Technology Stocks | ahhaha's ahs


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: dvdw© who wrote (21341)7/11/2012 1:15:14 PM
From: ahhaha of 23308
 
You're killin' me. This is like explaining sex to an 8 year old. Without the background it's just words, speeches.

it supposedly shows appearance and subsequent transfer of mass between particles,

You see, I had to use non technical language so that you could get some kind of picture of what they're doing, but in doing so the given picture can't be used to reason about these things.

I had to use "transfer" because I couldn't use "spontaneous symmetry breaking". When the gauge symmetry is broken instantaneously the bosons have the property of, or "acquire", mass. A massive gauge symmetry could only be understood within a QG, quantum gravity. So far trying to do that within QFT entails intractable infinities(nonrenormalizability).Even at this level this kind of thing seems questionable, partially because you can't use classical concepts to picture these things. That's why I went into that repartee about epistemology. So the question remains. Where does mass come from? A boson, say W, acquires mass. We know it does by experiments done long ago as part of Glashow, Salaam, Weinberg, Electroweak Theory Later. t'Hooft showed the mathematical consistency and universality of this theory up to, but not including, gravity.

thereby showing that the HB appearance & mass is present, and subsequently transferred to particles W Z from the higgs born of the collisions.

No one has tried to give a finer explanation of the causal trail than what already exists. Mass "comes" from the Higgs field in the EWSB, QFT SM., that is, if the Higgs field exists. I claim it doesn't, but the rest of the mechanism is valid. So how do i reconcile getting something from nothing? There's more going on here than say, Wilcek, would ever believe, like new energy scales at 10 TEV and 1000 TEV.

apparently the idea that the weight of the area

Weight of the area? Sounds like Hawking radiation, Beckenstein Bound,, or some such. There are sophisticated notions that use those terms but I'm not familiar with them in this arena.

where the transform or exchange supposedly occurs

You didn't get my repartee about HUP. There is no "there" there, even though there has to be if we want to impose quantum gravity on the universe! Specifically, you have to think in terms of energy and momenta rather than in terms of space when you're dealing with quantum phenomenon. Because of wave particle duality in some sense we can't dump notions of space, but we can transform between position and momentum using Fourier transforms. Ah, now you see what was behind my undergrad science curriculum repartee.

does not constitute any area, where these measurements become the defining protocol for whether the appearance and exchange between the particles actually occurred.

It's not about that. The "transfer" occurs. OK? The researchers lie to government but not to each other.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: ahhaha who wrote (21342)7/11/2012 2:59:47 PM
From: dvdw© of 23308
 
Ok thanks, you've suffered enough.

This piece, which was just found, its is far more descriptive or at least more understandable.

it goes farther than all the other press releases, what this spokesperson thinks about whats been observed and hints about what that might mean..

telegraph.co.uk 

post viewing

you can now feel free to speculate about the dimensions that might be discovered as a result of the massive new particle....

the rest of us.... just sit back and enjoy...its clear, there is a wide open arena of possibility, & for the right price (new or upgraded collider at higher energy) we might get a hint in someones lifetime.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: dvdw© who wrote (21343)7/11/2012 5:28:00 PM
From: Ron Dior of 23308
 
<Ok thanks, you've suffered enough>

Dvdw sometimes when you post, to me it's like your speaking Spanish. I speak some Italian so I can usually muddle my way through in order to get the gist of what you are trying to say. Sometimes when Ahhaha posts, to me it's like he is speaking Klingon and I don't speak even a little Romulan!

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Ron Dior who wrote (21344)7/11/2012 6:28:45 PM
From: Lhn5 of 23308
 
C'mon, man...you have been here long enough to know that means you should re-read by skipping every other word.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: dvdw© who wrote (21343)7/11/2012 8:40:55 PM
From: ahhaha of 23308
 
Don't believe me, huh?

