Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Forces of Nature

Expand Messages
  • Jack Sarfatti
    From: Paul Zielinski To: Jack Sarfatti Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 8:01:11 AM Subject: Re: The Forces of
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 1, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
      To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>

      Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 8:01:11 AM
      Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

      I meant:

      "OK, so you get your non-degenerate locally gauged P10 gauge particle multiplets even in a flat spacetime, if the detectors are accelerating/rotating through the condensate vacuum?"

      The P10 multiplets are already there massless in the false vacuum prior to the Alpha Point of inflation. The rest masses of the multiplets come from the Higgs mechanism of the standard model - there is no coherent Higgs field to give rest mass to the quarks, leptons & W's until after the moment of inflation.

      Now, the relation of the SM Higgs fields to my 8 Goldstone phases is not known at the present time. That's why Wilczek uses "multi-layered" vacuum superconductor after Alpha Point phase inflation transition initiates. There may be a zoo of real Higgs fields and their relative Goldstone phases. My model is O(9) with S8 degenerate vacuum manifold that fits 6 extra space dimensions of string theory using criterion that branes must be stable topological defects with non-trivial homotopy groups - requires 1 space dimension for each real Higgs field.

      Whether or not there is a finite renormalization of rest mass in rotating frames, if that is what you mean, I don't know off hand. Obviously it is a small effect. Of course we have from special relativity for a test particle m at fixed r uniformly accelerating on a circle.

      M = m/(1 - (wr/c)^2)^1/2

      g = w^2r

      i.e.

      M =  m/(1 -  gr/c^2)^1/2

      VNewton = c^2gr

      So here is equivalence principle even in special relativity!


    • Jack Sarfatti
      ________________________________ From: Paul Zielinski To: Jack Sarfatti Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:51:36 AM
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 1, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment



        From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
        To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>

        Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:51:36 AM
        Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

        Jack Sarfatti wrote:



        From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
        To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
        l Murad <ufoguy@...>; ROBERT BECKER <roberte.becker@...>
        Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:15:41 AM
        Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

        Jack Sarfatti wrote:
        PS Nick's is article is lame, unimaginative, though slick in style, and not really accurate about the Higgs mechanism being a fake mass. That's crackpot nonsense. The lepton & quarks get their small rest masses from the Higgs in standard model.
        [PZ] So SM gives all the right answers -- except that it doesn't.

        [JS] More clueless nonsense false polemic from the Nick & Z Comedy Club.. Read Frank Wilczek's Lightness of Being for the real story. Excellent supercomputer computations of the hadronic masses.
        [PZ] As Nick points out in his article, straight gauge theory predicts ZERO masses for all gauge bosons, including the
        so-called "intermediate" vector bosons W+, W-, and Z of electroweak theory.

        [JS] Bumpkin misinterprets the obvious aided by Nickp£ick's disinfo in his slick "Forces of Nature" agitprop. ;-)
        It's text book that local gauge theory without spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking (i.e. partial cohering of random zero point fluctuations into a non-random N real Higgs fields with N-1 relative Goldstone phases) gives massless gauge bosons. Weinberg, Salam got Nobel Prize in 70's for this - based on Brout & Englert & PW Anderson who should have gotten the prize. Wake up and smell the coffee Bumpkin! You see well known facts of the history of physics through fun house mirrors in the Coney Island distortions of your mind.

        [PZ] Particles were observed with all the other other predicted properties for these intermediate vector bosons, except that they had very significant non-zero rest masses! Oops! 

        [JS] Clueless comment from Door Mouse at Alice's Tea Party.

        [PZ] No problem! This is easily "fixed up" with the Higgs mechanism, invoking the hypothetical Higgs field and
        its quanta -- the Higgs boson..

        Which has yet to be found.

        Are you denying this?

        [JS] Look Bumpkin the W mass has been found! That's most of what matters. If you had even the slightest comprehension of the actual math you would see that what gives the W's rest mass (and the quarks & the leptons) are NOT real on-mass-shell Higgs bosons at all. What does the trick is the vacuum condensate of off-mass-shell Higgs bosons not the random excited states disrupting the vacuum coherence.

        To make an analogy with superconductivity - the rest mass of the photon (London penetration depth) inside the superconductor comes from the condensate of Cooper pairs. It's stupid to look for isolated Cooper pairs outside the condensate!

        [PZ] And if they are *not* found at CERN or elsewhere, I have no doubt additional clever mechanisms can be contrived by *ingenious* theorists to "explain" the failure, no doubt requiring the construction of even more expensive and  elaborate supercolliders for the confirmation of the actual existence of the latest hypothetical quantum fields at even
        *higher* energies.

        That's what I mean by "epicycles" in this context.

        [JS] More clueless idiocy from Bumpkin.


      • Jack Sarfatti
        ________________________________ I meant Brout, Englert, Anderson should have shared in that prize - but too many - maybe 2 prizes. From: Jack Sarfatti
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 1, 2009
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment



          I meant Brout, Englert, Anderson should have shared in that prize - but too many - maybe 2 prizes.

          From:
          Jack Sarfatti <Sarfatti@...>
          To: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>

          Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:36:35 PM
          Subject: [Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars] Re: The Forces of Nature

           




          From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com>
          To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell. net>

          Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:51:36 AM
          Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

          Jack Sarfatti wrote:



          From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@gmail. com>
          To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell. net>
          l Murad <ufoguy@yahoo. com>; ROBERT BECKER <roberte.becker@ prodigy.net>
          Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:15:41 AM
          Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

          Jack Sarfatti wrote:
          PS Nick's is article is lame, unimaginative, though slick in style, and not really accurate about the Higgs mechanism being a fake mass. That's crackpot nonsense. The lepton & quarks get their small rest masses from the Higgs in standard model.
          [PZ] So SM gives all the right answers -- except that it doesn't.

          [JS] More clueless nonsense false polemic from the Nick & Z Comedy Club.. Read Frank Wilczek's Lightness of Being for the real story. Excellent supercomputer computations of the hadronic masses.
          [PZ] As Nick points out in his article, straight gauge theory predicts ZERO masses for all gauge bosons, including the
          so-called "intermediate" vector bosons W+, W-, and Z of electroweak theory.

          [JS] Bumpkin misinterprets the obvious aided by Nickp£ick's disinfo in his slick "Forces of Nature" agitprop. ;-)
          It's text book that local gauge theory without spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking (i.e. partial cohering of random zero point fluctuations into a non-random N real Higgs fields with N-1 relative Goldstone phases) gives massless gauge bosons. Weinberg, Salam got Nobel Prize in 70's for this - based on Brout & Englert & PW Anderson who should have gotten the prize. Wake up and smell the coffee Bumpkin! You see well known facts of the history of physics through fun house mirrors in the Coney Island distortions of your mind.

