Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Black Holes Don't Exist
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 108 of 174 (742268)
11-18-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by zaius137
11-18-2014 1:08 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
The Higgs is never directly observed (it blinks from reality before it can be observed, at least that is the claim).
That's the case for most subatomic particles aside from the proton, the neutron, the electron and photon and a few of the pions and force carriers.
The vast majority of subatomic particles are not directly detected. Although as the years go on they are.
For instance the pions were originally detected via their effect on the decay channels of other particles, now they have been directly detected.
Does the tail wag the dog here?
The effect is observed before the cause, the cause can not be disproved (it is a assumption of particle/field). That my friend is religion not science, if you want to claim faith in the cause, that is your prerogative (and burden).
Of course the cause can be disproved. The preliminary tests of the Higgs can only detect it via its decay products, then, as with other particles, eventual direct detection.
I can understand you saying that you don't believe it until it is directly observed, but I don't really understand why it is a "religion".
What I think is that current observations are consistent with a Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism has survived the first round of observations. It has to survive more, as most physicists will tell you. Again I don't see what is religious about this.
Speaking of which, what is your explanation of the increase in Tau lepton production and photon production around 126 GeV?
The Standard Model says it is due to Higgs decay.
Where is QFT without virtual particles (or whatever you want to call them)? Here is a classic straw man. You have me holding my breath for the details.
Where is it? I'm not fully sure what you mean. Quantum field theory does not involve virtual particles. You can read accounts of this in graduate quantum field theory books like:
Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras, Rudolf Haag.
The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I, Steven Weinberg.
Quantum Field Theory, Claude Itzykson, Jean-Bernard Zuber.
I'm not really sure what saying "quantum field theory has no virtual particles" is a straw man of.
I am not defending supper-symmetry or the propping up of the Standard model.. Please give me your take on the following, no quantum double-talk is acceptable.
That's a discussion of the MSSM or the minimally super-symmetric standard model, created in the 1980s. This is a different theory than the standard model, created in the 1970s.
Most physicsts, even Georgi himself, did not think the MSSM was correct. I have never said the MSSM was correct. I have been talking about the standard model.
They have similar names in the English language, but they are vastly different theories with completely different particle species and decay rates.
Please in your own words. summarize this. So I do not have to endure the agony again.
Well since I have explained in detail to you before, I will summarise briefly. When you calculate the vacuum energy in the standard model you get the observed value for the cosmological constant. It's a toy model that gives a value 170 orders of magnitude off, not the standard model itself. (The calculation is done using steepest-descent methods on the Path Integral.)
I have previously linked to a paper which goes through this calculation and obtains the correct value at the end.
Further, you know my objections to the particle/field hypothesis. I still claim it is not falsifiable, thus not formal science.
No actually, I don't. You've never stated them, just that you object. We've seen field states decay into particles, fields coalesce into a particle and fields produce particles. What part of the concept is untested or not falsifiable to you?
Again: What did Archimedes say? Give me a lever long enough and a place to put it, so I may move the world. QFT says, give me enough free parameters and fields to put them in and I will describe the universe.
Well all theories of physics have free parameters. Although it would be better not to, I still don't see what is "incorrect" about them. Classical physics also has free parameters, Newtonian gravity has free parameters. It isn't just QFT that does this, so I don't see why you are leveling it against it in particular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by zaius137, posted 11-18-2014 1:08 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(7)
Message 109 of 174 (742271)
