The sixth Porat postulate

**Michael Moroney**

(Gordon D. Pusch) writes:

In Feynman's version of perturbation theory, energy and momentum
are =ALWAYS= and =EXACTLY= conserved, at every interaction vertex.
"Virtual" process proceed by allowing the "virtual" particles to be
"off their mass shell" --- which is not nearly so problematic
as allowing energy conservation to be "temporarily" violated,
since rest-mass is not conserved anyway!

Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

--
-Mike

**Bjoern Feuerbacher**

"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Bjoern Feuerbacher) wrote in message . com...
(Y.Porat) wrote in message . com...
(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

i have some news for you:
there are issues in physics, that come *before* the uncertainty principle
is for instance : conservation of energy!!! and matter !!!.
noting can be born bigger from something that is smaller.
not for a nano second and not for a nano nano nano second.
can you stick it to your mind ??

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
-------------
let me start again with : thanks Mike
at least you are curious and thorough.
but again there is a lot of your basic assumptions that
imho are misleading you.
if mass and energy are conserved (asboth of us agree)

Err, mass isn't conserved. Only energy is. This is nicely shown by
every beta decay.

than there is no 'inflation of mass'

What is this supposed to mean?
-------------------
Hi Traitor

Thanks for again showing that you can't answer my arguments - the only
way for you to keep your nutty ideas is by simply ignoring me.

Bye,
Bjoern

**Bjoern Feuerbacher**

Michael Moroney wrote:

(Y.Porat) writes:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...

As I suspected, you couldn't wrap your mind around that.
As to conservation of mass/energy, first, it is conserved.
The mass/energy is the same before and after the short delta-t.
-------------
if mass and energy are conserved (asboth of us agree) than

Mass-energy (one thing, due to E=mc^2) is conserved. Not conserved
separately.

Depends on if you mean relativistic mass or rest mass. Usually if one
says "mass" in physics today, one means rest mass - and that isn't
conserved!

[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

**Bjoern Feuerbacher**

Michael Moroney wrote:

(Gordon D. Pusch) writes:

In Feynman's version of perturbation theory, energy and momentum
are =ALWAYS= and =EXACTLY= conserved, at every interaction vertex.
"Virtual" process proceed by allowing the "virtual" particles to be
"off their mass shell" --- which is not nearly so problematic
as allowing energy conservation to be "temporarily" violated,
since rest-mass is not conserved anyway!

Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

What has this to do with the Higgs mechanism, in your opinion? And why
do you think it isn't understood?

Bye,
Bjoern

**Y.Porat**

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Gordon D. Pusch) writes:

In Feynman's version of perturbation theory, energy and momentum
are =ALWAYS= and =EXACTLY= conserved, at every interaction vertex.
"Virtual" process proceed by allowing the "virtual" particles to be
"off their mass shell" --- which is not nearly so problematic
as allowing energy conservation to be "temporarily" violated,
since rest-mass is not conserved anyway!

Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.
---------------
thanks to Pusch and Varney
anyway i hope i acomplished something:
raising (at least) some question markes about the existing
solid and blind beliefe that the standard Model with its virtual
particles, is a theory who lets us 'so rest in peace on the laurals.
anyway
at least for me it is obvious that a particle 'giving birth to
another entity that is 90 times bigger than itself is
(excuse me) nonsene and a nonstarter.
it even for the slightes fraction of time!
and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?
TIA
Y.Porat
-----------------
------------

**Bjoern Feuerbacher**

"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Gordon D. Pusch) writes:

In Feynman's version of perturbation theory, energy and momentum
are =ALWAYS= and =EXACTLY= conserved, at every interaction vertex.
"Virtual" process proceed by allowing the "virtual" particles to be
"off their mass shell" --- which is not nearly so problematic
as allowing energy conservation to be "temporarily" violated,
since rest-mass is not conserved anyway!

Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.
---------------
thanks to Pusch and Varney
anyway i hope i acomplished something:
raising (at least) some question markes about the existing
solid and blind beliefe that the standard Model with its virtual
particles, is a theory who lets us 'so rest in peace on the laurals.

Err, no particle physicist I know of claims that the SM is the final
truth - everyone admits that it's simply the best theory available, but
still leaves many questions open. That's why supersymmetry, string
theory, noncommutative geometry and other ideas are so popular today!

anyway
at least for me it is obvious that a particle 'giving birth to
another entity that is 90 times bigger than itself is

*sigh*

The SM doesn't claim that this happens. How often do I need to tell you
that the Z bosons which are emitted are *virtual* and don't have a mass
of 90 GeV?

(excuse me) nonsene and a nonstarter.

Well, it's nonsense you yourself invented - it's a straw man.

it even for the slightes fraction of time!
and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

As far as I can see: No, he doesn't mean that.

Bye,
Bjoern

**Y.Porat**

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Gordon D. Pusch) writes:

Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.
---------------
thanks to Pusch and Varney
anyway i hope i acomplished something:
raising (at least) some question markes about the existing
solid and blind beliefe that the standard Model with its virtual
particles, is a theory who lets us 'so rest in peace on the laurals.

Err, no particle physicist I know of claims that the SM is the final
truth - everyone admits that it's simply the best theory available, but
still leaves many questions open. That's why supersymmetry, string
theory, noncommutative geometry and other ideas are so popular today!
-------------
Mr young Fuerbacher
why do intervean in my discussions with people that i can discuuus with.
you are not the type of person i would like to discuss.
i dont like to discuss with people who are apriori againt me
no matter what i will say.
so please get of my back.

ps not to mension that you are an opportunist that chages his mind
to where the wind blows.