          [PZ] Particles were observed with all the other other predicted properties for these intermediate vector bosons, except that they had very significant non-zero rest masses! Oops! 

          [JS] Clueless comment from Door Mouse at Alice's Tea Party.

          [PZ] No problem! This is easily "fixed up" with the Higgs mechanism, invoking the hypothetical Higgs field and
          its quanta -- the Higgs boson..

          Which has yet to be found.

          Are you denying this?

          [JS] Look Bumpkin the W mass has been found! That's most of what matters. If you had even the slightest comprehension of the actual math you would see that what gives the W's rest mass (and the quarks & the leptons) are NOT real on-mass-shell Higgs bosons at all. What does the trick is the vacuum condensate of off-mass-shell Higgs bosons not the random excited states disrupting the vacuum coherence.

          To make an analogy with superconductivity - the rest mass of the photon (London penetration depth) inside the superconductor comes from the condensate of Cooper pairs. It's stupid to look for isolated Cooper pairs outside the condensate!

          [PZ] And if they are *not* found at CERN or elsewhere, I have no doubt additional clever mechanisms can be contrived by *ingenious* theorists to "explain" the failure, no doubt requiring the construction of even more expensive and  elaborate supercolliders for the confirmation of the actual existence of the latest hypothetical quantum fields at even
          *higher* energies.

          That's what I mean by "epicycles" in this context.

          [JS] More clueless idiocy from Bumpkin.


        • Jack Sarfatti
          PS Both the gravity and the electro-weak-strong field 2-forms are third order derivatives in the multi-valued singular Goldstone phases of the vacuum
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 1, 2009
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            PS
            Both the gravity and the electro-weak-strong field 2-forms are third order derivatives in the multi-valued singular Goldstone phases of the vacuum condensate. This suggests a nonlocality like that in the third order derivative of the radiation reaction term of the charge - with presponse.


            From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
            To: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>

            Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:56:43 PM
            Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

            From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
            To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>

            Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 8:01:11 AM
            Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

            I meant:

            "OK, so you get your non-degenerate locally gauged P10 gauge particle multiplets even in a flat spacetime, if the detectors are accelerating/rotating through the condensate vacuum?"

            The P10 multiplets are already there massless in the false vacuum prior to the Alpha Point of inflation. The rest masses of the multiplets come from the Higgs mechanism of the standard model - there is no coherent Higgs field to give rest mass to the quarks, leptons & W's until after the moment of inflation.

            Now, the relation of the SM Higgs fields to my 8 Goldstone phases is not known at the present time. That's why Wilczek uses "multi-layered" vacuum superconductor after Alpha Point phase inflation transition initiates. There may be a zoo of real Higgs fields and their relative Goldstone phases. My model is O(9) with S8 degenerate vacuum manifold that fits 6 extra space dimensions of string theory using criterion that branes must be stable topological defects with non-trivial homotopy groups - requires 1 space dimension for each real Higgs field.

            Whether or not there is a finite renormalization of rest mass in rotating frames, if that is what you mean, I don't know off hand. Obviously it is a small effect. Of course we have from special relativity for a test particle m at fixed r uniformly accelerating on a circle.

            M = m/(1 - (wr/c)^2)^1/2

            g = w^2r

            i.e.

            M =  m/(1 -  gr/c^2)^1/2

            VNewton = c^2gr

            So here is equivalence principle even in special relativity!


          • Jack Sarfatti
            My point was that you had none. You do not know the difference between physics and polemics. You argue vaguely most of the time almost exclusively in words
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 2, 2009
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              My point was that you had none. You do not know the difference between physics and polemics. You argue vaguely most of the time almost exclusively in words rather than algebra. When you are right it's almost always trite. You have had no deep original insights on creating new concepts to deal with the main puzzles in fundamental physics today i.e.
              dark energy
              dark matter
              hologram universe?
              extended structure of quarks & leptons (is point like appearance evidence of huge microscopic spacewarp in Bohmian ontology)
              extending gravity to include torsion?
              Pioneer anomaly
              immediately come to mind


              From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
              To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
              Cc: mark@...; nick herbert <quanta@...>; 
              Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

              Jack Sarfatti wrote:



              From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
              To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>

              Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:51:36 AM
              Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

              Jack Sarfatti wrote:



              From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
              To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
              l Murad <ufoguy@...>; ROBERT BECKER <roberte.becker@...>
              Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:15:41 AM
              Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

              Jack Sarfatti wrote:
              PS Nick's is article is lame, unimaginative, though slick in style, and not really accurate about the Higgs mechanism being a fake mass. That's crackpot nonsense. The lepton & quarks get their small rest masses from the Higgs in standard model.
              [PZ] So SM gives all the right answers -- except that it doesn't.

              [JS] More clueless nonsense false polemic from the Nick & Z Comedy Club.. Read Frank Wilczek's Lightness of Being for the real story. Excellent supercomputer computations of the hadronic masses.
              [PZ] As Nick points out in his article, straight gauge theory predicts ZERO masses for all gauge bosons, including the
              so-called "intermediate" vector bosons W+, W-, and Z of electroweak theory.

              [JS] Bumpkin misinterprets the obvious aided by Nickp£ick's disinfo in his slick "Forces of Nature" agitprop. ;-)
              What I wrote above is not particularly controversial. Except for the Higgs mechanism, the electroweak vector bosons are
              predicted by *gauge* theory to be massless. Goldstone theorem. That's it.

              Glashow -Weinberg-Salam electroweak theory predicts a *range* of masses for the W's and the Z. So this is not a hard make-or-
              break prediction of the electoweak theory -- although you are quite correct in saying that particles with the correct properties were
              found in the early 1980s lying within the required range of mass, which partially confirms the effective validity of the theory.

              What *is* a definite make-or-break prediction of the GWS electroweak theory is the existence and operation of a Higgs field that
              endows the otherwise massless vector bosons with non-zero rest mass. And in the contemporary mainstream that means Higgs bosons!

              And I think you know all that.

              So what's your point?

              "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical particle and the only fundamental piece of the Standard Model that has not yet been validated
              experimentally
              . It is massive and has no spin. To create the particle requires huge amounts of energy on the scale of that produced
              by the much anticipated Large Hadron Collider that is expected to be operational this year in Geneva, Switzerland."