11-18-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by zaius137
11-18-2014 1:15 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
To be honest, I think you don't have a clue what you are actually disagreeing with. You purposefully say leading things with no content like:
It seems all is not well in the Higgs camp....
without ever backing them up. This nonsense about the Standard Model not being falsifiable is the latest in a line of guff where you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark.
I mean do you really think that the Standard Model is not falsifiable. That scientists at the LHC have conversations like:
Jaysus Dave, sure why did we build this massive machine, the theory isn't falsifiable.
I know Anne, I just like building big machines, lol!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 11-18-2014 1:15 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 174 (742336)
11-19-2014 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
I bet the random events are of better statistical significance.
They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.
So the magnitude still remains off by an order of 170 That is crystal clear.
To be honest this is getting really stupid.
I have given you two papers proving mathematically that the standard model calculation is correct and agrees with observations.
Why do you think it still remains clear that it is wrong by a factor of 170? How is that crystal clear?
Seriously why do you think this? What is wrong with the papers?
As I said, in a previous thread in 2012, I gave you two papers and wrote three long posts explaining the standard model calculation.
This year I have explained where the old "170 orders of magnitude" quote came from to help you understand.
Yet without saying anything or providing any reason, you continue to just assert it is 170 orders of magnitude off? Not only that, it is in fact crystal clear that this is the case.
Why do you think this? What is your reasoning here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:31 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 113 of 174 (742338)
11-19-2014 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
Your reasoning is completely circular, particle /field is right so that is what we observe.
What would count as proof of the concept to you?
It is not an objection to free parameters, it is a objection to the quality and quantity of them in QFT.
QFT has less free parameters than any other theory in physics. Only 19 for all of subatomic physics.
What does "the quality" of a free parameter mean?
you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark That is debate with panache my friend.
Saying nothing and providing no reasoning other than sarcastic remarks is panache? It's very easy to be full of panache I guess.
I believe it is God more scientific than the Higgs.
Let's compare shall we.
Hypothesis: A scalar boson, the Higgs, couples to other particles in a manner dictated by the standard model.
Evidence:
1. CMS collaboration observation of scalar particle with mass 125 GeV and ATLAS statistical analysis to confirm particle is spin-0, ruling out spin-2 with 99.9% confidence:
Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions | Nature Physics
2. CMS collaboration statistical analysis of the coupling of this scalar particle to the fermion and photon sectors demonstrating that it possesses decay properties of standard model Higgs detailed here:
Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions | Nature Physics
3. ATLAS (a separate detector) collaboration statistically analyses this scalar boson's coupling to muons. Again it matches the Standard Models predictions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0370269314006583
4. ATLAS statistical analysis of diphoton channel, new scalar particles coupling to photons. Again it matches Standard Model predictions:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4222
5. CMS Collaboration statistical analysis of Z-boson decays from new scalar particle show that it possesses zero-parity to 99.9% confidence:
http://journals.aps.org/...ct/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081803
Hypothesis: Yahweh, national god of the bronze age monarchical nation state Israel, controls the entire universe:
Evidence:
1. After the kingdom was conquered by Babylon and given freedom under Kūru II of Persia, most of the priests of his major temple at Jerusalem thought so and wrote literature displaying that idea which survives today as the latter books of the Old Testament.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:51 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 174 (742397)
11-19-2014 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:51 PM


Re: QFT does not explain BH, only BS.
Here is just some quotations from your citations very convincing.
Well there you go folks. A sarcastic one-liner yet again. "Very convincing, lol", with no comment on why it is not convincing or in fact any content at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:51 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2014 4:09 PM Son Goku has seen this message but not replied
 Message 128 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 1:17 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 174 (742399)
11-19-2014 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:31 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
No I am not reading all the papers he has cited (even if I had all the access I needed), as far as I know from the summations I have read, the problem remains unanswered except by superfluous ontological apparatus. Formally it is known as the vacuum catastrophe. I asked Son to summarize all the minutia in formal objections, he did not, I still pose that offer.
(a) The paper I gave you is free to access.
(b) I have summarised it before, back in 2012. Guess what I got back then? Sarcastic one-liners. I am not going to summarise it again.
Summarising it was apparently too vague for you. However you have also told me you don't want detail. What kind of exposition do you want? A rough guide to the calculation or something like that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:31 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 125 of 174 (742404)
11-19-2014 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Percy
11-19-2014 2:20 PM


Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
Second, notice where it says "a naive application of quantum field theory". Son Goku will have to confirm, but this "naive application" may be what he means when he refers to a toy model from the 1970's.
Yes that is what I mean. I'll explain a bit.
General Relativity, as most of you know, describes how matter couples to spacetime, that is how it distorts it, which we experience as gravity.
General Relativity contains a term (often called the cosmological constant) which describes how Vacuum Energy distorts spacetime. Vaccum Energy being the energy in empty space that is present even when no matter it there.
I've said before that in quantum field theory particles are excitation of the field. Another analogy, which is actually more accurate, is that if you think of the quantum field as a spring mattress, particles are vibrations of the springs. Vacuum energy can be thought of as the energy in the field when it is inactive, or in the mattress analogy, the potential energy present in the springs even when they are not vibrating.
Now, General Relativity cannot tell you what the Vacuum Energy is as it does not describe matter, it has no idea how much energy is in a field when it is inactive. You have to compute that energy in quantum field theory and then feed it into General Relativity.
From cosmological observations it appears that the Vacuum Energy is about one joule per cubic kilometer. That is, every cubic kilometer of empty space contains about a joule, even when no matter is present.
It is this Vacuum Energy that, according to General Relativity, is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate, rather than slow down as it would without it.
Now, a good check of the Standard Model would be to insure that it predicts this one joule per cubic kilometer. However this was almost impossible to check in the 1970s as:
(a) The standard model has 14 fields, you would have to calculate the contributions of each.
(b) You cannot check each in isolation, as the Vacuum Energy of one field "back reacts" on the Vacuum Energy of all others. You really have to check the whole standard model at once.
(c) Spacetime itself back reacts on the vacuum energy and alters it. This was poorly understood at the time. This is a reasonably easy calculation, but the mathematical machinery didn't exist at the time. In fact it has really only been fully refined since the early 2000s.
In the above, it is really (b) that is the problem and the part that even today requires hundreds of hours of supercomputer run-time to calculate. (c) can be done mostly by hand.
So to cut it short, in the 1970s people reasoned:
The Higgs is probably the major contributor to the vacuum energy, so let's calculate the result in a world where only the Higgs exists.
The answer gives you joules per cubic kilometer. Which is obviously way off one joule. However, the approximation is extreme (universe with nothing but the Higgs).
Edited by Son Goku, : string -> spring
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 2:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 12:47 AM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 130 of 174 (742436)
11-20-2014 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by zaius137
11-20-2014 12:47 AM


Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
What he has failed to mention is that the field (cosmological constant) is evolving with time in accordance with the BB history.
It isn't, the cosmological constant is constant in time and space according to observations, hence the reason it is called a constant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 12:47 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 1:00 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 131 of 174 (742437)
11-20-2014 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by zaius137
11-20-2014 1:17 AM


Re: QFT does not explain BH, only BS.
Well I guess if the expectation is not met by results, QFT can just adjust a parameter no big deal. Your a smart participant and this is your field, explain why the expectation might not be met and what parameter might need tweaking.
It can't be tweaked. If the Higgs decays are not observed the standard model is false, no adjustment of its parameters to avoid the Breit-Wigner profiles for decays (these are the humps near 125GeV) would be possible. The location of the hump can be adjusted, but not its presence, and the location is not completely free to vary, it can only be located before 247GeV, i.e. the Higgs must be lighter than this and its decays must be present at detectable rates.
Just be prepared that one day this entire find might come to nought.
Except that every statistical analysis makes that seem more and more unlikely. The possibility of a Higgs is now estimated at 99.99%
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 1:17 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 174 (742476)
11-20-2014 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by zaius137
11-20-2014 1:00 PM


Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
Not that simple
Originally the cosmological constant was a contribution of space itself to pose a balance in the universe. When the constant was assumed to be a contribution of energy then things changed. If the volume of the universe is increasing, dark energy must also increase.
The cosmological constant is an energy density and observational studies show that energy density is constant in time and space. A change in volume does not imply a change in an energy density. Dark Energy can increase without the energy density increasing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 1:00 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 1:17 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 136 of 174 (742482)
11-20-2014 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by zaius137
11-20-2014 1:17 PM


Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
You just missed the main point, the evolution of the balance between vacuum energy and matter has changed over time (main point). Either matter is decreasing or vacuum energy is increasing. I would go with the latter.
Yes, they have changed over time, but the cosmological constant has not. It is an energy density, so vacuum energy can increase over the course of time (due to the expanding universe), but the vacuum energy density (which the cosmological constant measures) does not.
If I have a container with 8 liters of water and a volume of 1 cubic meter and then it increases to 2 cubic meters with 16 liters of water, the amount of water has changed but the density has not.
The Cosmological constant is a density. What the Standard model predicts is an energy density. One that is constant according to observations and according to the Standard Model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 1:17 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 2:24 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 137 of 174 (742484)
11-20-2014 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zaius137
11-20-2014 12:47 AM


Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
Now was that so hard I knew you could do it.
What was wrong with the explanation from 2012 that it required a repeat? Obviously you knew I could do it, since I'd done it before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 12:47 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 2:31 PM Son Goku has seen this message but not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 140 of 174 (742491)
11-20-2014 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by zaius137
11-20-2014 2:24 PM


Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
You really don’t get it. Forget the changing volume. It is the density between matter and energy which has changed. If you calculated the vacuum energy in the past, then calculated it now, it’s density is different. Forget the volume for now, think balance of state.
You stated the cosmological constant has changed over time. I am saying this is wrong. I am not talking about the comparison between matter and energy.
If you calculated the vacuum energy in the past, then calculated it now, it’s density is different.
No, the density is exactly the same.
Son, the answer for calculating energy density, that is observed today, from quantum background still does not work. No one, except a very few individuals expect that vacuum energy can be reconciled to 107 orders of magnitude.
Seriously, why do you think this. I have given you the paper, explained the method twice, explained the theoretical background three times and you still keep repeating this. What problem do you have with the paper I linked to which calculates the correct answer? Why do you think this issue is unsolved?
Can you provide a reason why you believe this is unsolved, without referencing almost fifty year old calculations.
Just the infinities alone in perturbation theory cause issues.
What infinities in perturbation theory? I have the calculation in front of me, the paper I linked, and there are no perturbative infinities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 2:24 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by NoNukes, posted 11-20-2014 7:28 PM Son Goku has not replied
 Message 142 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 8:03 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 174 (742543)
11-21-2014 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by zaius137
11-20-2014 8:03 PM


Re: Reminding Son of what's already been explained
So the cosmological was constant during inflation? Let me guess, you say yes.
I am saying that the constant denoted by the symbol in Einstein's field equations for general relativity is constant. The field equations are:
where , known as the stress-energy, describes the energy and momentum flux due to matter. , the metric, describes how distances work in the spacetime, is the Einstein Tensor, which describes a specific aspect of the spacetimes curvature. describes the energy present in empty space.
So what I am saying is: That , the object known as the cosmological constant, is a constant, that it does not vary over time and space.
I do not know what you are refering to when you say "the cosmological", so I'm not claiming anything about whether it is constant or not.
I am saying the cosmological constant, the term in the field equations, is a constant.
Who here for a single minute believes that black holes don’t exist because of a bad Standard Model prediction That is just funny.
The paper linked to at the start of this discussion is not a Standard model prediction. The calculation is done in what is known as the Hawking-Hartle vacuum. This is basically the lowest energy state of a scalar quantum field and a scalar quantum field alone. In fact this the same toy model I mentioned earlier in reference to the vacuum energy calculation. It is not a standard model calculation.
Can you answer the following question:
When you say the Standard Model what do you mean?
You seem to blame it for everything, but have given strong hints that you don't know what it is, such as claiming it displays supersymmetry. Do you know what it is?
Well Son says vacuum catastrophe does not exist, never has. Because a paper points out that it is all imagination.
I'm saying that the vacuum catastrophe was a problem of old toy models and is not a problem of the actual standard model.
The paper does not "point out it is imagination", it mathematically proves that the standard model has no vacuum catastrophe.
Once again, can you actual say what is wrong with the paper.
If nothing else, please answer the following question, this will be my fifteenth time asking it over the last two years, so can you just answer:
Why do you think the Standard Model displays the vacuum catastrophe? Given that the vacuum catastrophe was found in an old toy model, not the Standard model, why do you believe the Standard Model has a vacuum catastrophe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 8:03 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by zaius137, posted 11-22-2014 9:15 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 154 of 174 (742791)
11-24-2014 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Percy
11-23-2014 9:45 AM