No one believed or believes me about the non existence of event horizons.
No one believed me long ago that GR is incomplete.
No one believes me that gravity is repulsive, as well as attractive.
No one believes me that gravity can operate on gravity to translate a distortion that travels at v > c.
No one believes me about the non existence of the Higgs field.
No one believes me about a hundred other concepts in physics.

But they will.

By the way, that guy Incandela is a slug.

What you should understand is this. A physical paradigm lasts only so long. Then it's replaced by something else. Usually, something else builds on what went before, but sometimes the change is radical. As far as I can tell from my sources which are exotic sine qua non, there is no end to this process.

Applying this philosophy of science to our current situation we come to a severe conclusion. QFT has no completely sound theory under it. In Peskin's book, "Intro to QFT", Peskin & Schroeder, which is a standard and good, if old, graduate text, he gets to a point in the development where he runs into Feynman's "rest of the universe" problem:

Picking up the discussion (I have used # to represent "transpose" so that e.g., a# is left moving modes of a)

The simple harmonic oscillator is a system whose spectrum we already know how to find.We write the Hamiltonian as

H = (p^2 + omega^2*phi^2)/2 ....................... 2.22

To find the eigenvalues of H we write phi and p in terms of ladders operators,

phi = (a + a#)/sqrt(2*omega) p = i*sqrt(omega/2)*(a - a*) ..................... 2.23

The canonical commutation relation [p,phi] = i is equivalent to

[a, a#] = 1

The Hamiltonian can now be rewritten,

H = omega*( a# * a + 1/2)

The state |0> such that a |0> = 0 is an eigenstate of H with an eigenvalue omega/2, the zero point energy.

Furthermore, the commutators

[H, a#] = omega*a# [H, a] = -omega*a

make it easy to verify that states

|n> = a#^n |0>

are eigenstates of H with eigenvalues, (n + 1/2)*omega. These states exhaust the spectrum.


Skipping some equations I'll go to his conclusion,

H = integral( d^3p/(2*pi)^3 * omega * ((a# * a) - [a, a#]/2) ) ......................... 2.31

The second term is proportional to deltafunction(0), an infinite c-number. It is simply the sum over all modes of the zero point energies, omega/2, so its presence is completely expected, if somewhat disturbing. Fortunately, this infinite energy shift cannot be detected experimentally. since experiments only measure energy differences from the ground state of H. We will therefore ignore this infinite term in all our calculations. It is possible that this energy shift of the ground state.could create a problem at a deeper level.in the theory; we will discuss this matter in the epilogue.


In the epilogue he says "we ignore the anomalies because the theory works by giving us accurate calculations".

QFT has a lot of critics, but aside from explicit holes in the theory, it does have its charm. The above is a core point. All formulations of QFT flounder there. The problem goes back to Dirac's sea and the notions of "unbounded below" "unbounded above", and their complements. We can't tolerate a theory that's unbounded below.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: ahhaha who wrote (21307)7/11/2012 8:52:51 PM
From: ahhaha of 23308
 
Previously, I noted,

"can ACA qualify as reconcilable under the '74 Act? Roberts said the "penalty" was a tax. If it's a tax, then it has budgetary implications. Who says Roberts is right and what does it matter to Congress? Then again, it can't have a current budget effect because the "tax" such as it is, has yet to be collected. The alleged tax can't be rationalized as budget busting and thereby in need of remediation through reconciliation, because the sure budget busting nature of ACA hasn't been demonstrated.".

Slight correction to this assertion. Paul Ryan on Levin's radio show said that Robert's opinion has established that the "penalty" is a tax as far as Congress is concerned. Therefore, in principle, it's possible under budgetary constraint provided for the '74 Act to reconcile ACA out of existence with something like the Medicaid provision escaping excision. Have to win the House, Senate, and WH, though, but at least we don't need super majorities.

I say we must go out and convince our fellow Americans about what they must do this fall.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: ahhaha7/11/2012 10:34:34 PM
of 23308
 
More revisionism.

