Anyone care to take a stab...
-
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]: > "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields." The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' :doh:
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]: > "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields." The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' :doh:
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
David O'Neil wrote:
Anyone care to take a stab ... At explaining Higgs
Shouldn't they then write their own article and get it published? After all the link you provided is attempting to do just that. Myself I feel it comes down to just as the article says is that the problem is in trying to fit the theory into the preceding theories. But that is the point, the new theory is needed because the preceding ones don't work. I feel it helps to realize that Einstein spent the last half of his life trying to disprove the increasing evidence as it went along that his theory was not in fact complete. Because of course that evidence did not fit into his theory. So one either learns the new discipline completely or just accepts it as unknowable at the personal level.
-
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]: > "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields." The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' :doh:
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
Interesting. The key point "I think" is the example of the ball and string. The ball floating in space can be moved but exhibits no vibration. In a gravity field the ball is held in place by the string and force must be applied to move it. The ball then swings (vibrates) so it exhibits a repetitive motion within the boundaries of the swing (the vibration) but no motion outside of the vibration. The ball exhibits mass via the frequency of the vibration. Now gravity is basically one direction. The Higgs field acts like it but in all directions. So it causes the vibration of stationary particles and the vibration is related to what we call mass to set the particle in motion (outside the range of their normal stationary vibration) we must overcome the inertia of that mass. (Now my head hurts).
-
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]: > "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields." The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' :doh:
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
My understanding of the ripples / standing waves etc. is this refers to the field whose ripples give rise to a particle moving or not. When he stated earlier "... Higgs field makes the elementary particles vibrate at higher frequencies ..." I assumed he was referring to the field associated w/ the particle which does the actual vibrating not the particle itself. There must be better foo foo articles than this. Have you seen this one How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass - YouTube[^] He's a bit above foo foo.
-
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]: > "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields." The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' :doh:
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
See if this helps: How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass - YouTube[^]
Thanks? :laugh: Now it is just couched in a different set of obscurations.
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
Interesting. The key point "I think" is the example of the ball and string. The ball floating in space can be moved but exhibits no vibration. In a gravity field the ball is held in place by the string and force must be applied to move it. The ball then swings (vibrates) so it exhibits a repetitive motion within the boundaries of the swing (the vibration) but no motion outside of the vibration. The ball exhibits mass via the frequency of the vibration. Now gravity is basically one direction. The Higgs field acts like it but in all directions. So it causes the vibration of stationary particles and the vibration is related to what we call mass to set the particle in motion (outside the range of their normal stationary vibration) we must overcome the inertia of that mass. (Now my head hurts).
Gary Stachelski 2021 wrote:
(Now my head hurts).
That makes two of us. But I can understand what you are getting at through the pain!
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
At explaining Higgs fields and gravity in an understandable manner? Just came across this, and it seems as foo-foo as every other explanation I've heard: How the Higgs Field (Actually) Gives Mass to Elementary Particles | Quanta Magazine[^]: > "...As I mentioned earlier, these standing waves are nothing more nor less than motionless elementary particles, rippling in their respective fields." The engineer in me says that particles must move in order to create waves/ripples, so they aren't 'motionless' :doh:
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
Here is my stab with a rusty spoon (i.e. a very bad analogy based on the link you provided) Particles are like boats on a flat lake, the 2D surface of the lake representing our 3D universe. Without an anchor (massless objects) they go racing about the lake, as the current directs them. If they have mass then they have an anchor hanging down into the lake. This will not simply hang down, as the water is not thick enough, but will swing back and forth like a pendulum. This will cause the boat to oscillate and that will cause ripples. (Just about everything in the analogy is wrong, I'm afraid, but I was trying to emphasize the role the anchor plays and how something can be stationary and still cause ripples.)