3 ms·

It was mostly intended as a joke, though I really do have conCERNs about CERN and their funding:results ratio. A few things that stood out in your rebuttal: >

by _akhe 2y ago

It was mostly intended as a joke, though I really do have conCERNs about CERN and their funding:results ratio. A few things that stood out in your rebuttal: > E=mc2 Isn't this mass-energy equivalence, not a theory about why atoms have mass in the first place? Thought it was called "The God Particle" because it set out to explain "how particles got their mass" - AKA where material reality comes from, not a theory like E=mc2 at all? > both quarks and electrons are measurable yet have 0 mass Isn't there a wave:particle duality not just of light but all subatomic particles such that it can't be proven they are particles ("mass") at all but just motion propagation ("energy")? > proved that the final piece of the Standard Model Did it really? This theory says that the world is ultimately particles doesn't it? > it confirmed which theory accurately accounts for the mass of these particles With the molasses analogy it did that? How do you figure? Great discussion! Love this topic.

drdeca 2y ago
> Thought it was called "The God Particle" because it set out to explain "how particles got their mass" "[...] Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle [...]" > Isn't there a wave:particle duality not just of light but all subatomic particles yes (and not just sub-atomic ones. You can also have this for molecules). > such that it can't be proven they are particles ("mass") at all but just motion propagation ("energy")? no. ----------- The mass of a system can be said to be [the energy of the system in the reference frame in which it has the least energy]/c^2. So, an individual photon has 0 mass, because if you change reference frames, the amount of energy can be arbitrarily close to zero. But, if you have a collection of photons with a total momentum of zero, then you can assign that collection of photons a non-zero mass. (See the thought experiment about a nearly-massless box whose interior is all perfect mirrors, and where the total energy of the photons bouncing around inside it, is high.) ------------ > With the molasses analogy it did that? Not via that analogy, no. By the actual math.
- _akhe 2y ago
  > It was proven with math How is anything "proven" with math alone? No observable evidence needed, really? Math may help model and explain things we can already observe, but I've never heard of math discovering things that are not observed, and it being called "proof". Because obviously you can model a lot more than what's physically possible in a language like math, like for example the impossible case of an infinite number of oranges. In math I can even say "Infinity + 1" and it counts (literally). And have more oranges than what's in your infinity crate. Doesn't mean it's real or "proof" of anything in the real world. Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed?
  - defrost 2y ago
    I was more or less with you until > Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed? and feel the need to point out that math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look; that math for symmetry groups and permutations came first and then real world applications in crypto came later; that math for non Euclidean geometry was worked upon before physical observations suggested Newton wasn't exactly correct in his mechanics and Einstein got hyperbolic about lightspeed. Math can come along before any observations are made that might suggest the math has application .. there was at least one mathematician in history that expressed a dread that their work might find an application (eg: in war, etc).
    - _akhe 2y ago
      > "math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look" But the math wasn't proof that Pluto existed, it wasn't proven until it was discovered.
      - defrost 2y ago
        The "proof" part wasn't addressed there, just the question "Doesn't the observation come first, ..." Clearly this isn't always true, nor straightforward as the two can be intertwined in an iterative feedback. In other cases math theory domains can exist for decades prior to any observations that call upon those domains to expand or produce an applicable description for physicists or others.

by _akhe 2y ago

drdeca 2y ago

> Thought it was called "The God Particle" because it set out to explain "how particles got their mass" "[...] Why God Particle? Two reasons. One, the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle [...]" > Isn't there a wave:particle duality not just of light but all subatomic particles yes (and not just sub-atomic ones. You can also have this for molecules). > such that it can't be proven they are particles ("mass") at all but just motion propagation ("energy")? no. ----------- The mass of a system can be said to be [the energy of the system in the reference frame in which it has the least energy]/c^2. So, an individual photon has 0 mass, because if you change reference frames, the amount of energy can be arbitrarily close to zero. But, if you have a collection of photons with a total momentum of zero, then you can assign that collection of photons a non-zero mass. (See the thought experiment about a nearly-massless box whose interior is all perfect mirrors, and where the total energy of the photons bouncing around inside it, is high.) ------------ > With the molasses analogy it did that? Not via that analogy, no. By the actual math.

_akhe 2y ago
> It was proven with math How is anything "proven" with math alone? No observable evidence needed, really? Math may help model and explain things we can already observe, but I've never heard of math discovering things that are not observed, and it being called "proof". Because obviously you can model a lot more than what's physically possible in a language like math, like for example the impossible case of an infinite number of oranges. In math I can even say "Infinity + 1" and it counts (literally). And have more oranges than what's in your infinity crate. Doesn't mean it's real or "proof" of anything in the real world. Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed?
- defrost 2y ago
  I was more or less with you until > Doesn't the observation come first, and the math just explains what was observed? and feel the need to point out that math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look; that math for symmetry groups and permutations came first and then real world applications in crypto came later; that math for non Euclidean geometry was worked upon before physical observations suggested Newton wasn't exactly correct in his mechanics and Einstein got hyperbolic about lightspeed. Math can come along before any observations are made that might suggest the math has application .. there was at least one mathematician in history that expressed a dread that their work might find an application (eg: in war, etc).
  - _akhe 2y ago
    > "math for Pluto's rough position came first and directed observers (roughly) where to look" But the math wasn't proof that Pluto existed, it wasn't proven until it was discovered.
    - defrost 2y ago
      The "proof" part wasn't addressed there, just the question "Doesn't the observation come first, ..." Clearly this isn't always true, nor straightforward as the two can be intertwined in an iterative feedback. In other cases math theory domains can exist for decades prior to any observations that call upon those domains to expand or produce an applicable description for physicists or others.