On radio talk show "The John Bachelor Show" the host had an alleged "expert", Michael Auslin, AEI, comment on China. He said China was obsessed with the US. Ok, we won't deliver cheap shots on that one although it's questionable. Then Bachelor asked, "For comparison, was Soviet Union similarly obsessed with the US"? Auslin, a conservative scholar, who had lived in Japan for some time, said "no".

Bet me, Jack. Lot he knows. Not! How old is that guy? Born 1967. When he graduated from high school Soviet Union was on its last legs. He knows nothing except what he has read in the left wing cover up texts at Chicago and Georgetown.

Soviet Union was highly envious of the US. Khrushchev told his son that he didn't respond according to the demands of his military not because of the scale of implied world wide destruction that would surely have ensued, but because he didn't want to see Disneyland destroyed. Soviet Union had all its policies centered around response to whatever the US did. Although this event could only be symbolic later comments by many Russians confirmed this attitude. They didn't have to tell ME or anyone else walking home from school looking over the hills for mushroom clouds that Soviet Union was obsessed with the US. Sputnik and Gagarin, accordingly, were a great triumph The result of the obsession was partially behind Gorby's concessions to Reagan.

You have to watch out for this kind of thing in our modern society. You need to have the Crap Detector on at all times.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: ahhaha who wrote (21347)7/11/2012 11:34:03 PM
From: Lhn5 of 23308
 
I heard third hand about a bill that can go through Congress that states that since calling the penalty a penalty is not constitutional, the penalty must be called a tax or the 'unconstitutional bill' is null and void. This will force the dems to vote 'for a tax' in order to preserve Obamacare. I am sure there is more to it but I see their point, for all the good it would do.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: Lhn5 who wrote (21349)7/12/2012 9:23:38 AM
From: ahhaha of 23308
 
...calling the penalty a penalty is not constitutional

The Supreme Court already ruled it was a tax. That was the only way that Roberts could justify the individual mandate. As previously discussed here Roberts made the argument for the 'crats who had rejected it as the only possible way to avoid dumping the whole ACA.

the penalty must be called a tax or the 'unconstitutional bill' is null and void.

It may seem that this is what I just said, but the word game of calling whatever it is has no formal bite. The bite has been taken. ACA has been ruled constitutional. Part of that constitutionality is Roberts' assertion that it must be held to be a tax. OK. Fine. Then ACA becomes vulnerable to budgetary remedy under the '74 Budgetary Control Act.

This will force the dems to vote 'for a tax' in order to preserve Obamacare.

It already is a tax by ruling and it doesn't force the 'crats to do anything.

I am sure there is more to it but I see their point, for all the good it would do.

You must not have read or understood a word I've written about ACA over the past weeks.

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Lhn5 who wrote (21349)7/12/2012 10:18:32 AM
From: The Wharf of 23308
 
>>Gets confusing from head lines supreme court has ruled but here on a quick glance you are looking at possible repeal..

U.S. House Again Votes to Repeal Obama’s Health Care Law
By Roxana Tiron and James Rowley - Jul 11, 2012 9:01 PM PT
The Republican-led U.S. House voted to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law, demonstrating party leaders’ resolve to undo the president’s main domestic-policy achievement.

The bill, H.R. 6079, passed on a vote of 244-185 yesterday, with five Democrats joining Republicans in favor of repeal. The vote represented the 33rd time House Republicans have voted to revoke all or parts of the 2010 health care law, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The measure won’t advance in the U.S. Senate, where Democrats hold the majority.
Speaker John Boehner during a news conference in the Capitol after a meeting of the House Republican Conference where he and other members addressed issues including the efforts to repeal the health care law. Photographer: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images
Unless Republicans win the presidency and gain the Senate majority next session, their attempts to repeal the law will go no further than the House.

If this is correct then here is where you must focus
my.brainshark.com 

Share Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.