              "It is this particle that many physicists believe will explain the origin of mass in other particles. If discovered, it will explain why the
              photon is massless and why the W and Z bosons are so heavy. In Glashow-Salam-Weinberg electroweak theory, this theoretical
              mechanism is also responsible for the heavy masses of the quarks, as well as of leptons: electrons, muons, and taus."

              http://www.pas.rochester.edu/urpas/news/Hagen_030708

              It's text book that local gauge theory without spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking (i.e. partial cohering of random zero point fluctuations into a non-random N real Higgs fields with N-1 relative Goldstone phases) gives massless gauge bosons.
              So you call me a "Bumpkin" for making a 100% correct directly relevant statement about GWS electroweak theory, and then
              you repeat the statement, as if you are correcting the original already correct statement?

              Whereas in fact you are simply echoing what I wrote?

              How distinctly Learesque, oh Deranged One.

              I get tired of playing the Fool....
              Weinberg, Salam got Nobel Prize in 70's for this - based on Brout & Englert & PW Anderson who should have gotten the prize.
              Don't forget Gerald Guralnik, Carl Hagen, and Tom Kibble.

              Stephen Weinberg and Abdus Salam did indeed get the Nobel prize in 1979 for their version of electroweak theory.

              What was the novel feature of their theory that cracked the ice?

              The Higgs mechanism.

              What's your point Jack?
              Wake up and smell the coffee Bumpkin!
              Well, this was devised in order to solve the problem of getting large masses for the Ws and the Z, which you need in
              order to get a short range weak force. The electroweak solution posits symmetry breaking based on a Higgs field.
              Which implies the actual existence in nature of Higgs bosons.

              No one has yet seen a Higgs boson. As I said.

              The fact that the W and Z bosons needed to have mass within a certain range (while photons are massless) was a major
              obstacle to the development of electroweak theory. This was overcome in the lat 1970s by a Higgs-type hypothesis.

              So what's your point Jack?

              Is it that the electroweak theory predicted massive vector bosons, and these were then found?
              You see well known facts of the history of physics through fun house mirrors in the Coney Island distortions of your mind.
              The Higgs particle is still a hypothetical entity Jack. So far no one has seen one.
              [PZ] Particles were observed with all the other other predicted properties for these intermediate vector bosons, except that they had very significant non-zero rest masses! Oops! 

              [JS] Clueless comment from Door Mouse at Alice's Tea Party.

              [PZ] No problem! This is easily "fixed up" with the Higgs mechanism, invoking the hypothetical Higgs field and
              its quanta -- the Higgs boson..

              Which has yet to be found.

              Are you denying this?

              [JS] Look Bumpkin the W mass has been found!
              But gauge theory predicts massless particles (Goldstone theorem). Electroweak theory required massive vector bosons.
              GWS got around this by invoking a Higgs mechanism.

              Yes OK they later found the W's and the Z, but not the Higgs.

              Electroweak  theory does NOT predict definite masses for these particles. Electroweak theory only predicts a *range*
              of masses. So finding massive W's and massive Z's  is not a hard empirical confirmation of the theory. The presence of
              a Higgs condensate and its scalar bosons is.
              That's most of what matters. If you had even the slightest comprehension of the actual math you would see that what gives the W's rest mass (and the quarks & the leptons) are NOT real on-mass-shell Higgs bosons at all. What does the trick is the vacuum condensate of off-mass-shell Higgs bosons not the random excited states disrupting the vacuum coherence.
              The fact remains that without a Higgs field (whether on- or off-shell) the SM and the Goldstone theorem predict *massless*
              vector bosons.

              OK, I guess this is your point? The actual Higgs field is off mass shell?
              To make an analogy with superconductivity - the rest mass of the photon (London penetration depth) inside the superconductor comes from the condensate of Cooper pairs. It's stupid to look for isolated Cooper pairs outside the condensate!
              So you are saying the the hunt for the Higgs particle is a waste of time?

              Lots of "Bumpkins" at CERN I guess. After all, it should be obvious to any MORON that the Higgs field in this case is all
              off-mass-shell, right?

              Who are those mongoloid retards at CERN anyway?!

              Haven't they heard of the Fabulous Dr. Sarfatti of North Beach?!
              [PZ] And if they are *not* found at CERN or elsewhere, I have no doubt additional clever mechanisms can be contrived by *ingenious* theorists to "explain" the failure, no doubt requiring the construction of even more expensive and  elaborate supercolliders for the confirmation of the actual existence of the latest hypothetical quantum fields at even
              *higher* energies.

              That's what I mean by "epicycles" in this context.

              [JS] More clueless idiocy from Bumpkin.
              With your methodological handicaps (on clear display above), you're calling *me* a Bumpkin?

              That's funny.

              Z.

            • JACK SARFATTI
              The Question is: What is The Question? Wheeler Most of your questions betray your lack of knowledge of standard consensus. So I might add The Question is: Is
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 2, 2009
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                "The Question is: What is The Question?" Wheeler
                Most of your questions betray your lack of knowledge of standard consensus.
                So I might add
                The Question is: Is your Question intelligent, worthy of a serious answer?"
                In many cases, not all, the answer is NO.


                On Oct 2, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                Jack Sarfatti wrote:
                My point was that you had none.
                And my point is that *you* have none.

                None?

                So the following points I raise are in the empty set in your opinion?
                points of debate - true, wrong, not even wrong?

                1) no dark matter particles, i.e. dark matter is all virtual exactly like dark energy i.e. positive pressure w = -1 has same asymptotic signature as w = 0 CDM
                2) strong force unified with gravity via 8 common emergent phases
                3) leptons and quarks are tiny rotating black holes in the Bohm hidden variable sense with point appearance as a tiny spacewarp effect
                4) Pioneer anomaly as a dark matter effect
                5) No Higgs particles seen because they are emergent composites analogous to Cooper pairs, which also cannot be isolated outside of a condensate - the electrons split apart - you cannot get a single Cooper pair in a trap like you can an electron.
                6) Future event horizon is a conscious computer.
                7) Dark energy is a retrocausal effect, i.e. essentially Wheeler-Feynman advanced Hawking radiation.

                You do not know the difference between physics and polemics. You argue vaguely most of the time almost exclusively in words rather than algebra.
                Words determine the meaning of the algebra.

                Not yours. Most of your words are pure salad.

                When you are right it's almost always trite.
                Then why don't you just say "yes"?

                Why do you try to argue against the obvious?

                Polemical trick.
                You have had no deep original insights on creating new concepts to deal with the main puzzles in fundamental physics today i.e.
                dark energy
                I'm just asking questions Jack.
                dark matter
                hologram universe?
                extended structure of quarks & leptons (is point like appearance evidence of huge microscopic spacewarp in Bohmian ontology)
                extending gravity to include torsion?
                Pioneer anomaly
                immediately come to mind
                You have some interesting ideas, but they have to be put to the test.
                Right but trite - stating the obvious - Red Herring - of course they do I never said different.

                I predict no dark matter particles ever as a matter of principle - they cannot even get LHC to work it appears - more incompetence on a large scale?

                Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

                Red Herring - never a point of dispute. I have introduced a novel idea and Nick in a kind of jealous pout comes up with bogus objections re leptons. He, like you, obviously has not even tried to follow my algebra, which is programmatic - that's the way new ideas emerge. My ideas are truly novel.

                Z.


                From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
                Cc: mark@...; nick herbert <quanta@...>
                Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

                Jack Sarfatti wrote:



                From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>

                Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:51:36 AM
                Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

                Jack Sarfatti wrote:



                From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                To: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...>
                l Murad <ufoguy@...>; ROBERT BECKER <roberte.becker@...>
                Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 8:15:41 AM
                Subject: Re: The Forces of Nature

                Jack Sarfatti wrote:
                PS Nick's is article is lame, unimaginative, though slick in style, and not really accurate about the Higgs mechanism being a fake mass. That's crackpot nonsense. The lepton & quarks get their small rest masses from the Higgs in standard model.
                [PZ] So SM gives all the right answers -- except that it doesn't.

                [JS] More clueless nonsense false polemic from the Nick & Z Comedy Club.. Read Frank Wilczek's Lightness of Being for the real story. Excellent supercomputer computations of the hadronic masses.
                [PZ] As Nick points out in his article, straight gauge theory predicts ZERO masses for all gauge bosons, including the
                so-called "intermediate" vector bosons W+, W-, and Z of electroweak theory.

                [JS] Bumpkin misinterprets the obvious aided by Nickp£ick's disinfo in his slick "Forces of Nature" agitprop. ;-)
                What I wrote above is not particularly controversial. Except for the Higgs mechanism, the electroweak vector bosons are
                predicted by *gauge* theory to be massless. Goldstone theorem. That's it.

                Glashow -Weinberg-Salam electroweak theory predicts a *range* of masses for the W's and the Z. So this is not a hard make-or-
                break prediction of the electoweak theory -- although you are quite correct in saying that particles with the correct properties were
                found in the early 1980s lying within the required range of mass, which partially confirms the effective validity of the theory.

                What *is* a definite make-or-break prediction of the GWS electroweak theory is the existence and operation of a Higgs field that
                endows the otherwise massless vector bosons with non-zero rest mass. And in the contemporary mainstream that means Higgs bosons!

                And I think you know all that.

                So what's your point?

                "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical particle and the only fundamental piece of the Standard Model that has not yet been validated
                experimentally
                . It is massive and has no spin. To create the particle requires huge amounts of energy on the scale of that produced
                by the much anticipated Large Hadron Collider that is expected to be operational this year in Geneva, Switzerland."

                "It is this particle that many physicists believe will explain the origin of mass in other particles. If discovered, it will explain why the
                photon is massless and why the W and Z bosons are so heavy. In Glashow-Salam-Weinberg electroweak theory, this theoretical
                mechanism is also responsible for the heavy masses of the quarks, as well as of leptons: electrons, muons, and taus."

                http://www.pas.rochester.edu/urpas/news/Hagen_030708

                It's text book that local gauge theory without spontaneous vacuum symmetry breaking (i.e. partial cohering of random zero point fluctuations into a non-random N real Higgs fields with N-1 relative Goldstone phases) gives massless gauge bosons.
                So you call me a "Bumpkin" for making a 100% correct directly relevant statement about GWS electroweak theory, and then
                you repeat the statement, as if you are correcting the original already correct statement?

                Whereas in fact you are simply echoing what I wrote?

                How distinctly Learesque, oh Deranged One.

                I get tired of playing the Fool....
                Weinberg, Salam got Nobel Prize in 70's for this - based on Brout & Englert & PW Anderson who should have gotten the prize.
                Don't forget Gerald Guralnik, Carl Hagen, and Tom Kibble.

                Stephen Weinberg and Abdus Salam did indeed get the Nobel prize in 1979 for their version of electroweak theory.

                What was the novel feature of their theory that cracked the ice?

                The Higgs mechanism.

                What's your point Jack?
                Wake up and smell the coffee Bumpkin!
                Well, this was devised in order to solve the problem of getting large masses for the Ws and the Z, which you need in
                order to get a short range weak force. The electroweak solution posits symmetry breaking based on a Higgs field.
                Which implies the actual existence in nature of Higgs bosons.

                No one has yet seen a Higgs boson. As I said.

                The fact that the W and Z bosons needed to have mass within a certain range (while photons are massless) was a major
                obstacle to the development of electroweak theory. This was overcome in the lat 1970s by a Higgs-type hypothesis.

                So what's your point Jack?

                Is it that the electroweak theory predicted massive vector bosons, and these were then found?
                You see well known facts of the history of physics through fun house mirrors in the Coney Island distortions of your mind.
                The Higgs particle is still a hypothetical entity Jack. So far no one has seen one.
                [PZ] Particles were observed with all the other other predicted properties for these intermediate vector bosons, except that they had very significant non-zero rest masses! Oops! 

                [JS] Clueless comment from Door Mouse at Alice's Tea Party.

                [PZ] No problem! This is easily "fixed up" with the Higgs mechanism, invoking the hypothetical Higgs field and
                its quanta -- the Higgs boson..

                Which has yet to be found.

                Are you denying this?

                [JS] Look Bumpkin the W mass has been found!
                But gauge theory predicts massless particles (Goldstone theorem). Electroweak theory required massive vector bosons.
                GWS got around this by invoking a Higgs mechanism.

                Yes OK they later found the W's and the Z, but not the Higgs.

                Electroweak  theory does NOT predict definite masses for these particles. Electroweak theory only predicts a *range*
                of masses. So finding massive W's and massive Z's  is not a hard empirical confirmation of the theory. The presence of
                a Higgs condensate and its scalar bosons is.
                That's most of what matters. If you had even the slightest comprehension of the actual math you would see that what gives the W's rest mass (and the quarks & the leptons) are NOT real on-mass-shell Higgs bosons at all. What does the trick is the vacuum condensate of off-mass-shell Higgs bosons not the random excited states disrupting the vacuum coherence.
                The fact remains that without a Higgs field (whether on- or off-shell) the SM and the Goldstone theorem predict *massless*
                vector bosons.

                OK, I guess this is your point? The actual Higgs field is off mass shell?
                To make an analogy with superconductivity - the rest mass of the photon (London penetration depth) inside the superconductor comes from the condensate of Cooper pairs. It's stupid to look for isolated Cooper pairs outside the condensate!
                So you are saying the the hunt for the Higgs particle is a waste of time?

                Lots of "Bumpkins" at CERN I guess. After all, it should be obvious to any MORON that the Higgs field in this case is all
                off-mass-shell, right?

                Who are those mongoloid retards at CERN anyway?!

                Haven't they heard of the Fabulous Dr. Sarfatti of North Beach?!
                [PZ] And if they are *not* found at CERN or elsewhere, I have no doubt additional clever mechanisms can be contrived by *ingenious* theorists to "explain" the failure, no doubt requiring the construction of even more expensive and  elaborate supercolliders for the confirmation of the actual existence of the latest hypothetical quantum fields at even
                *higher* energies.

                That's what I mean by "epicycles" in this context.

                [JS] More clueless idiocy from Bumpkin.
                With your methodological handicaps (on clear display above), you're calling *me* a Bumpkin?

                That's funny.

                Z.



              • JACK SARFATTI
                All the force fields of nature come from macro-quantum coherent vacuum condensate phases that are multi-valued singular in the sense of the Dirac string that
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 2, 2009
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  All the "force" fields of nature come from macro-quantum coherent
                  vacuum condensate phases that are multi-valued singular in the sense
                  of the Dirac string that explains why charge is quantized. Ordinary
                  redundant gauge transformations use single-valued non-singular phases
                  in the transition functions connecting overlapping coordinate patches
                  in the atlas (for entire relevant fiber bundles).
                  See Wu & Yang on non-integrable phase factors.

                  These phases are random fluctuating of zero mean in the pre-inflation
                  false vacuum prior to the partial cohering into displaced Gaussians
                  (Glauber states - squeezing also possible).

                  Internal symmetry U1 (photon) SU2 (3 W's) SU3 (8 gluons)

                  Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from
                  cohered zpf
                  QCD gives additional zpf

                  Space-time symmetry:
                  T4 gives four tetrad curvature 1-form gravity gauge potentials with
                  zero torsion constraint A^I

                  SO1,3 gives six torsion field spin-connection 1-forms (Calabi-Yau
                  space of string theory).
                • JACK SARFATTI
                  ... the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass should be
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 2, 2009
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

                    > Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks
                    > from cohered zpf
                    > QCD gives additional zpf

                    the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass

                    should be

                    > Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks
                    > from cohered zpf
                    > QCD gives additional zpf generated rest mass to hadronic bound
                    > states of quarks and virtual gluons & virtual quark antiquark pairs
                  • JACK SARFATTI
                    Phys Rev D 12 12 15 Dec 1975 hardly new p 3845 Wu & Yang on nonintegrable phase factors as an intrinsic and complete description of
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 2, 2009
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Phys Rev D 12 12 15 Dec 1975 hardly new p 3845 Wu & Yang on
                      nonintegrable phase factors as "an intrinsic and complete description"
                      of electro-weak-strong-gravity.

                      We need overlapping charts forming an atlas with transition functions
                      connecting the overlapping charts of manifold math. The transition
                      functions use the nonsingular redundant phases not to be confused with
                      the singular 0-form Goldstone phases which give non-vanishing 2-form
                      field strengths via the intermediate gauge connection 1-form
                      compensating potentials even though d^2 = 0 locally - the issues are
                      the global topological defects, e.g. Dirac strings - flux tubes, Bohm-
                      Aharonov.

                      Wu & Yang Table 1 (modified by me)

                      global gauge = principal coordinate bundle

                      gauge type = principle fiber bundle

                      gauge potential bu^a = connection on a principle fiber bundle

                      Note in my emergent gravity model the tetrad coefficients Au^I are an
                      example as are the spin connections Su^IJ.

                      phase factor = parallel displacement

                      field strength 2-form = curvature/torsion

                      electromagnetism = connection on a U1 bundle

                      weak force = connection on a SU2 bundle

                      strong force = connection on a SU3 bundle

                      gravity = connection on a tangent LIF bundle

                      Dirac's monopole quantization of charge = classification of U1 bundle
                      1st Chern class




                      On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:15 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

                      >
                      > On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                      >
                      >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks
                      >> from cohered zpf
                      >> QCD gives additional zpf
                      >
                      > the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass
                      >
                      > should be
                      >
                      >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks
                      >> from cohered zpf
                      >> QCD gives additional zpf generated rest mass to hadronic bound
                      >> states of quarks and virtual gluons & virtual quark antiquark pairs
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Jack Sarfatti
                      ________________________________ From: Paul Zielinski To: JACK SARFATTI [PZ]I will say that your idea here is
                      Message 10 of 16 , Oct 3, 2009
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment



                        From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                        To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>


                        [PZ]I will say that your idea here is interesting. But, as ever, the Devil is in the details.

                        I think you need to talk more about how a *virtual* Higgs condensate can set up a cohered ZPF,
                        and how this virtual cohered ZPF  can endow the various particle species of the SM with non-zero
                        rest masses

                        [JS] Shows your ignorance of textbook prerequisites - taught in every graduate course if not undergraduate certainly in soft-condensed matter physics..



                        If you believe that this "virtual Higgs" model can actually explain inertia, even in a gravity-free vacuum,
                        then you need to explain that in detail.

                        Then you need to propose direct experimental tests of the actual existence and operation of your
                        virtual Higgs condensate.

                        If you can make the model work theoretically and also come up with some plausible direct tests, then
                        you will be in reasonably good shape.

                        Z.

                        JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                        >
                        > On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                        >
                        >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                        >> QCD gives additional zpf
                        >
                        > the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass
                        >
                        > should be
                        >
                        >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                        >> QCD gives additional zpf generated rest mass to hadronic bound states of quarks and virtual gluons & virtual quark antiquark pairs
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >

                      • JACK SARFATTI
                        Look you clueless incompetent booby, if you had even the most elementary understanding of the standard physics you would know 1. A vacuum only contains virtual
                        Message 11 of 16 , Oct 3, 2009
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Look you clueless incompetent booby, if you had even the most elementary understanding of the standard physics you would know

                          1. A vacuum only contains virtual off-mass-shell particles called zero point vacuum fluctuations.

                          2. The Higgs condensates are vacuum condensates.

                          3. Therefore, since there are no real particles inside the vacuum, the particles in the vacuum condensate must be virtual!

                          You are a physics moron!

                          On Oct 3, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                          I just tried a Google search for the key words "Higgs condensate off mass shell".

                          Almost all the items that came up -- on a single page -- either had your name on them, or were links to discussion group threads
                          in which you were leading the discussion.

                          Yet you talk as if this is all so completely standard and familiar that only an ignorant buffoon would not instantly understand
                          in full detail exactly what you are talking about.

                          Can you give us a single citation for an  authoritative paper on this "cohered virtual ZPF" and its role in endowing various particle
                          species in the SM zoo with rest mass, via a Higgs-type mechanism, that was not authored by you?

                          Z.


