Higgs field popular descriptions

[WaveHarmony]

There is a significant difference between your school problems and physics though. In your school problems, you know, or can define, the problem ahead of time. Physicists have to collect evidence of diverse types of phenomena across different time, distance, and energy scales before problems can even be defined. That turns out to be spectacularly hard.

Additionally the competing worldviews (I assume GR and the Standard Model) you write about are incompatible, but they are useful and accurate enough for almost all purposes.

You may find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization#Renormalizability to be interesting introductory articles.

The above quote was received by email but doesn't seem to be in the thread.

What I feel is that we have to find a solution and not just accept that the competing worldviews are incompatible. Physics takes place in spacetime and it doesn't make sense that there should be several different and incompatible physical worldviews. The unification of physics is a very worthwhile goal and my point is that the starting point should be at the descriptive level.

I am convinced that if we could get clarity and consistency at the descriptive level then the unification of the laws of physics will not be difficult. As a starting point it is questions such as the nature of mass and the choice of fundamental physical properties (momentum, energy, spacetime) which need to be clarified and agreed.

WaveHarmony

 

[haael]

Despite I believe that GR is the proper way to unify physics, we can not stick to the particular mathematical formulation GR was written in. The unified theory may need some different mathematical objects.

The most general framework that we write our physical theories with is in fact Lagrange/Hamilton formalism.

 

[WaveHarmony]

Hello Haeel,

This is an important point of agreement, that the GR world view is the best starting point for the unification of physics. As I understand it the Lagrange/Hamiltonian formalism does deal with Energy/Momentum in spacetime so this would seem like a good approach.

What I wanted to discuss first was at the descriptive level. For example, to go back and look at the debates over the last 100 years concerning the interpretation of quantum theory and see if we can come up with an interpretation based on real physical waves in spacetime. This would be consistent with the GR view of the world in which spacetime has curvature and the potential to support wave trransmission of energy.

WaveHarmony

 

[haael]

But we can't say at this moment that the Universe looks like waves propagating over spacetime. This has yet to be proven. Our mathematical framework must allow both expressing that the world indeed does satisfy GR view, and that it does not.

There is no common picture of the world, since nothing is actually proven. If we confine ourselves to speak only in GR terms, we risk missing the possibility that the world is not like that.

 

[Drakkith]

WaveHarmony, I don't feel that anything you've said makes any sense. As in you've typed a lot out, but haven't really said anything. All I see is someone who is unhappy that QM and GR aren't compatible and wants to use GR as the basis for the next theory. Just saying that you think we should go back and try to agree on properties and fundamentals without giving a good explanation of how that could help and why it would even be possible in the first place doesn't give your opinion any credulity.

 

[WaveHarmony]

Hi Drakkith,

I think it would help in the following way. There must be a single unified description of the world which can provide a starting point for the unification of physics. It's just that we haven't quite found the right description yet. In the past, attempts at unification have been based on trying to extend existing theories without giving sufficient consideration to the physical description which provides the context for the mathematical equations. Particularly in quantum theory and QED there is a strong assertion against consideration of the interpretation of the equations (quote: shut up and calculate). My view is that the unification of physics requires consideration at the descriptive level before moving on to frame the equations for the physical laws in this context. Only when we have constructed a valid description will it be possible to develop the theory and maths in the right context.

In order to bridge between the descriptive level and the mathematical equations it is important to decide which properties are fundamental i.e. which properties will appear in the equations of the theory. I have analysed that the properties energy, momentum and spacetime are fundamental and the properties of mass, charge, force and field are dependent properties. This means that any development of a field theory aimed at unification will not be addressing the problem at the most fundamental level.

This approach means that we have to go back and review some of the ideas that have developed over the past few hundred years in the description of physical phenomena. For example the description of light as a varying electromagnetic field matches theory with experiment but since we are taking the view that field is a dependent property we have to look for an underlying cause of the varying electric and magnetic field in terms of our fundamental properties. We have to consider waves in spacetime that have energy and momentum as providing the underlying cause of the electromagnetic field associated with light.

I see that in this thread we have digressed from the original topic of the Higgs field giving mass but it does illustrate the problem that arises when trying to deal with physical theories which are incompatible at the descriptive level.

WaveHarmony

 

[Dead Boss]

My view is that the unification of physics requires consideration at the descriptive level before moving on to frame the equations for the physical laws in this context. Only when we have constructed a valid description will it be possible to develop the theory and maths in the right context.

I disagree. How will you possibly know that the "descriptive level" is correct? You have to match some numbers with experiments and to do that you need mathematical model.

In order to bridge between the descriptive level and the mathematical equations it is important to decide which properties are fundamental i.e. which properties will appear in the equations of the theory.

Whether property is fundamental or not is surprisingly irrelevant in physics. Most of the time you have a certain relation between quantities and you can rewrite the equations in terms of any quantity you want. Speculating which is more fundamental is certainly useful but once you have a good understanding of the theory itself.

