat" of Minkowski Spacetime. If the "flat" of spacetime connects only through "harmonic resonant processes" with higher dimensions then "a bigger hammer" may not solve the problem. If "simple" renormalization can remove a problem then we may be dealing with simple dimensional mapping being a reciprocal space and even reciprocal time as in the Fourier domain... frequency domain <-> time domain (wave packet <-> impulse). This is not just a cleaver mathematical process but optical Fourier processing indicates that this is a significant natural phenomena and not just a simple maths tool. It has deeper physical significance, and it is time and frequency transformable reversibly. There are also higher dimensional extensions to this general theory. The other point is "resonance" and "periodicity" all through our physics from optics to RF Transmission Theory, electronics and to Circuit QED and Photonics. The correspondence between QED and QCD indicate to me even deeper relationships and connection.... holographic relationships in our Universe. The operation and function of quantum computers are also deeply significant and linked to this "entanglement" with "waves". No one can deny that QC's are really going to work and this process entangles everything "holographically". This is a very deep principle and present theory has not integrated this aspect as of yet. David Bohm was at least partially right...

It is good to discuss these things and zephir is welcome as well... I would never try to exclude anything he says.

Cheers

yq,

Infinitely large/small....not a problem if in fact the electron is a manifestation of trans-dimensional 'tiered' wave propagation. i.e, 4-D to 3-D...2-D...1-D..singularity.

That's my simple and obvious answer.

Good Elf, & fivedoughnut,

This is not worth anyones time to debate. I do truly understand where you both are coming from. I do not have time to write a paper, you have stated it very well GE, but I will just put a spin on it, there are two sides of the same coin.

At first I wanted to give examples of what would prove to you the problems we face. Then the EPR hit me & this could never end with any true solution well that is not completely correct because of Bell's paper and the progression after, that did prove the EPR could not stand as stated.

I do have a different 'Frame of Reference', because of what I do and see. I is irrefutable but then if I would and do try to see through the eyes of David B. knowing so well that would cause a problem for you and I do respect that.

I wanted to use a tool we all use from our checking account to QM, QED, etc. But I know that would seem abstract on the micro level but it seems to be acceptable on the macro. Go figure, *heehee*

So we will call this chapter as they say in chess, "en passant" but please know this guys that the real world is not what it seems please trust me on that. I will one day turn white headed because of it.

I will stay in close and comment on ideas that might work in your world if possible if you do not mind.

fivedoughnut, your singularity now talk about something that is not of this world you hit that or should I say will never see that one coming. HA! Good to hear from you.

Best wishes,
caio_
yquantum

yq,

Infinitely large/small....not a problem if in fact the electron is a manifestation of trans-dimensional 'tiered' wave propagation. i.e, 4-D to 3-D...2-D...1-D..singularity.

That's my simple and obvious answer.

The electron's radius is not infinitely small. It is simply beyond measurement with current equipment. There is no math that descibes it. If a minimum radius were found would the curent theories adequately describe it?

Hi yquantum,

No worries, believe me I trust you on that... he he he! I have seen enough to realize not everything is "cozy". It means we still got a lot to learn. Still... what I read in the daily papers each day is much scarier to me than anything else that I have ever seen. People worry about most things in irrational ways... and things that are a real problem they learn to live with. That theory about why hair turns white.... tell me how do you turn it back!

Cheers

Good Elf,

Your beginning to keep hours like me, this is not good for our health you know.

I am indirectly involved with this in fact just talk to a man in the field. I know it is very public because you will see the date on the paper March/2006. This might be the answer for us both as far as color of hair. In another universe there is a qubit out of the 10 atoms running that could give us the answer. Oh me?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam...the-qubits.html

It is great to have common goal to find answers without sarcasm. Your a breath of fresh air Good Elf, "THEY", jal, and so many lately on this site. Let the journey begin in many approaches to the truth.

Because I have been gone so much not sure how I can give you kudos on your positive remarks for your contribution to this Phys forum. You and a few more I would love to comment on the great job that is being done.

ciao_
yquantum

Good day!
fivedoughnut... For those who have not been following my thread....
your terms 4-D to 3-D...2-D...1-D..singularity.
...........are 12-D...to......6-D...1-D....solid
jal

bravo jal,

5dn is most likely suffering from sleep deprivation, just put in a quick note and mix up a few numbers I am sure. You need to see the typos I make.

Remember jal, We learn through experience and experiencing, and no one teaches anyone anything until they have been through the school of HARD knocks. This is as true for the infant moving from kicking to crawling to walking as it is for the scientist with his equations & then we are all tested.

But if the community on this forum permits it, anyone can learn whatever he/she chooses to learn and with the way this has been going it will happen; the individuals will want it, the experience & places like this will teach and encourage him/her to research + everything it has to help share with conviction.

ciao_
yquantum

Good Elf,


Dropping back into this conversation for a bit...

How is everything? Good, I hope.


Just wondering about your statements:

I would like to disagree, while conceding your point. I hope that the mathematics, and a sound, logical, and even intuitive model, will be enough to overthrow the tyranny of Copenhagen.

So, my question to you is, have you come to any new understanding of defining resonance? We have had quite a bit of conversing about that, and I don't think I ever convinced you of the legitimacy of my theory. All throughout the history of Science, intuition has played a key role. Read the private journals of all Discoverers, Inventors, etc., and you will hear this truth. The one huge thing you did not mention in describing the far reaching effects of the phenomenon of resonance was Music. This system is just as tainted by the ad hoc methodology as The Standard Model; and it was created out of the mind of man by a similar, intuitive way. The bottom line for both of these systems is that they WORK, and do so with great accuracy and sophistication. But, at the end of the day, they leave the student HUNGRY for a more clear explanation.

I'm just curious to know if you are hungry for a second course?


T.Roc

Good day!

Jal... For those who have not been following my thread....
your terms: 12-D...to......6-D...1-D..solid.
...........are 4-D to 3-D...2-D...1-D..singularity.

5D



[Quote] yquantum,

"5dn is most likely suffering from sleep deprivation, just put in a quick note and mix up a few numbers I am sure."

......Better than brain deprivation...... know what I mean?

EPR...Spooky action, no prob' yq.

Take an electron, positron created from a gamma photon decay.....they look like two separate entities. However, in 4 space they belong to just one 'field' with a ring singularity......With sufficient cash and motivation, I could have built a hyperspacial communication device decades ago to prove this.

T.Roc,

Unfortunately there is not all that much information on this but I am sure you have hear of it. Greek philosopher and mathematician who founded in southern Italy a school that emphasized the study of musical harmony and geometry. He proved the universal validity of the Pythagorean theorem and is considered the first true mathematician.

What you can find will be very interesting with your theory maybe.

fivedougnut,

No problem from you view I understand and respect it. From my everyday experience and if you will go back just one page on this post and look into the reference on quantum computers. You will read that there is much more than what you think you see.

Best to both,
cio_
yquantum

EPR...Spooky action, no prob' yq.

Take an electron, positron created from a gamma photon decay.....they look like two separate entities. However, in 4 space they belong to just one 'field' with a ring singularity......With sufficient cash and motivation, I could have built a hyperspacial communication device decades ago to prove this.

The quantum equations that describe quantum correlation and "spooky acttion at a distance" predicted that phenomenon without hyperspacial links in
it. Hyperspacial links may be superfluous. Do your hyperspacial links allow more communication and effects than the bell theorum or the same? What consequenes
are there?