                          Paul Zielinski wrote:
                          Jack, if this is all so obvious except to the ignorant and the mentally retarded, then why is everyone still looking
                          for the Higgs boson, which according to your theory is a complete and utter waste of time?

                          Why hasn't your virtual Higgs condensate model already been adopted?

                          I would have expected you either to produce an entire bibliography on this "cohered virtual condensate ZPF"
                          and its role in supporting a Higgs-type mechanism capable of endowing all the species in the SM zoo with
                          non-vanishing rest mass, or else to explain it in vivid Technicolor  yourself.

                          So far I've seen neither.

                          Z.

                          Jack Sarfatti wrote:



                          From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                          To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>


                          [PZ]I will say that your idea here is interesting. But, as ever, the Devil is in the details.

                          I think you need to talk more about how a *virtual* Higgs condensate can set up a cohered ZPF,
                          and how this virtual cohered ZPF  can endow the various particle species of the SM with non-zero
                          rest masses

                          [JS] Shows your ignorance of textbook prerequisites - taught in every graduate course if not undergraduate certainly in soft-condensed matter physics..



                          If you believe that this "virtual Higgs" model can actually explain inertia, even in a gravity-free vacuum,
                          then you need to explain that in detail.

                          Then you need to propose direct experimental tests of the actual existence and operation of your
                          virtual Higgs condensate.

                          If you can make the model work theoretically and also come up with some plausible direct tests, then
                          you will be in reasonably good shape.

                          Z.

                          JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                          >
                          > On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                          >
                          >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                          >> QCD gives additional zpf
                          >
                          > the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass
                          >
                          > should be
                          >
                          >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                          >> QCD gives additional zpf generated rest mass to hadronic bound states of quarks and virtual gluons & virtual quark antiquark pairs
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >




                        • JACK SARFATTI
                          There appear to be some serious gaps in the conceptual structures of the way high energy physicists and relativists think about the Higgs mechanism. The idea
                          Message 12 of 16 , Oct 3, 2009
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment

                            There appear to be some serious gaps in the conceptual structures of the way high energy physicists and relativists think about the Higgs mechanism.

                            The idea of condensates has a venerable history - simply Google key words for details. Wiki is not bad on these standard topics.

                            1. Bose - condensate of real particles in ideal boson gas - using chemical potential N constraint Lagrange multiplier - 1920'a

                            2. Oliver Penrose & Lars Onsager ODLRO 1950's - factorization of low order reduced density matrices with macroscopic eigenvalue in single particle or, alternatively fermion pair states.

                            3. P.W. Anderson's "More is different" 1967 UCSD lecture I actually attended in La Jolla --- > paper in Science ---> book by that name etc.

                            4. work of Robert Brout & Englert (Brout a Cornell tutor of mine in Group Theory Wigner's book).

                            5. Goldstone rediscovers it in mid 1960's I think - works with Kibble, Salam - Imperial Group that I visited down from IAEA Harwell 1966.

                            Superfluid helium and superconductors have Higgs amplitude - Goldstone phase ground state condensates of real particles.

                            Gluon (boson) and fermion pair vacuum condensates of QCD and inflation cosmology are coherent states of virtual particles - since by definition - no real particles inside the vacuum.

                            real particles = mass shell poles of Feynman propagator in complex energy plane in SR QFT

                            boundary conditions = contour in complex energy plane

                            virtual particles = off mass shell

                            without Carlos Castro's et-al minimal length double special relativity dispersion the low energy mass shell is simply Einstein's

                            E = Mc^2

                            i.e.

                            (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 = E^2

                            without the quantum gravity miniblack hole correction

                            real particles obey

                            &E&t > h

                            &p&x > h

                            etc

                            virtual particles obey

                            &E&t < h

                            &p&x < h

                            Because of the equivalence principle, virtual particles directly curve spacetime, since they have w = -1 therefore in 3D the (1 + 3w) factor in Einstein's field equations ensure that virtual bosons antigravitate as dark energy and virtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate as dark matter.


                            On Oct 3, 2009, at 11:51 AM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

                            1. A vacuum only contains virtual off-mass-shell particles called zero point vacuum fluctuations.

                            2. The Higgs condensates are vacuum condensates.

                            3. Therefore, since there are no real particles inside the vacuum, the particles in the vacuum condensate must be virtual!

                            On Oct 3, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                            I just tried a Google search for the key words "Higgs condensate off mass shell".

                            Almost all the items that came up -- on a single page -- either had your name on them, or were links to discussion group threads
                            in which you were leading the discussion.

                            Yet you talk as if this is all so completely standard and familiar that only an ignorant buffoon would not instantly understand
                            in full detail exactly what you are talking about.

                            Can you give us a single citation for an  authoritative paper on this "cohered virtual ZPF" and its role in endowing various particle
                            species in the SM zoo with rest mass, via a Higgs-type mechanism, that was not authored by you?

                            Z.


                            Paul Zielinski wrote:
                            Jack, if this is all so obvious except to the ignorant and the mentally retarded, then why is everyone still looking
                            for the Higgs boson, which according to your theory is a complete and utter waste of time?

                            I did not say it was a waste of time. My point is that if they never find it, it tells us that the Higgs boson is emergent composite like the Cooper pair.
                            It's not a waste of time to look for dark matter particles either. If I am right looking for them is like looking for motion of Earth through the mechanical Galilean group aether.

                            Why hasn't your virtual Higgs condensate model already been adopted?

                            I would have expected you either to produce an entire bibliography on this "cohered virtual condensate ZPF"
                            and its role in supporting a Higgs-type mechanism capable of endowing all the species in the SM zoo with
                            non-vanishing rest mass, or else to explain it in vivid Technicolor  yourself.

                            So far I've seen neither.

                            Z.

                            Jack Sarfatti wrote:



                            From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                            To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>


                            [PZ]I will say that your idea here is interesting. But, as ever, the Devil is in the details.

                            I think you need to talk more about how a *virtual* Higgs condensate can set up a cohered ZPF,
                            and how this virtual cohered ZPF  can endow the various particle species of the SM with non-zero
                            rest masses

                            [JS] Shows your ignorance of textbook prerequisites - taught in every graduate course if not undergraduate certainly in soft-condensed matter physics..



                            If you believe that this "virtual Higgs" model can actually explain inertia, even in a gravity-free vacuum,
                            then you need to explain that in detail.

                            Then you need to propose direct experimental tests of the actual existence and operation of your
                            virtual Higgs condensate.

                            If you can make the model work theoretically and also come up with some plausible direct tests, then
                            you will be in reasonably good shape.

                            Z.

