Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Why do we need the Graviton?

 Posts: 125 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PMPosted: 3 years agoSo I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 5:53:33 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate itI believe it's because there must be some kind of interaction between the masses. What's being sought is the reason for their weak "attraction" to each other, the reason for the "action at a distance", and that's not provided by merely talking about the mass itself--at least, not under current understandings.I think.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 6:00:32 PMPosted: 3 years agoHaving mass is not quite the same as the interaction between masses.The Higgs boson, is the thing that mediates the mass of matter, the graviton is the hypothetic particle that mediates the interactions between that mass (and indeed anything that is affected by gravity) in the way that typical force mediators operator.Although we have never married gravity with the standard model :/
 Posts: 125 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 7:37:01 PMPosted: 3 years agoAlright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no mass
 Posts: 25,980 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 7:44:25 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2013 7:37:01 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:Alright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no massThat's because photons follow the space-time curve, which is effected by gravity.http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov..."Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 8:02:11 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2013 7:37:01 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:Alright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no massNow that is a tough, tough question.The physics of electromagnetic field, the force that binds protons and neutrons (weak nuclear force) and those binding quarks together (strong force) can be modelled as an exchange of particles. Gravity can be thought of that, as it is kinda a similar type of effective force, but the maths that works for the first three doesn't work for gravity.Gravity can be thought of an attractive force between objects with mass, which also effects objects with energy (photons). It is most commonly modelled as a bending of space and time that causes objects near a big object not to follow a straight line.
 Posts: 4,065 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 11:17:39 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate itFirst off, f=ma doesn't apply in relativistic scenarios (i.e. very small mass or very high speeds). f=(dp/dt) is true even in relativistic scenarios. Also, the gravition is massless, so it wouldn't exert a "normal" force anyway. The reason why physicists think gravitons exist is because every other force has an analog particle (electromagnetism has the photon; the weak force has the W and Z bosons; and the strong force has the gluon).All matter is hypothetically massless, but because of the interaction between it and the Higgs field, it has a mass. The field must have an analog particle, and that is the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson simply explains why matter has mass. It doesn't explain where gravity comes from.Don't let this site's demise affect you: - Make an account on eDeb8 - Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred) - Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with - Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...) - Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
 Posts: 4,065 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/9/2013 11:26:50 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2013 7:37:01 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:Alright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no massGravity isn't an attraction that is inherent in the masses themselves; gravity is simply the result that mass curves spacetime. So even though massless particles (i.e. photons) don't curve spacetime, they can feel a force to an object that does (i.e. a black hole). Large black holes are the result of supermassive stars collapsing upon death, and therefore, black holes have mass.Don't let this site's demise affect you: - Make an account on eDeb8 - Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred) - Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with - Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...) - Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
 Posts: 125 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/10/2013 1:44:04 PMPosted: 3 years agoAlright, I think I get it. So we need the Graviton because there's a difference between having a property like charge or mass, and forces that are seemigly related to those like electromagnetism and gravity.One more question, and I'm sorry this is going all over the place but I don't want to clog the forum with a bunch of separate threads. Does Color Charge in chromodynamics actually do anything beyond allowing the superposition of quarks? What I mean is, say you have a neutron, which has three quarks, two of which are the same type, but different colors. Would there be any way to distinguish between those two down quarks? Or if you had two protons, one which had a "red" down quark and one which had a "blue" one. Do those protons behave differently in any way?
 Posts: 546 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2013 9:17:57 AMPosted: 3 years agoI recall that when gluons are exchanged between quarks, which is how the strong force is mediated within a neutron or proton, the gluons themselves carry colour charge in such a way that it causes the quarks to constantly change colour.For example within a hadron a red quark might emit a red anti-blue gluon and the quark becomes blue. The gluon would then hit a blue quark making it red.Within a meson the quarks have colour on one quark and anti-colour on the other. So a red quark could emit a red red gluon which leaves the first quark anti-red. When the gluon hits the second quark, that changes from anti-red to red.This process happens, I believe, so fast that each quark appears 'white' as it rapidly cycles through. Thus individual quarks cannot be distinguished by their colour.Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
 Posts: 5,192 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/11/2013 10:19:47 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate itI think you have heard the explanations. One other thing to add to the discussion is that the Higgs field is not the sole variable which gives mass to particles. The kinetic energy of the bound quarks in protons and neutrons also give mass.(excluding the fact that gravity affects massless particles while the higgs field does not) If you were to try to use the higgs field to reconcile gravity mathematically it would not match to the observed effects of gravity.I'm not certain if it would over state the effects of gravity or understate the effects of gravity. I would assume understate it because it would not account for the effect of gravity on the additional mass from the quarks.
 Posts: 627 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/23/2013 7:58:34 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/9/2013 11:17:39 PM, Subutai wrote:At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate itFirst off, f=ma doesn't apply in relativistic scenarios (i.e. very small mass or very high speeds). f=(dp/dt) is true even in relativistic scenarios. Also, the gravition is massless, so it wouldn't exert a "normal" force anyway. The reason why physicists think gravitons exist is because every other force has an analog particle (electromagnetism has the photon; the weak force has the W and Z bosons; and the strong force has the gluon).All matter is hypothetically massless, but because of the interaction between it and the Higgs field, it has a mass. The field must have an analog particle, and that is the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson simply explains why matter has mass. It doesn't explain where gravity comes from.Is Higgs really a genius or just a science fiction storyteller?The Higgs boson junkies remind me of the science fiction junkies that believe that Star Trek science fiction is real - where spaceships travel at Warp factor 10 (infinite speed), teleportation is real, and terraforming planets is as easy as baking a cake."Beam me up, Scotty!""Higgs Boson and the Great Scam of Modern Physics""Heh! " "Physics would appear to have gotten away with it: a decades-long campaign of hype, propaganda, and outright deception that saw a ragtag bunch of social misfits swindle the world out of billions of dollars, monies which as of this writing have not been returned"."http://www.theawl.com...You folks can't prove anything you are saying; it is pure speculation.There is a great book titled"The Higgs Fake " How Particle Physicists Fooled the Noble Committee" by Alexander Unzicker.He also wrote "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall " die absurde Jagd nach der Weltformel" which translates to "From the Big Bang to bang By: The absurd hunt for the Ultimate Theory", which was awarded the science book of the year award in Germany. He also co-authored with Sheilla Jones: "Bankrupting Physics: How Today"s Top Scientists are Gambling Away Scientific Credibility."Today"s scientific theories explaining the universe are brilliant and imaginative, but can they ever be verified? And if not, is it still science?"http://www.sheillajones.com...No it is not still science, it is science fiction!"Unzicker's book starts off by claiming:"The 2013 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs boson would have been considered ridiculous by physics' greatest minds such as Einstein, Schr"dinger or Dirac.""Unzicker, a German physicist and award-winning science writer, argues that:"1) The so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated,2) None of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved,3) History suggests that the current model is a dead end,4) With their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results,5) Scientific convictions in the community are established by trust in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and6) The data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody."I like numbers 4 and 6 the most; basically the results can"t be confirmed and we have to take their word on whatever they claim the results are.When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years." "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Mark Twain
 Posts: 9,232 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/23/2013 9:27:32 PMPosted: 3 years agoI feel like getting pummeled and having my character assassinated. Here goes "There is not a scientific consensus on the Higgs Bossen being discovered at cern." It could be "a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter." Now I turn and run for my life.
 Posts: 4,065 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/23/2013 9:43:11 PMPosted: 3 years ago@GWL_CPA: The theoretical formulation of many of the sub-atomic particles is extremely sound, and they have been confirmed through experiment on numerous occasions, and this includes the Higgs boson. The 125 GeV particle isolated at CERN was found to have no spin, positive parity, and couples to mass. Between this and the interactions between the particle and other particles proves pretty much beyond a doubt that the particle detected was the Higgs boson. It's theoretically required and experimentally verified.Don't let this site's demise affect you: - Make an account on eDeb8 - Message Mikal to transfer your stats to eDeb8 (if you want them transferred) - Contact any friends on here you'd like to stay in contact with - Download any debates you'd like archived (go here: http://webpagetopdf.com...) - Download as many mafia games as you can to preserve stats and history
 Posts: 4,488 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/24/2013 1:47:39 AMPosted: 3 years agoIt's true that few collisions produce Higgs bosons, so to achieve statistically significant results either the energy level must be increased to increase the probability or the beam current must be increased to increase the collision rate. The new CERN collider (the LHC) is providing higher energy levels than past machines, but it is still operating at half the design energy. The discovery was made by increases in the beam current at the current energy level. The occurrences are well above chance levels.The experiments were confirmed at Fermilab, and were not announced until there was confirmation.There are many other experiments planned for the LHC besides confirming the Higgs boson. The LHC began a two year shut down in Feb of 2013 to bring it up to the full energy level.
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/24/2013 2:21:38 AMPosted: 3 years agoHilariously, you make three shockingly and laughably false arguments:1.) every single calorimeter in the history of particle physics is wrong. I would actually google the calorimeters used in the LHC as the argument here is really a nonsequitor. You can TL whether the calorimeter is accurate or not by starting at low known powers and make sure the results at that power matches exactly every other particle accelerator in the world. Unless your arguing that all calorimeters in the whole word are wrong by exactly the same amount!2.) you confuse your own source, by claiming that any individual Collision may mean only a 10% chance of being a Higgs that the whole Higgs is only 10% likely. Considering they didn't simply run a single collision, or even a thousand but millions: a significant, massive number which uses the sheer volume of results to show statistical significance.3.) If you read your own source, the reason of the issues with the Nobel prize selection was concerning who would take credit for the discovery.
 Posts: 627 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/24/2013 1:37:47 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/24/2013 2:21:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:Hilariously, you make three shockingly and laughably false arguments:1.) every single calorimeter in the history of particle physics is wrong. I would actually google the calorimeters used in the LHC as the argument here is really a nonsequitor. You can TL whether the calorimeter is accurate or not by starting at low known powers and make sure the results at that power matches exactly every other particle accelerator in the world. Unless your arguing that all calorimeters in the whole word are wrong by exactly the same amount!2.) you confuse your own source, by claiming that any individual Collision may mean only a 10% chance of being a Higgs that the whole Higgs is only 10% likely. Considering they didn't simply run a single collision, or even a thousand but millions: a significant, massive number which uses the sheer volume of results to show statistical significance.3.) If you read your own source, the reason of the issues with the Nobel prize selection was concerning who would take credit for the discovery.Again, please cite any sources that say 100% that the Higgs Boson has been proven; it hasn't.End of this nonsense.When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years." "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." Mark Twain
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 12/24/2013 2:56:55 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 12/24/2013 1:37:47 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:At 12/24/2013 2:21:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:Hilariously, you make three shockingly and laughably false arguments:1.) every single calorimeter in the history of particle physics is wrong. I would actually google the calorimeters used in the LHC as the argument here is really a nonsequitor. You can TL whether the calorimeter is accurate or not by starting at low known powers and make sure the results at that power matches exactly every other particle accelerator in the world. Unless your arguing that all calorimeters in the whole word are wrong by exactly the same amount!2.) you confuse your own source, by claiming that any individual Collision may mean only a 10% chance of being a Higgs that the whole Higgs is only 10% likely. Considering they didn't simply run a single collision, or even a thousand but millions: a significant, massive number which uses the sheer volume of results to show statistical significance.3.) If you read your own source, the reason of the issues with the Nobel prize selection was concerning who would take credit for the discovery.Again, please cite any sources that say 100% that the Higgs Boson has been proven; it hasn't.End of this nonsense.Considering neither you nor I can 100% Proove the earth revolves around the sun, only be sure to the extent of the physical evidence available, the question is fairly irrelevantHowever, as can be shown with the following, "One team there now reports a 5.9 sigma level of certainty that the Higgs exists. That equates to a one-in-550 million chance that the results are incorrect reflections of statistical errors."Which is a little bit more than the "10%" you claimed.http://www.popsci.com...