On Feb 13, 3:13*pm, Zilla wrote:
On Feb 13, 5:54*pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Feb 13, 6:13*am, Zilla wrote:

On Feb 12, 4:20*pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 12, 12:50*am, Zilla wrote:

On Feb 12, 1:19*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:

On Feb 10, 7:02*am, Zilla wrote:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...ons-in-particl...

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 energy
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? *Who 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 ' * *???

(3)
you quoted so many parroting nonsense
that beed a special prize from the Land of *nonasense
anyway it sowes clear as sun on midday
that no one undwerstands a **** about what is *realygoing 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? *It'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 he

http://www.itep.ru/ws/2003/procs/Froggatt.pdf

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 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

keep well
and thing 10 * 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=mc^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=mc^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".
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= *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
------------------------ Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
'relativistic mass
' is dead long ago!!

there is jsut one kind of mass!!

so dont forgey who told you that the first time !!

(the relativistic mass' was jsut a croocked way
to bypass the fact that photons has mass(the only kind)
and at the same time to move at c
THE PHOTON IS AN EXCEPTION CASE
TO THE RULE
THA TNO MASS CAN MOVE AT c !!
it was too difucult for physicists at the beginning of
'modern physics
to take in acount that some law
has its limits of validation!!
in the similar way they invented
curved space time that
curves photons next tothe sun
but they overlooked the possibility i mensioned above
that it curves just because the photon **has mass**

the fact that it doe s not meet their calculations
is the fault of missunderstanding that the photon is an
EXCEPTION CASE !! with*still* uknown properties
that needs special and specific calculations
not less and much different than the Schwartshield calculations
that actually** fiddled the calculations** to experimental data !!

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

On Feb 15, 7:07*pm, "Y.Porat" wrote:

http://www.itep.ru/ws/2003/procs/Froggatt.pdf

* 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 * 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.

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

E=mc^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=mc^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".
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= *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
------------------------ Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

--------------
'relativistic mass
' is dead long ago!!

But not for you. Modern folks know that mass is energy and
energy is mass. In earlier days, this is not so intuitive and
energy needs to be called relativistic mass. Now it's called
total energy which is mass. For example, Kinetic energy
and thermal energy is mass.

there is jsut one kind of mass!!

In ancient newtonian times, it is. But with relativity,
there is a difference because energy is mass
and there is frame of reference dependence.
For example... if a woman rapes you, your mass
stays the same in your point of reference. But
for a witness in the alley, your mass would be
seen to increased (gauged from say a weighting
scale connected to your organ) due to the kinetic
energy contribution from the woman. Gets? Try
to imagine this (and this would encourage you to
think) so you'd analyze and realize that relativity
is why mass is more complicated because
kinetic, thermal, etc. energy is just also mass
and depending on the frame of reference.

Listen. We can defend newtonian against the bizarre
world of special relativity, general relativity, quantum
mechanics, etc. but newtonian framework is so
limiting. Have you witnessed an object disappear in front
of you and teleporting to another place in the room.
No newtonian physics can explain this so newtonian
is not right. Relativity and quantum mechanics is
more flexible to explain reality. More is to come that
can finally explain it all. Watch Harry Potter. Everything
that exists there can be simulated with the full physics
that is coming in decades. In fact, we are beginning
to feel it.. that is.. people are beginning to see physics
as magick. This is because it is. Ordinary folks
use mathematics to suppress those onslaught in
their minds. Without mathematics, some may go
crazy. So mathematics is what keep many sane.

Embrace what I'm saying because it is the future.
Or go look for other hobby if you can't integrate
physics being magick into your mind.

Z

so dont forgey who told you that the first time !!

(the relativistic mass' was jsut a croocked way
to bypass the fact that photons has mass(the only kind)
and at the same time to move at c
THE PHOTON IS AN EXCEPTION CASE
TO THE RULE
THA TNO MASS CAN MOVE AT *c !!
it was too difucult for physicists at the beginning of
'modern physics
to take in acount that some law
has its limits of validation!!
in the similar way they invented
curved space time that
curves photons next tothe sun
but they overlooked the possibility i mensioned above
that it curves just because the photon **has mass**

the fact that it doe s * not meet their calculations
is the fault of missunderstanding that the photon is an
EXCEPTION CASE !! with*still* * uknown properties
that needs special and specific calculations
not less and much different than the Schwartshield *calculations
that actually** fiddled the calculations** to experimental data !!

*ATB
Y.Porat
----------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 18, 6:14 am, Zilla wrote:
But not for you. Modern folks know that mass is energy and
energy is mass. In earlier days, this is not so intuitive and
energy needs to be called relativistic mass. Now it's called
total energy which is mass. For example, Kinetic energy
and thermal energy is mass.

You fail English and maths. "is" is the thridash, whereas "works" is
the twidash, but not even a bumpkin would claim thas "m = E" is true.
At some spick in time mathematicians faild Latin and maths as well
when they said the twidash = means "equal-", as this math¨¨tic operator
is not even qualitative but quantitative; they should'v saide
"equant-", of course, thereas the twiwhip ¡Ö is the "equal-".

-Aut

On Feb 18, 9:14*am, Zilla wrote:

But not for you. Modern folks know that mass is energy and
energy is mass. In earlier days, this is not so intuitive and
energy needs to be calledrelativistic mass. Now it's called
total energy which is mass.

I disagree. I believe that this is a common misconception. While they
are proportional for a closed system they aren't always proportional
in the more general case. For instance, place a dielectric in a
uniform electric field. The field will porarize the dielectric and in
so doing induce stress within the dielectric. This stess adds to the
inerial mass (aka "relativistic mass" aka "mass") but the total energy
of the diakectric will not be related to the mass of the dialectric by
E = mc^2.

For a solid example please see -- http://www.geocities.com/physics_wor...gy_vs_mass.htm

For a textbook explanation of the physics please see "Introduction to
Special Relativity," by Wolfgang Rindler (1982), section 46 which is
entitled "The augmented momentum and mass densities" which starts on
page 149.

This fact seems to have been forgotten by many relativists in the
past. However this fact is becomming more known. A recent text by
Schutz (Gravity from the ground up) explains this as does a recent
article in the American Journal of Physics. The article I speak of is

"The inertia of stress," Rodrigo Medina, Am. J. Phys. 74(11), November
2006

For example, Kinetic energy and thermal energy is mass.

I disagree. Energy is not mass nor is mass the same as energy. That
which has energy also has mass and that which has mass also has
energy. However they are very different physical quantities
altogether.


there is jsut one kind of mass!!

In ancient newtonian times, it is.

Actually there were two kinds in Newtonian physics: Inertial mass and
gravitational mass (which is have active and passive types)

Best wishes

Pete

ps - If anyone would like to read the Rindler reference above I'd be
more than happy to send them the relavent pages since I have them
scanned into a file which I have kept.

relevant

Autymn D. C. wrote:
relevant

You? No.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein