sci.physics.particle

On Feb 13, 5:54=A0pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:
> 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-p=
articl...
>
> > > > > > Btw... the articles about the Large Hadron Collider and coming
> > > > > > revolutions
> > > > > > in particle physics in Sci-Am mag are shared free in their site =
(full
> > > > > > 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 ene=
rgy
> > > > > > up,
> > > > > > it promises to discover new structures such as perhaps Santa Cla=
us
> > > > > > 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 the=
re
> > > > > 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 =A0...!!
> soeven the energy people use mass
> to describe energy
> and they cant do without that formula =A0 E=3Dmc^2!!

You must distinguish between rest mass and relativistic mass.
Photon has relativistic mass but zero rest mass although photon
never rests. What this means is that as something chases the
photon faster and faster, the observed energy of the photon
approaches zero as the observer approaches the speed of light.
This is the context of what it means for the photon to be
"massless".

Z.

>
> 2
> yess indeed =A0 =A0 =A0the mass of the photon is very tiny
> but it is still there
> the smallest photon mass =A0that i =A0is probably
>
> =A0Min Photon mass=3D =A0h/c^2 times 1/Time dimession
>
> (the 1/T is jsut for dimenssiion settlement )
> and i am not alone with =A0 that claime !!
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ------------------------ Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -