Recent content by rlinsurf

Hm. Maybe you're right... Ok, so then it would be the exact opposite? The wave is a function of a set of possibilities, and under observation, because of Heisenberg, the wave is reduced to a single possibility? Thanks :)

In the double-slit experiment, an interference pattern emerges, until observed, whereby there emerges no diffraction pattern. I was thinking about this, and the following occurred to me. I was hoping someone could tell me if I was approaching a better understanding... When observed, the wave...

I see. Thank you, Bill. I think I understand :)

I apologize. I think that's a bit above my head.

I guess I've always had an idea in my head that the universe follows Einstein, and that mass is the warping of space-time. So that's what I'm having a hard time with. A Higgs field I think I can visualize. But why do we need a Higgs particle? Please excuse my n00bness.

Now I'm confused. So is mass, at least in some(?) particles, given by the Higgs field or the Higgs boson?

Ok, thank you, Marcus. Topic moved.

Oh, and then I will move the topic to QTF. I'd just like to hear the answer from someone I can understand :)

Hi, Marcus-- Thanks for your reply, and for making things clearer to me :) I'm still a bit confused however. The media reports that the Higgs Boson imparts mass to all matter. So that's wrong? It's actually the field itself?

I'm having hard time getting my head around this. If E=mc2, then why do we need a Higgs Boson? Can't all matter simply be pockets of greater or lesser intensity (i.e. energy with highly stable angular momentum carrying mass, less stable angular momentum as short-lived particles, and energy as...

Ok. Thanks.

I always thought it also described the conversion of energy to mass. Wasn't that his larger point? That all matter is simply highly cohesive energy in space-time?

As a layman, I'm having a problem with understanding the search at LHC for the Higgs Boson. As I understand Einstein, all mass is nothing but energy. In that case, why are we looking for a particle which imbues mass? For example, in Rutherford's experiment, at least in my mind's eye, when...

Ok, I think I see where I went wrong. Thanks again, guys.

Ah, ok. As you can see, I'm having a hard time getting my head around these concepts. So here's what I was thinking. If there's a discrepancy of 1000 years, allowing for a 1000 light year journey minimum as you've said, wouldn't the journey necessarily appear to be slower to the ground...