[QUOTE=davieddy;282162]I'd love to hear davar-sm-cmd explain
the Higgs particle to me.[/QUOTE]

I am not sm or cmd. Just me. (I've never double-id'd).

The monograph contains a section called Finite Neutrionic
Descent Theory. It doesn't explicitly mention quarks or higgons,
but the basic concept of all sub-atomic particles (as in the
standard model) is given a sub-structural explanation based
on neutrinoinos.

[QUOTE=retina;282163]I'm also a bit muddle headed about the Higgs mechanism. So I did a bit of reading ...[/QUOTE]

Mass is implicitly explained in the monograph in one of the
last sections, within SUBSTANTIALITIES, titled Photons
and Neutrinoinos.

There isn't much currently in that section :),
probably will be if I complete a third draft.

[QUOTE=davar55;282185]Mass is implicitly explained in the monograph in one of the
last sections, within SUBSTANTIALITIES, titled Photons
and Neutrinoinos.

There isn't much currently in that section :),
probably will be if I complete a third draft.[/QUOTE]

Galileo/Newton/Euler/Gauss/Maxwell/Einstein* thought that an isolated object moved with constant velocity.
Aristotle (a bugger for the bottle) thought it would stop.
Why do folk these days seem to think that relativity
means that the natural state of things is to travel at c?

How would you describe inertia/mass to a 12 year-old?

David
(currently on my 4th draft... hic)

PS Newton "defined" mass as volume x density.
Great stuff.

*et al: e.g. Laplace, Riemann, Boltzmann, Bernoullies....

[QUOTE=davieddy;282197]Why do folk these days seem to think that relativity means that the natural state of things is to travel at c?[/QUOTE]Because it agrees with experiment, as far as we can tell. Seems to me to be avery reasonable thing to think.

The statement is appears to be true, within very tight experimental bounds, if by "to travel at" you mean "has a 4-velocity of".

Paul

[QUOTE=davieddy;282162]I'd love to hear davar-sm-cmd explain the Higgs particle
to me.
(Paul finds it trivial)

David

PS I am familiar with Alice and the treacle well.[/QUOTE]

I've heard of the higgs boson never really understood it though, rereading about hadrons etc.

[QUOTE=davieddy;282162]I'd love to hear davar-sm-cmd explain the Higgs particle
to me.
(Paul finds it trivial)[/QUOTE]That's a great over-simplification.

I find the basic mechanism relatively simple. I do not understand, nor pretend to, many of the details and ramifications of the quantum field theory that Higgs et al. proposed.

Perhaps I have an unusual benefit in that I was taught elementary quantum field theory by an excellent teacher --- Peter Atkins at Oxford University's Theoretical Chemistry department. Peter is best known for his monumental tome which covers essentially all of undergraduate level physical chemistry. He's also written [i]Molecular Quantum Mechanics[/i]. Each of these have been in-print continuously for the last 30 years or more and each has gone through multiple editions.

Paul

The Kinks
 

[QUOTE=xilman;282198]Because it agrees with experiment, as far as we can tell. Seems to me to be avery reasonable thing to think.

The statement is appears to be true, within very tight experimental bounds, if by "to travel at" you mean "has a 4-velocity of".

Paul[/QUOTE]

Knew a girl in the mid 60s who knew them (Muswell 'iw') well, but hardly anyone can name Mick Avory (drummer) or her beloved Pete Quaife (bassist).

Time for my fave quiz: "Pointless".

Dave
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnqf_UXmHmo]Death of a Clown[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;282201]That's a great over-simplification.[/QUOTE]
Or just my Exeter sense of sarcy humour.
[QUOTE]
I find the basic mechanism relatively simple. I do not understand, nor pretend to, many of the details and ramifications of the quantum field theory that Higgs et al. proposed.[/QUOTE]
Moi non plus.
[QUOTE]
Perhaps I have an unusual benefit in that I was taught elementary quantum field theory by an excellent teacher --- Peter Atkins at Oxford University's Theoretical Chemistry department. Peter is best known for his monumental tome which covers essentially all of undergraduate level physical chemistry. He's also written [I]Molecular Quantum Mechanics[/I]. Each of these have been in-print continuously for the last 30 years or more and each has gone through multiple editions.

Paul[/QUOTE]

You also have the advantage of being 7 years younger than me.
IIRC Peter Atkins may well have authored "Atomic Physics".
One of my greatest intellectual thrills was the elucidation
quantum theory brought to my schoolday understanding
of the periodic table and chemistry in general.

I know that neither of us are lost for words
when it comes to name-dropping, but I had the
pleasure of attending Rudolf Peierls' lectures.

If I thought it worthwhile to regret a past decision,
it would be turning down his offer to do a DPhil
in solid-state at Oxford.

David

[QUOTE=science_man_88;282199]I've heard of the higgs boson never really understood it though, rereading about hadrons etc.[/QUOTE]

well the math works out spin wise as boson = even and fermion = odd. a pari script I came up with says up to 3 basic particles in each leads to 4352 particles 2400 of which are fermion. and yes I know I should be talking higgs boson.

[QUOTE=science_man_88;282199]I've heard of the higgs boson never really understood it though, rereading about hadrons etc.[/QUOTE]
Stick to hardons.

[QUOTE=davieddy;282227]Stick to hardons.[/QUOTE]

Hadrons, baryons, leptons are said to be either irreducible
to other particles or composed of a small number of parts
(such as a proton's quarks).

According to the monograph, they're each composed of
a large number of neutrinos/neutrinoinos, each of which is
itself composed of smaller neutrinoinos, of descending
mass, until at a base level the neutrinoino of that level
is indistinguishable from a photon.

The number of quantum levels of neutrinos/neutrinoinos
will have to be determined experimentally, but a rough
calculation led me to think there are ten levels below that
of the regular (electron) neutrino.

That was a hard one.