Marcoen

But the photon received reflects the state as was, ie at the interaction.

Now, whether or not that interaction has any effect on the electron is another matter. And if it did, it did. The electron is then just in a different subsequent state to what it would otherwise have been in. It is not in a different state, because the subsequent state (ie future) does not not pre-exist. And anyway, I have no doubt this electron is being bombarded by many photons.

Thanks for the reference, when I have time. You may note I post early morning as I do not sleep well, Then I get on with the day which a the moment comprises of going over my replacement camper van (the other one got stolen) then renovating my son's flat. Retirement was supposed to be a time of ret!

Paul

Paul

  • [deleted]

  • Post #101

As I remeber, it's been afewridesaround Higgs Boson, and some sources also stated聽that it has some indirect聽evidence聽of Higgs boson, the same with faster then speed of light neutrino. There are high level complexity in such experiments.聽Do聽you mean that there also politics?

As I remeber, it's been a few rides around Higgs Boson, and some sources also stated聽that it has some indirect聽evidence聽of Higgs boson. The same thing with faster then speed of light neutrino. There are high level complexity in such experiments.聽Do聽you mean that there are also politics?

    Koorosh,

    Thanks for commenting on my essay.

    As to your question: yes, politics have made their way into science (including physics). I have personally witnessed how decisions in the highest echelons were made out of pure self-interest, not at all in the interest of science. And I must add that for some this comes naturally.

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    5 days later

    Hi there Paul,

    "whether or not that interaction has any effect on the electron is another matter."

    Yes, that is why I wrote that I had the impression that we were talking about different things. I'm glad we have sorted it out.

    "The electron is then just in a different subsequent state to what it would otherwise have been in."

    Yes, that's about it in a nutshell.

    I think the discussion has brought us closer together. I would like to bring to your attention that I have published a fundamental theory about elementary physical processes; it describes protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. as a discrete sequence of states, alternating between a particlelike state and a wavelike state; the abstract and introduction of the paper are non-technical. Perhaps this is of interest for you, given your own view that existence is a sequence of states.

    Good luck with the camper and with your son's appartment. Don't forget to take time for yourself!

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    Marcoen

    It may be my lack of technical knowhow, but is there free access to this article?

    Paul

    Paul,

    If you have a university affiliation, you can access the paper through the digital library (most universities have a subscription to Annalen der Physik). Otherwise, there is no free access, and I'm not allowed to post the paper on the internet.

    You could send me an email (see the essay for the address), then I'll send you the paper in a reply to that email.

    Or if you prefer a hard copy, just give me your postal address.

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    Dear Marcoen

    One theory is recognized to be true - that is, to have the ability to refute any criticism - and of course nothing is quite difficult to prove.

    Higgs theory is not true - because it can not the absolute explain for mass.

    To higg at : http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1417

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

      Hi there Hoang cao Hai,

      Thanks for providing the links to your essays. I'm rather pressed for time, but if there is a window of opportunity to read other essays I'll consider reading yours.

      I'm not sure what you meant in your first sentence.

      Do you mean that, in general, a theory is recognized to be true if it has withstood all criticism? And what do you mean by "nothing is quite difficult to prove"? Do you mean that everything is easy to prove? Could you elaborate on that?

      Best regards,

      Marcoen

      8 days later

      Hi Marcoen,

      Perhaps a more fundamental question than whether the Higgs boson exists or not is the question (I ask in my essay) to what the Higgs particle owes its mass to.

      Regards, Anton

        4 days later

        In my theory, space-time is a consequence of rest matter. Section 4 in

        Visualization of SR gives, that time runs only in rest matter, not in photons. Thus it build up time and thus space. Thus space-time is an emergent phenomenon.

        But, explanation of Higgs boson gives, that Higgs bosons give mass to rest matter, otherwise rest matter would move with speed of light.

        This second explanation is in contradiction with my explanation. Do anyone sees any explanation for this contradiction?

        As second, is it possible that a boson with mass 125 MeV exist, it has the same spin as Higgs, but it does not create mass of the elementary particles?

          Dear Anton,

          Thanks for sharing your ideas with me.

          I would like to note, however, that my essay is not about whether the Higgs boson exists or not: it is about whether it has been observed or not.

          I agree with you that the question "how does the Higgs boson get its mass?" is a fundamental question too. I am enormously pressed for time at the moment, but if I have the opportunity I will read your essay.

          Best regards,

          Marcoen

          Dear Marcoen,

          A very topical and relevant article. I like they way you've used something so recent as an example of what we consider observation. Original on here, but fundamentally important.

          Here's my essay if you have chance to look - I'd appreciate any comments you have.

          All the best,

          Antony

            Dear Janko,

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

            Usually in classical theory, if two particles are different they have a different position. But you write that in your theory space-time is emergent. That means it is not fundamental. But what is then the distinguishing principle between different particles of "rest matter" (as you call it)?

            As to your second question: according to the Standard Model, no such particle exists.

            Best regards,

            Marcoen

            Dear Antony,

            Thanks for your kind words.

            I am rather pressed for time at the moment, but if I have the chance I will read your essay and comment on it.

            Best regards,

            Marcoen

            Marcoen,

            If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

            Jim

              Hello Marcoen,

              There are so many - it's a big task.

              All the best in the contest!

              Antony

              4 days later

              James,

              Thanks for taking the time to comment.

              I quickly skimmed through your essay, and I see that we are both skeptical about this "it from bit" thing. I should give your essay full attention, but I cannot make any promises as I am really tied up at the moment.

              Best regards,

              Marcoen