                            JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                            >
                            > On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                            >
                            >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                            >> QCD gives additional zpf
                            >
                            > the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass
                            >
                            > should be
                            >
                            >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                            >> QCD gives additional zpf generated rest mass to hadronic bound states of quarks and virtual gluons & virtual quark antiquark pairs
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >





                          • Jack Sarfatti
                            You are not even wrong. More idiocy. I am out of contact till oct 9 on way to Istanbul. Big difference between real & virtual Real has 0
                            Message 13 of 16 , Oct 3, 2009
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              You are not even wrong. More idiocy. I am out of contact till oct 9 on way to Istanbul.

                              Big difference between real & virtual 

                              Real has 0 < w < 1/3

                              Virtual has w = -1

                              Completely different gravity influence for a start.

                              Bumpkin only thinks with words not with algebra. More things between past and future horizons than are dreamt of in his numb dumb noggin.

                              From terminal 5 heathrow 
                              I phone

                              On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:37 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

                              OK, I've done some homework and it seems to me that you are arguing below about little more than words.

                              Yes, traditionally in quantum physics the term "vacuum" implies a complete absence of "real" (i.e., on mass shell)
                              particles. It implies that all quantum fields are in their ground states (zero point field).

                              However, the introduction of the Higgs field into physics via the GWS electroweak theory has led to
                              MODIFICATIONS of this traditional definition.

                              Yes OF COURSE it is true that the standard model Higgs *background* field is a zero point field that contains only
                              virtual particles. However, this background Higgs field spontaneously self-interacts to produce what you've been talking
                              about *ad nauseam* -- INFLATION. The Higgs background field is thus UNSTABLE and is for this reason called
                              the FALSE HIGGS VACUUM.

                              Right?

                              This logically implies that there is a TRUE HIGGS VACUUM in which REAL ON MASS SHELL particles are
                              present post-inflation, including the on mass shell HIGGS BOSON that everyone is looking for.

                              Are you really trying to argue that a false vacuum *is* a vacuum, but a true vacuum is *not* a vacuum? That must be
                              the ultimate in "spaghetti code".

                              Jack, I think you may have outdone yourself here.

                              You wrote:

                              "If the Higgs bosons are composite emergent like Cooper pairs they will never be seen on mass shell excited out
                              of the condensate anymore than one can isolate a Cooper pair in a normal metal or better yet in a vacuum."

                              So you have a model for this "true" Higgs vacuum in which Higgs bosons are composite off mass shell virtual particles.
                              that is NOT THE SAME AS THE STANDARD ELECTROWEAK MODEL

                              AS I SAID.

                              However, you now tell us that as to the "false" vacuum, your theory is based on the plain vanilla Higgs condensate,
                              and only deviates from the standard Higgs model as to the nature of the Higgs particles in the post-inflation
                              regime. The standard theory holds that they are real on mass shell particles, while you say that they are not.

                              However, if your theory is based on a standard plain vanilla Higgs background field (your "virtual Higgs condensate"),
                              then how do you arrive at such dramatically different conclusions regarding the actuality and detectability of the Higgs
                              boson?

                              THAT IS WHAT I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT. THAT IS WHAT I WANTED YOU TO EXPLAIN.

                              I think you should spend less time spewing gratuitous blunderbuss insults and more time answering the legitimate
                              questions that are being put to you.

                              Quite frankly I think you are just blowing a lot of smoke here. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
                              I think your wild claim that the vast majority of field theorists have completely misunderstood the Higgs mechanism
                              and are thus foolishly engaged in a futile search for what amounts to a CHIMERA needs to be supported with
                              some serious argumentation.

                              Sorry, but I don't think pointless Scholastic nitpicking about "when a vacuum is not a vacuum" of this sort is an
                              acceptable substitute.

                              Z.

                              JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                              Look you clueless incompetent booby, if you had even the most elementary understanding of the standard physics you would know

                              1. A vacuum only contains virtual off-mass-shell particles called zero point vacuum fluctuations.

                              2. The Higgs condensates are vacuum condensates.

                              3. Therefore, since there are no real particles inside the vacuum, the particles in the vacuum condensate must be virtual!

                              You are a physics moron!

                              On Oct 3, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                              I just tried a Google search for the key words "Higgs condensate off mass shell".

                              Almost all the items that came up -- on a single page -- either had your name on them, or were links to discussion group threads
                              in which you were leading the discussion.

                              Yet you talk as if this is all so completely standard and familiar that only an ignorant buffoon would not instantly understand
                              in full detail exactly what you are talking about.

                              Can you give us a single citation for an  authoritative paper on this "cohered virtual ZPF" and its role in endowing various particle
                              species in the SM zoo with rest mass, via a Higgs-type mechanism, that was not authored by you?

                              Z.


                              Paul Zielinski wrote:
                              Jack, if this is all so obvious except to the ignorant and the mentally retarded, then why is everyone still looking
                              for the Higgs boson, which according to your theory is a complete and utter waste of time?

                              Why hasn't your virtual Higgs condensate model already been adopted?

                              I would have expected you either to produce an entire bibliography on this "cohered virtual condensate ZPF"
                              and its role in supporting a Higgs-type mechanism capable of endowing all the species in the SM zoo with
                              non-vanishing rest mass, or else to explain it in vivid Technicolor  yourself.

                              So far I've seen neither.

                              Z.

                              Jack Sarfatti wrote:



                              From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                              To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>


                              [PZ]I will say that your idea here is interesting. But, as ever, the Devil is in the details.

                              I think you need to talk more about how a *virtual* Higgs condensate can set up a cohered ZPF,
                              and how this virtual cohered ZPF  can endow the various particle species of the SM with non-zero
                              rest masses

                              [JS] Shows your ignorance of textbook prerequisites - taught in every graduate course if not undergraduate certainly in soft-condensed matter physics..



                              If you believe that this "virtual Higgs" model can actually explain inertia, even in a gravity-free vacuum,
                              then you need to explain that in detail.

                              Then you need to propose direct experimental tests of the actual existence and operation of your
                              virtual Higgs condensate.

                              If you can make the model work theoretically and also come up with some plausible direct tests, then
                              you will be in reasonably good shape.

                              Z.

                              JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                              >
                              > On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                              >
                              >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                              >> QCD gives additional zpf
                              >
                              > the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass
                              >
                              > should be
                              >
                              >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                              >> QCD gives additional zpf generated rest mass to hadronic bound states of quarks and virtual gluons & virtual quark antiquark pairs
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >





                            • Jack Sarfatti
                              Ps this arrogant clueless nitwit has no idea of the elementary Math of the condensate as a coherent state. In a vacuum and in near em field all frequencies and
                              Message 14 of 16 , Oct 3, 2009
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Ps this arrogant clueless nitwit has no idea of the elementary Math of the condensate as a coherent state.