I have analysed that the properties energy, momentum and spacetime are fundamental and the properties of mass, charge, force and field are dependent properties.

If by "analysed" you mean "made up" than yes I agree.

 

[Drakkith]

Hi Drakkith,

I think it would help in the following way. There must be a single unified description of the world which can provide a starting point for the unification of physics. It's just that we haven't quite found the right description yet. In the past, attempts at unification have been based on trying to extend existing theories without giving sufficient consideration to the physical description which provides the context for the mathematical equations. Particularly in quantum theory and QED there is a strong assertion against consideration of the interpretation of the equations (quote: shut up and calculate). My view is that the unification of physics requires consideration at the descriptive level before moving on to frame the equations for the physical laws in this context. Only when we have constructed a valid description will it be possible to develop the theory and maths in the right context.

The interpretations of the theory have no reflection on the math used, so I don't see how you came by this conclusion. In fact it seems to be the very opposite. Our description of the world was forcibly changed during the development of QM because the only math that worked was the one that described it as we view it now.

In order to bridge between the descriptive level and the mathematical equations it is important to decide which properties are fundamental i.e. which properties will appear in the equations of the theory. I have analysed that the properties energy, momentum and spacetime are fundamental and the properties of mass, charge, force and field are dependent properties. This means that any development of a field theory aimed at unification will not be addressing the problem at the most fundamental level.

And how did you determine this?

This approach means that we have to go back and review some of the ideas that have developed over the past few hundred years in the description of physical phenomena. For example the description of light as a varying electromagnetic field matches theory with experiment but since we are taking the view that field is a dependent property we have to look for an underlying cause of the varying electric and magnetic field in terms of our fundamental properties. We have to consider waves in spacetime that have energy and momentum as providing the underlying cause of the electromagnetic field associated with light.

What do you mean by "waves in spacetime"? How could they possible create a field?

I see that in this thread we have digressed from the original topic of the Higgs field giving mass but it does illustrate the problem that arises when trying to deal with physical theories which are incompatible at the descriptive level.

WaveHarmony

I think the only problem here is that your understanding of physics is incomplete. Have you asked yourself what makes you qualified to determine how science should progress? Do you really understand everything about QM and GR and why they don't work together?

 

[WaveHarmony]

I take on board a lot of the comments in the last two posts from Dead Boss and Drakkith.

It is true to say that there is a problem with knowing that the descriptive level is correct. What I am saying is that the descriptive level is important, but it is only when this is combined with the mathematical models of the theory that it all fits together.

I would like to illustrate my point with reference to the development of special relativity and general relativity. The papers written by Albert Einstein reveal that he proceeded with a number of thought experiments to reach his conclusions. He worked out in special relativity that, given the experimental result of the constant speed of light this must lead to certain conclusions about space and time. The theory of general relativity was more difficult to work out and a key thought experiment was the equivalence between a uniform acceleration and gravitational effects. He realized that space coordinates could not be Euclidean and realized that Gaussian coordinates were needed to represent curved spacetime. He had to assimilate new mathematical constructs in order to fully develop the theory.

My point is that Einstein worked out his theories at the descriptive or conceptual level as a first step before moving on to decide how to frame the equations which model the theory.

So I am saying that the approach to a unified theory of physics should be similar in process to the development of GR.

We need to resolve some of the inconsistencies at the conceptual level and then move on to deal with the underlying theory. A possible approach would be to take GR as a starting point. Then when it comes to dealing with QM and QED it is the interpretation of the theory (i.e. the descriptive level) which is undefined or unresolved. The unresolved points between GR, QM and the standard model which are discussed in this thread and others include the nature of mass (GR view vs Higgs field), the nature of the fundamental forces, the nature of charge and the structure of the electron.

I have some ideas on these points which I would like to share even though I am not qualified in physics above A level and maths above MA level. I have previously posted that mass is fully explained by GR as long as we can describe how an electron curves spacetime. This leads to the idea of an electron as comprising a looped wave disturbance in spacetime. This emphasises the wave aspect of the electron as revealed in QM and QED while giving it a real physical meaning. The fundamental forces (gravity, strong and weak nuclear and electromagnetic) can be seen as a result of a difference in energy between possible alternate states. There being four fundamental forces is as a result of the architecture of the atom. Electric charge is an an intrinsic property of electrons and protons. Given the idea of an electron comprising a looped wave in spacetime we can imagine a local variation in spacetime curvature that is the wave but if we view this as a variation in space curvature with a superimposed variation in the time dimension then we would have a net expansion or compression of space leading to the energy differences which in turn lead to electrostatic forces.

I am not claiming to have a complete solution but I am trying to illustrate how a change of ideas at the conceptual level could lead to the refinement of existing theories such as QM and QED which have some areas of deficiency.

WaveHarmony

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let me remind everyone to take a look at PF's rules on overly speculative posts.