Re: Reminding Zaius of what's already been explained
Unfortunately I have spent most of the thread asking Zaius why he still supports papers from 1970 that I haven't really reached a proper discussion of the cosmological constant. The problem is not solved, but the real problem is different to what Zaius keeps talking about. It is not an issue of it being hundreds of orders of magnitude off.
The cosmological constant, according to quantum field theory, (specifically the standard model) has two components:
is essentially the energy stored in all the quantum fields except the Higgs field, when they are in their "rest" state, i.e. no particles, i.e. their latent energy even when not excited or active.
is the energy in the least active state of the Higgs field. Since the Higgs field is never at rest or inactive, we cannot look at the rest energy only the least active state.
Now, it turns out that this cancel almost exactly to produce the "correct" value for the cosmological constant.
To be a bit more specific, quantum field theory calculations show that each field has a vacuum energy of: to lowest order. Where is a numerical constant and is the mass of the lightest particle associated with that field.
Now, if we take the heaviest particle in the Standard Model, the top quark, this value turns out to be ludicrously high, far larger than the observed value. is a sum of all these values, so if one of them is enormous, so is their sum.
Initially it was thought the Higgs component just added a term to like the others. As I've said above, recent methods show that the Higgs does not contribute such a factor. Instead it has an entirely separate contribution in .
It was also quickly realised that is negative, so the two terms cancel, possibly resulting in the observed value.
Now, the value I quoted above for each fields contribution to is only to first order. A more detailed calculation is required, but requires some assumptions, the main one being:
To what energy is the Standard Model valid?
The most extreme assumption is that the Standard Model holds all the way up to Big Bang energies, the Planck scale, where General Relativity and the Standard Model, we know, must break down.
This is quite an extreme assumption, for it is essentially stating that the Standard Model describes all of particle physics and works up until energies where the concept of particles breakdown. There is no new forces lurking in the energy range between the LHC's collider and the Big Bang, no new particles, nothing. This hypothesis is often known as "the desert".
If you assume it, then and cancel almost exactly, leaving roughly the observed cosmological constant:
http://www.ecm.ub.es/IRGAC2006/talks/110706/Shapiro.pdf
(See page 18 of this talk summarizing recent research)
However:
(a) It is an assumption.
(b) The methods produce the answer, without really telling you "why" the cancellation is so exact. The mechanism is not obvious from the calculations (as can often be the case in QFT, we knew from calculations that QCD for example had the right mass for mesons for years, but it took another decade until we knew the physical mechanism)
Many find it suspicious that the cosmological constant is roughly:
Suggesting that , the Higgs contribution cancels because the Higgs prevents any field other than the neutrino from affecting the cosmological constant.
As Steven Weinberg has said, the real question now is Why they cancel so nicely (see p.6 of the talk above), not this "hundreds of orders of magnitude" stuff from the 1970s.
Edited by Son Goku, : rest are -> so is their sum
Edited by Son Goku, : Terrible grammar, The Steven Weinberg!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Percy, posted 11-23-2014 9:45 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024