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

anyway
at least for me it is obvious that a particle 'giving birth to
another entity that is 90 times bigger than itself is

*sigh*

The SM doesn't claim that this happens. How often do I need to tell you
that the Z bosons which are emitted are *virtual* and don't have a mass
of 90 GeV?

(excuse me) nonsene and a nonstarter.

Well, it's nonsense you yourself invented - it's a straw man.

it even for the slightes fraction of time!
and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

As far as I can see: No, he doesn't mean that.

Bye,
Bjoern

**Michael Moroney**

(Y.Porat) writes:

and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully. Virtual
particles have tons of evidence supporting them, but why,
say, a W has a mass of 90 protons when 'real' and 'whatever'
when 'virtual' (if you follow Feynman's version), and even
if Feynman's version is better or if energy is short-term
nonconserved due to the HUP is better remains to be answered
(at least to me.) The Higgs mechanism is supposed to explain
why matter has the mass it does. I don't understand it. I
don't know how much is understood by the science community
as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
--
-Mike

**Y.Porat**

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Y.Porat) writes:

and a question to Moroney:
while you saied :
Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.

does it mean you realise that the 'virtual particles'
are at least problematic and speculative?

No, I mean we don't understand everything fully.
-----------
thats exactly what is asked you.
and now i got the frank answwer:
neither me nor you and probably no one else realy understands it
(unlees he is an imposter) so i guess that is the real situation.
may be if you dont undestand you can ask Feuerbacher
he understands everything.may be he will explain it to us
in detailes and not just wave his hands.)
i guess it is a mathemathical solusion that works *partially*
on some cases but something is missing there, or even worse:
something is wrong there
and my 'lacmus- sixth postulate' detected it:
no messenger can be bigger or stronger than the entity, that sent it.
------------
btw
the tunneling effect that you mentioned is interesting
but i think it is not sort of 'borrowing energy'
(may be borrowing energy from the 'neighbours' at the metal latice
and my guess it is more finding the correct opportunity of the electron:
say by finding the right frequency that causes the proccess
to *resonant*
so it is very 'frequescy dependant' and thas why it is so sensitive
to the specific elements and specific temperatures.
now the way from that and jumping to the nuclear world
is too long!
because the nuclear world, is ,'quite another opera'
as you youself indicated:
as we zoom more and more into the microcosm, we get
some different laws ansd situations
for instance:
you can hardly immagine a 'mathat latice' situation of the nucleids,
it is AFAIK a different structure, therefore you cant authomatically
make corelations between the two situations
and say that a quark is 'borrowing energy' just under the
*pretext* of uncertainty principle.
again my claim aginst the vast use of that principle:
the fact that we cannot be certain is not 'an umbrella'
for issuing guesses and claiming: since you are uncertain-
*i am certain* sort of fishing in dark watter.
------------

Virtual
particles have tons of evidence supporting them, but why,
say, a W has a mass of 90 protons when 'real' and 'whatever'
when 'virtual' (if you follow Feynman's version), and even
if Feynman's version is better or if energy is short-term
nonconserved due to the HUP is better remains to be answered
(at least to me.) The Higgs mechanism is supposed to explain
why matter has the mass it does. I don't understand it. I
don't know how much is understood by the science community
as a while. I do know the Higgs itself hasn't been found yet.
-------
and my main point and prediction:
it will never be found because of the *physical*
logic behind my sixth postulate.
ps
that guess of mine has a lot of eccomomic meaning in avoiding
waist of money and energy and human resourses.
IOW befor investing lots of money, i suggest to reexamin it
again and agin on the theoretic grounds(and not just one theory-
to realize
if that investment has 'real legs'!!
all the best
Y.Porat
----------------------

**Bjoern Feuerbacher**

"Y.Porat" wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
"Y.Porat" wrote:

(Michael Moroney) wrote in message ...
(Gordon D. Pusch) writes:

Yes, maybe that's a better way to look at it. Perhaps when/if we
understand the Higgs mechanism it will explain it.
---------------
thanks to Pusch and Varney
anyway i hope i acomplished something:
raising (at least) some question markes about the existing
solid and blind beliefe that the standard Model with its virtual
particles, is a theory who lets us 'so rest in peace on the laurals.

Err, no particle physicist I know of claims that the SM is the final
truth - everyone admits that it's simply the best theory available, but
still leaves many questions open. That's why supersymmetry, string
theory, noncommutative geometry and other ideas are so popular today!
-------------
Mr young Fuerbacher

As usual, you don't even care to spell my name correctly - and *you* say
that *I* am impolite?

why do intervean in my discussions with people that i can discuuus with.

If you didn't notice: this is a newsgroup. If you want to have a private
discussion with Michael, use e-mail.

you are not the type of person i would like to discuss.

Yes, I know - because you can't answer my arguments.

i dont like to discuss with people who are apriori againt me
no matter what i will say.

I was not "a priori" against you - I only turned against you because you
acted like a typical crackpot: you ignored questions, you ignored
evidence, and so on.

so please get of my back.

ps not to mension that you are an opportunist that chages his mind
to where the wind blows.

I never changed my mind about you. I thought you were a crackpot from
since I first saw your "book".

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

anyway
at least for me it is obvious that a particle 'giving birth to
another entity that is 90 times bigger than itself is

*sigh*

The SM doesn't claim that this happens. How often do I need to tell you
that the Z bosons which are emitted are *virtual* and don't have a mass
of 90 GeV?

Again, ignored.

[snip rest]

Bye,
Bjoern

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
"Elegant Universe" spawns new postulate	Richard	Physics - General Discussion	6	October 31st 03 04:29 PM