                                In a vacuum and in near em field all frequencies and wave vectors coexist - the signature of virtual quanta. In contrast real particles are constrained by the mass shell ie 1-1 relation frequency to wave number mod sign.
                                Z's fuzzy thinking is good example of why Feynman had no patience with pompous philofawzers.





                                On Oct 4, 2009, at 5:51 AM, Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@...> wrote:

                                You are not even wrong. More idiocy. I am out of contact till oct 9 on way to Istanbul.

                                Big difference between real & virtual 

                                Real has 0 < w < 1/3

                                Virtual has w = -1

                                Completely different gravity influence for a start.

                                Bumpkin only thinks with words not with algebra. More things between past and future horizons than are dreamt of in his numb dumb noggin.

                                From terminal 5 heathrow 
                                I phone

                                On Oct 4, 2009, at 2:37 AM, Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...> wrote:

                                OK, I've done some homework and it seems to me that you are arguing below about little more than words.

                                Yes, traditionally in quantum physics the term "vacuum" implies a complete absence of "real" (i.e., on mass shell)
                                particles. It implies that all quantum fields are in their ground states (zero point field).

                                However, the introduction of the Higgs field into physics via the GWS electroweak theory has led to
                                MODIFICATIONS of this traditional definition.

                                Yes OF COURSE it is true that the standard model Higgs *background* field is a zero point field that contains only
                                virtual particles. However, this background Higgs field spontaneously self-interacts to produce what you've been talking
                                about *ad nauseam* -- INFLATION. The Higgs background field is thus UNSTABLE and is for this reason called
                                the FALSE HIGGS VACUUM.

                                Right?

                                This logically implies that there is a TRUE HIGGS VACUUM in which REAL ON MASS SHELL particles are
                                present post-inflation, including the on mass shell HIGGS BOSON that everyone is looking for.

                                Are you really trying to argue that a false vacuum *is* a vacuum, but a true vacuum is *not* a vacuum? That must be
                                the ultimate in "spaghetti code".

                                Jack, I think you may have outdone yourself here.

                                You wrote:

                                "If the Higgs bosons are composite emergent like Cooper pairs they will never be seen on mass shell excited out
                                of the condensate anymore than one can isolate a Cooper pair in a normal metal or better yet in a vacuum."

                                So you have a model for this "true" Higgs vacuum in which Higgs bosons are composite off mass shell virtual particles.
                                that is NOT THE SAME AS THE STANDARD ELECTROWEAK MODEL

                                AS I SAID.

                                However, you now tell us that as to the "false" vacuum, your theory is based on the plain vanilla Higgs condensate,
                                and only deviates from the standard Higgs model as to the nature of the Higgs particles in the post-inflation
                                regime. The standard theory holds that they are real on mass shell particles, while you say that they are not.

                                However, if your theory is based on a standard plain vanilla Higgs background field (your "virtual Higgs condensate"),
                                then how do you arrive at such dramatically different conclusions regarding the actuality and detectability of the Higgs
                                boson?

                                THAT IS WHAT I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT. THAT IS WHAT I WANTED YOU TO EXPLAIN.

                                I think you should spend less time spewing gratuitous blunderbuss insults and more time answering the legitimate
                                questions that are being put to you.

                                Quite frankly I think you are just blowing a lot of smoke here. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.
                                I think your wild claim that the vast majority of field theorists have completely misunderstood the Higgs mechanism
                                and are thus foolishly engaged in a futile search for what amounts to a CHIMERA needs to be supported with
                                some serious argumentation.

                                Sorry, but I don't think pointless Scholastic nitpicking about "when a vacuum is not a vacuum" of this sort is an
                                acceptable substitute.

                                Z.

                                JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                                Look you clueless incompetent booby, if you had even the most elementary understanding of the standard physics you would know

                                1. A vacuum only contains virtual off-mass-shell particles called zero point vacuum fluctuations.

                                2. The Higgs condensates are vacuum condensates.

                                3. Therefore, since there are no real particles inside the vacuum, the particles in the vacuum condensate must be virtual!

                                You are a physics moron!

                                On Oct 3, 2009, at 9:49 AM, Paul Zielinski wrote:

                                I just tried a Google search for the key words "Higgs condensate off mass shell".

                                Almost all the items that came up -- on a single page -- either had your name on them, or were links to discussion group threads
                                in which you were leading the discussion.

                                Yet you talk as if this is all so completely standard and familiar that only an ignorant buffoon would not instantly understand
                                in full detail exactly what you are talking about.

                                Can you give us a single citation for an  authoritative paper on this "cohered virtual ZPF" and its role in endowing various particle
                                species in the SM zoo with rest mass, via a Higgs-type mechanism, that was not authored by you?

                                Z.


                                Paul Zielinski wrote:
                                Jack, if this is all so obvious except to the ignorant and the mentally retarded, then why is everyone still looking
                                for the Higgs boson, which according to your theory is a complete and utter waste of time?

                                Why hasn't your virtual Higgs condensate model already been adopted?

                                I would have expected you either to produce an entire bibliography on this "cohered virtual condensate ZPF"
                                and its role in supporting a Higgs-type mechanism capable of endowing all the species in the SM zoo with
                                non-vanishing rest mass, or else to explain it in vivid Technicolor  yourself.

                                So far I've seen neither.

                                Z.

                                Jack Sarfatti wrote:



                                From: Paul Zielinski <iksnileiz@...>
                                To: JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@...>


                                [PZ]I will say that your idea here is interesting. But, as ever, the Devil is in the details.

                                I think you need to talk more about how a *virtual* Higgs condensate can set up a cohered ZPF,
                                and how this virtual cohered ZPF  can endow the various particle species of the SM with non-zero
                                rest masses

                                [JS] Shows your ignorance of textbook prerequisites - taught in every graduate course if not undergraduate certainly in soft-condensed matter physics..



                                If you believe that this "virtual Higgs" model can actually explain inertia, even in a gravity-free vacuum,
                                then you need to explain that in detail.

                                Then you need to propose direct experimental tests of the actual existence and operation of your
                                virtual Higgs condensate.

                                If you can make the model work theoretically and also come up with some plausible direct tests, then
                                you will be in reasonably good shape.

                                Z.

                                JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                                >
                                > On Oct 2, 2009, at 12:11 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:
                                >
                                >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                                >> QCD gives additional zpf
                                >
                                > the uds quarks all have rest mass ~ electron rest mass
                                >
                                > should be
                                >
                                >> Virtual Higgs condensate gives rest mass to W's, leptons & quarks from cohered zpf
                                >> QCD gives additional zpf generated rest mass to hadronic bound states of quarks and virtual gluons & virtual quark antiquark pairs
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >





                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.