sci.physics.particle

On Feb 13, 6:13=A0am, Zilla wrote:
> On Feb 12, 4:20=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 12:50=A0am, Zilla wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 12, 1:19=A0am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 10, 7:02=A0am, Zilla wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=3Dthe-coming-revolutions-in-par=
ticl...
>
> > > > > Btw... the articles about the Large Hadron Collider and coming
> > > > > revolutions
> > > > > in particle physics in Sci-Am mag are shared free in their site (f=
ull
> > > > > articles).
>
> > > > > The Hierarchy Problem and its solution is the top reason the LHC
> > > > > was built in the first place. And it is not just scaling the energ=
y
> > > > > up,
> > > > > it promises to discover new structures such as perhaps Santa Claus=

> > > > > being precipitated by the LHC or more exotic dimensional branes.
>
> > > > > I think the Hierarchy Problem can have analogy this way. In a
> > > > > boxing ring, it takes 10 rounds of time for the boxers to punch
> > > > > themselves around. Let's say the boxing ring is the interaction
> > > > > region or vertex of QED. In physics, what happens is that in
> > > > > 1 sec or less, all the punches in the 10 rounds happen at
> > > > > once. This is the magic of QED & QM. Now the Hierarchy Problem
> > > > > is the mystery how come a Muhammed Ali punch like an infant.
> > > > > That is, the Higgs can decay into top quark-anti-top quark pairs
> > > > > and because there are many paths, it can reach planck mass.
> > > > > But in reality the higgs mass to satisfy the electroweak theory
> > > > > is only very small. Why? =A0Who knows, the LHC may discover
> > > > > sequestering branes that protect the higgs from reaching the
> > > > > planck mass.
>
> > > > > It is surely interesting times ahead come July when the LHC
> > > > > becomes operational.
>
> > > > > I'm still perplexed why chiral symmetry can protect the masses
> > > > > of the fermions and bosons from the higgs hierarchy problem.
> > > > > Anyone kind enough to share?
>
> > > > > Zilla
>
> > > > ---------------------
> > > > 1
> > > > i thought that QM solved everthing !!.......
>
> > > > 2
> > > > have you heared about the idea of
>
> > > > 'The chain of orbitals ' =A0 =A0???
>
> > > > (3)
> > > > you quoted so many parroting nonsense
> > > > that beed a special prize from the Land of =A0nonasense
> > > > anyway it sowes clear as sun on midday
> > > > that no one undwerstands a fuck about what is =A0realygoing on there=

> > > > and it i squite clear to me that even the largest LHC
> > > > will not make it clearer
> > > > if there will be no some change in basic paradigms
> > > > like
> > > > 'no mass in physics '
>
> > > > because old catto saied :
> > > > 'No mass --no real physics '
>
> > > > ATB
> > > > Y.Porat
> > > > ------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > What nonsense? =A0It's just the tip of the iceberg.
> > > Physics middle name is strange and weird...
> > > btw... if you want to know too how chiral
> > > symmetry can protect the masses of the fermions
> > > and bosons from the higgs hierarchy problem.
> > > The answers are here:
>
> > >http://www.itep.ru/ws/2003/procs/Froggatt.pdf
>
> > > see the chapter "Fermion masses and mass protection".
>
> > > Also in here
>
> > >http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/Physics%20558_lec2.htm
>
> > > specifically:
>
> > > "As we discussed last quarter, both vector particles and
> > > spin =BD particles naturally display symmetries that can
> > > ensure that they remain massless. =A0In the former case
> > > it is a gauge symmetry that plays this role. =A0As long
> > > as the gauge symmetry remains unbroken, there can
> > > be no interactions in the theory (i.e., terms in the
> > > Lagrangian, including a bare mass term) that give
> > > the vector gauge boson a mass. =A0The symmetry
> > > also ensures that this situation remains true even
> > > at higher order in perturbation theory. =A0In particular,
> > > radiative corrections in the form of loop diagrams
> > > (to be explained more thoroughly below) will not
> > > cause the vector gauge boson to acquire a mass.
> > > Likewise a Lagrangian with chiral symmetry
> > > (i.e., a Lagrangian where the right-handed fermions
> > > are treated independently from the left-handed
> > > ones) will exhibit massless fermions to all orders
> > > in perturbation theory. =A0Recall that the typical
> > > terms in the Lagrangian for a gauge theory,
> > > except for fermion mass terms, can be written
> > > separately for the different chiral components".
>
> > > Z.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ---------------
> > my poor advaice to you is to learn the most basic
> > physics
> > **before you are fiddling with matheamtics**
>
> > the only good tip i can suggest to you
> > for basic physics is
>
> > no mass no real physics !!
> > just as simple as that !!!
>
> Btw.. i wonder if you are arguing solely about the photon which
> you believed has mass. But isn't it that a gauge boson with
> mass has third polarization (like sound wave). They only
> detected the third polarization in the weak gauge boson
> for example and not the photon so this means the photon
> is massless. Unless the photon mass is so tiny that
> the third polarization is hard to detect like detecting
> gravity wave?
>
> Before you delve deeper about massless photon and
> massive photon however. Try first to reflect what really is
> mass and what caused mass. If you don't believe in
> higgs and the gauge principle and just want to junk
> the Standard Model. Try to cook up another principle
> how mass occurs in matter and at the same time
> predicting the experimental results in QED which has
> accuracy of 1 in billions. Do that and we can parade
> you around the white house to request redistribution
> of funds from LHC to the Porat New Physics Foundation.
>
> z
>
> Z
>
>
>
>
>
> > (i leave for you the notion and religiious
> > crookish =A0 - ignorant =A0 belife
> > that physics has to be wired...
> > the human mind =A0and clergy priests
> > of 500 years ago --can be wired
> > the basic inorganig physics is simple!!
>
> > keep well
> > and thing 10 =A0 secons before you say so someone
> > 'nonmsense '
>
> > Y.Porat
> > ------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

----------------------------
you can take it as a basic assumption of physics
some people take energy as the basic entity
but the overlook that

E=3Dmc^2
and mass is right there before your eyes
even if you are a dumb mathematician ...!!
soeven the energy people use mass
to describe energy
and they cant do without that formula E=3Dmc^2!!

2
yess indeed the mass of the photon is very tiny
but it is still there
the smallest photon mass that i is probably

Min Photon mass=3D h/c^2 times 1/Time dimession

(the 1/T is jsut for dimenssiion settlement )
and i am not alone with that claime !!

ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------