3 ms·

The article is about how higgs field gives mass to particles. This process is so complicated that in order to explain it to laymen physicisits developed a “sphe

by nyc111 3y ago

The article is about how higgs field gives mass to particles. This process is so complicated that in order to explain it to laymen physicisits developed a “spherical cow” method. Prof. Strassler thinks this explanation (he calls it a “phib”) is wrong. I agree. But I think the real problem is that in physics the concepts of “particle”, “field” and “mass” do not have universal and precise definitions. So Prof. Strassler uses a concept of “giving mass to particles” but what he calls particles are really waves or maybe a statistical bump in data and we have no idea what mass is. So before the higgs we need a clear definitions of particle, field and mass.

foobarbecue 3y ago
Physicists actually use spherical cows-- it's a useful simplification to make calculations tractable. A phib as used here is more like the common "imagine a trampoline with a heavy ball on it" explanation of gravity that I always hated growing up. (Mostly because it's self-referential, but it's other kinds of wrong as well). Did you read his book? I'm considering it... This blog entry refers the reader to the book for an actual explanation. Annoyed me a bit since I was hoping to find an explanation in the blog entry itself. He says it's too long.
- kloch 3y ago
  > Physicists actually use spherical cows-- it's a useful simplification to make calculations tractable https://x.com/kevinmloch/status/1770484487689798030 https://x.com/kevinmloch/status/1770484487689798030
hnuser123456 3y ago
At the end he shows that he wrote a book that presumably does a better job of building this foundation.
temporarely 3y ago
We are simply applying names to distinct phenomena. It doesn't matter what mass is as the question is possibly meaningless. What is important is that particles behave distinctly from waves. And that knowing the mass of something is informative of its expected behavior given a set of circumstances. v=m*a. Possibly this was fact was intentionally underlined by the names given to quarks, including the fact that the behavior no longer maps into an analog in our everyday experience of phenomena so lets just use relational semantics or obscure names to defeat the urge to analogize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Element... The only meaningful question around phenomena and meaning is the connection between the two. Is mind a property of reality or emergent accident? Is matter a figment of mind or is mind a figment of matter? If that is not what is being sought, beyond that metaphysical query the only reasonable search for meaning behind phenomena is to understand the limits to thought that a conceptual model presents the researchers, so as to avoid dead ends in research direction.

by nyc111 3y ago

foobarbecue 3y ago

Physicists actually use spherical cows-- it's a useful simplification to make calculations tractable. A phib as used here is more like the common "imagine a trampoline with a heavy ball on it" explanation of gravity that I always hated growing up. (Mostly because it's self-referential, but it's other kinds of wrong as well). Did you read his book? I'm considering it... This blog entry refers the reader to the book for an actual explanation. Annoyed me a bit since I was hoping to find an explanation in the blog entry itself. He says it's too long.

kloch 3y ago
> Physicists actually use spherical cows-- it's a useful simplification to make calculations tractable https://x.com/kevinmloch/status/1770484487689798030 https://x.com/kevinmloch/status/1770484487689798030

hnuser123456 3y ago

At the end he shows that he wrote a book that presumably does a better job of building this foundation.

temporarely 3y ago

We are simply applying names to distinct phenomena. It doesn't matter what mass is as the question is possibly meaningless. What is important is that particles behave distinctly from waves. And that knowing the mass of something is informative of its expected behavior given a set of circumstances. v=m*a. Possibly this was fact was intentionally underlined by the names given to quarks, including the fact that the behavior no longer maps into an analog in our everyday experience of phenomena so lets just use relational semantics or obscure names to defeat the urge to analogize: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Model_of_Element... The only meaningful question around phenomena and meaning is the connection between the two. Is mind a property of reality or emergent accident? Is matter a figment of mind or is mind a figment of matter? If that is not what is being sought, beyond that metaphysical query the only reasonable search for meaning behind phenomena is to understand the limits to thought that a conceptual model presents the researchers, so as to avoid dead ends in research direction.