Jump to content

The Last Word


Bazza

Recommended Posts

Re: The Last Word

 

I'm not a particle/field person, but I think the answer to that is No.

 

Those others you mention are fundamental forces, and it's already been demonstrated that the weak force and E&M are the same at higher energies ... at low energies, there's a symmetry breaking that leads the two to behave differently, but for interactions at sufficiently high energy they are the same force. It is widely suspected that the strong force will merge with the electroweak force at higher yet energies. This leads off to ideas about Grant Unified Theories (GUTs).

 

There is a lot of speculation about gravitation uniting with the others at high enough energies, but there isn't even the beginnings of a satisfactory quantum gravity treatment, so that's pie in the sky right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Last Word

 

I'm not a particle/field person, but I think the answer to that is No.

 

Those others you mention are fundamental forces, and it's already been demonstrated that the weak force and E&M are the same at higher energies ... at low energies, there's a symmetry breaking that leads the two to behave differently, but for interactions at sufficiently high energy they are the same force. It is widely suspected that the strong force will merge with the electroweak force at higher yet energies. This leads off to ideas about Grant Unified Theories (GUTs).

 

There is a lot of speculation about gravitation uniting with the others at high enough energies, but there isn't even the beginnings of a satisfactory quantum gravity treatment, so that's pie in the sky right now.

 

I ask because if I understand it correctly we get this stuff called "matter" from interaction with the Higgs field. Kinda makes it important/fundamental. :)

 

Another question:

Have you heard of the "unified field"? is it the same as the (misnamed) quantum vacuum*?

 

 

*if not, lecture slowly and carry a big ruler :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Last Word

 

I ask because if I understand it correctly we get this stuff called "matter" from interaction with the Higgs field. Kinda makes it important/fundamental. :)

 

Another question:

Have you heard of the "unified field"? is it the same as the (misnamed) quantum vacuum*?

 

 

*if not, lecture slowly and carry a big ruler :D

The Higgs field doesn't give us "matter"; it gives us the phenomenon called "mass", the resistance to movement which matter shows, if the theory is right. We have yet to observe the Higgs boson directly (it's one of those particles people want to find).

 

The quantum vacuum is not the same as the unified field. I don't think I've ever seen the term "unified field" as a stand-alone, only in combination with the third word "theory". That's because the "unified" is a modifier on "field theory", rather than "theory" applying to something called the "unified field".

 

Unified field theory is something like what I mentioned upstream in this thread: the idea that the same quantum field theory will be able to describe the interactions of particles via all the fields (electroweak, strong, and eventually gravity). Each of those forces has its own field theory. The goal is to unify those distinct field theories into a single elegant one.

 

The quantum vacuum is a logically required consequence of the quantum hypothesis and its own logical corollaries. Empty space (in the classical picture) has some energy content (which not zero). On the quantum level, there is are quantum fluctuations occurring on the microscale all the time around that average energy content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Last Word

 

The Higgs field doesn't give us "matter"; it gives us the phenomenon called "mass", the resistance to movement which matter shows, if the theory is right. We have yet to observe the Higgs boson directly (it's one of those particles people want to find).

 

The quantum vacuum is not the same as the unified field. I don't think I've ever seen the term "unified field" as a stand-alone, only in combination with the third word "theory". That's because the "unified" is a modifier on "field theory", rather than "theory" applying to something called the "unified field".

 

Unified field theory is something like what I mentioned upstream in this thread: the idea that the same quantum field theory will be able to describe the interactions of particles via all the fields (electroweak, strong, and eventually gravity). Each of those forces has its own field theory. The goal is to unify those distinct field theories into a single elegant one.

 

The quantum vacuum is a logically required consequence of the quantum hypothesis and its own logical corollaries. Empty space (in the classical picture) has some energy content (which not zero). On the quantum level, there is are quantum fluctuations occurring on the microscale all the time around that average energy content.

thanks.

 

And I confused mass with matter, I reread my science book recently and you are right. My conclusion/deduction was that without mass in particles we wouldn't have protons, neutrons and electrons—the constituent parts of matter. Which then makes the Higgs field pretty important.

 

But is it as important and universal as the 4 fundamental forces?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Last Word

 

Well' date=' the last time [u']that[/u] happened, the whole Universe decayed in less than a picosecond into a volume of nearly infinite temperature that subsequently expanded and cooled, leaving almost no trace of what existed before.

 

Ah, I think the Hindi's would disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: The Last Word

 

Probably I ought to have been more precise. There's lots of remnants of what existed before, but approximately all of the information has been destroyed. Passage through a state of extremely high pressure and density, and more to the point the thermal equilibrium that exists in that state, destroys knowledge of the earlier states: such knowledge is by definition a nonequilibrium condition. The era of inflation, in which the Universe expanded exponentially and smoothed out nearly all of the preexisting structure, also removed a lot of that knowledge from observability. In principle some of that might become observable again as the Universe ages and we can receive the light from more distant points. OTOH, maybe not, if (as seems to be the case from the supernova surveys) the expansion is accelerating now.

 

The COBE and WMAP results on the microwave background have picked up some information about what went on in the very early Universe, and perhaps something about an out-of-equilibrium mass distribution; that last is very early interesting reports that I have mentioned in press releases but not in preprint form yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...