Hints That 'God Particle' May Exist

[Lordieth]

Question: how exactly will this benefit us?
I mean don't misunderstand me, I think this is fascinating. But would this unlock some new form of energy or something?

Well, if we could manipulate the mass of a spacecraft say, so the mass is near to, or equal zero, then you could travel near or equal to lightspeed. Or even just being able to change the mass of a molecule or material has huge applications. If we could make rocket fuel lighter, getting into space would much cheaper. Escaping Earth's gravity is very costly. It's why we launch rockets near the equator; the Earth's centrifugal force can cause the force of gravity to act weaker upon the rocket. Sort of like a slingshot effect.

[Great Nepal]

Does that mean, if we manage to extract this "god particle" from any spacecraft, in theory we can go faster than light?

No. Not at all. Higgs particle does none of that FTL shit, that's Neutrinos.

I mean provided,
E=MC²
And, if Higgs, causes mass and we can extract it from a atom equation turns into:-
E = 0 X 299792458²
E= 0 x 89875517873681764
E = 0
So, we wont need any energy to go to speed of light?

[The Corparation]

No. Not at all. Higgs particle does none of that FTL shit, that's Neutrinos.

I mean provided,
E=MC²
And, if Higgs, causes mass and we can extract it from a atom equation turns into:-
E = 0 X 299792458
E = 0
So, we wont need any energy to go to speed of light?

I don't think you're using that equation right......

[Great Nepal]

I mean provided,
E=MC²
And, if Higgs, causes mass and we can extract it from a atom equation turns into:-
E = 0 X 299792458
E = 0
So, we wont need any energy to go to speed of light?

I don't think you're using that equation right......

Yes, just realized I forgot to square 299792458, but it still would result same energy requirement, cos 89,875,517,873,681,764 (sq. of 299792458) is being multiplied by 0.

[The Alma Mater]

Question: how exactly will this benefit us?
I mean don't misunderstand me, I think this is fascinating. But would this unlock some new form of energy or something?

Basicly it tells us that all our physics sofar is not utter bullshit, and that we may be on the right track.
That has some practical value

[Lordieth]

I mean provided,
E=MC²
And, if Higgs, causes mass and we can extract it from a atom equation turns into:-
E = 0 X 299792458
E = 0
So, we wont need any energy to go to speed of light?

I don't think you're using that equation right......

That, and the energy of a particle is never 0, not even one without mass. It's called zero point energy and e=mc2 forbids it from being 0. That would be the same as destroying the particle.

[Chulainan]

edited to nothing for idiocy

[Kandorith]

No. Not at all. Higgs particle does none of that FTL shit, that's Neutrinos.

I mean provided,
E=MC²
And, if Higgs, causes mass and we can extract it from a atom equation turns into:-
E = 0 X 299792458²
E= 0 x 89875517873681764
E = 0
So, we wont need any energy to go to speed of light?

What?......

All those numbers make my head explode.... 0_0

[Lordieth]

As you approach lightspeed, mass becomes infinite, so a spaceship with mass couldn't travel at directly lightspeed unless you want to be smeared over the Universe. Special Relativity however doesn't prevent space from travelling FTL speeds, so that's one way to go if you want to retain mass.

[Zeth Rekia]

As you approach lightspeed, mass becomes infinite, so a spaceship with mass couldn't travel at directly lightspeed unless you want to be smeared over the Universe. Special Relativity however doesn't prevent space from travelling FTL speeds, so that's one way to go if you want to retain mass.

People are mass moving inside a mass-less spacecraft going faster than light? :^

*scratches head*

[Lordieth]

As you approach lightspeed, mass becomes infinite, so a spaceship with mass couldn't travel at directly lightspeed unless you want to be smeared over the Universe. Special Relativity however doesn't prevent space from travelling FTL speeds, so that's one way to go if you want to retain mass.

People are mass moving inside a mass-less spacecraft going faster than light? :^

*scratches head*

No. The entire spacecraft would have to have zero mass or its mass would become infinite.

It you want to retain mass but travel near, at, or beyond lightspeed you would either have to move the Space around the spacecraft or fold Space by tethering a Black Hole to a White Hole and create a Wormhole.

[Kandorith]

People are mass moving inside a mass-less spacecraft going faster than light? :^

*scratches head*

No. The entire spacecraft would have to have zero mass or its mass would become infinite.

It you want to retain mass but travel near, at, or beyond lightspeed you would either have to move the Space around the spacecraft or fold Space by tethering a Black Hole to a White Hole and create a Wormhole

Finally someone speaks in normal language!

[Great Nepal]

That, and the energy of a particle is never 0, not even one without mass. It's called zero point energy and e=mc2 forbids it from being 0. That would be the same as destroying the particle.

Okay, I guess I get it but it would still need very little energy to get to speed of light?

As you approach lightspeed, mass becomes infinite, so a spaceship with mass couldn't travel at directly lightspeed unless you want to be smeared over the Universe. Special Relativity however doesn't prevent space from travelling FTL speeds, so that's one way to go if you want to retain mass.

If Higgs particle cause mass; then shouldn't lack of Higgs particle mean mass doesn't become infinite?
We wont be able to travel on it, cos... we have mass. But probes and unmanned research vessels can be sent.

[Halgrond]

Okay, I guess I get it but it would still need very little energy to get to speed of light?

The closer you get to the speed of light the more energy it takes to go faster.

[Four-sided Triangles]

From my thread:

Yeah, there's about a 1/1000 chance that they haven't found it. It almost certainly exists and it probably has a mass of 125-126 GeV. It's actually nice to see that it has such a small mass. The universe is not stable with such a small mass and should have destroyed itself by now. The only reasonable way for such a small Higgs mass to yield a stable universe is for supersymmetry to be real. Thus, this is indirect but strong evidence of SUSY. This is good news, since:

1. Supersymmetry solves a lot of fine-tuning issues in the standard model.

2. Supersymmetry provides a plethora of new particles, some of which we know could definitely explain dark matter.

3. Supersymmetry is necessary for string theory to be work, and thus is a prediction of string theory. Since supersymmetry is NOT necessary for quantum field theory, general relativity, or ANY alternative to string theory, this is indirect experimental evidence for string theory.

[Four-sided Triangles]

we know its significant, it is just hilarious when you put an 'ancient religion' spin on it, thats all.

You can't put a spin on the Higgs. It's a disturbance in a scalar field. The Higgs doesn't have any angular momentum.

[Four-sided Triangles]

No. Not at all. Higgs particle does none of that FTL shit, that's Neutrinos.

They don't either. It was was 6 sigma out from the mean of measurement, assuming a totally Gaussian error. 6 sigma is absurdly improbable. Even if the error really is perfectly Gaussian, and it almost certainly is not, on that scale, the probability of 6 sigma is incomprehensibly small.

Well, we've done the first which gives us the possibility for the second. Now since it looks like the second isn't going to happen, CERN has contingency plans, like the CNGS which found out that Neutrinos may be able to go FTL, which is going to cause at least some major rewrites to past theories.

It really isn't. The Fermi observation confirms that the speed of light is constant up to at least Plackian energies, and the effects of DSR would cause observable non-localities anyway.

[Four-sided Triangles]

That, and the energy of a particle is never 0, not even one without mass. It's called zero point energy and e=mc2 forbids it from being 0. That would be the same as destroying the particle.

The correct formula is E² = p² + m². E = mc² only applies to massive particles at rest, whereas the first formula applies universally to both massive and massless particles.

[Four-sided Triangles]

If Higgs particle cause mass; then shouldn't lack of Higgs particle mean mass doesn't become infinite?
We wont be able to travel on it, cos... we have mass. But probes and unmanned research vessels can be sent.

Mass is only huge in a reference frame in which the object is near light speed. For a reference frame at rest with respect to the object, it's mass never changes.

Also, "mass" is now used by physicists the same way "rest mass" is used by laypeople. Inertia increases as a function of kinetic energy, but mass is a Lorentz invariant in modern language.

Nonetheless, all massless objects travel at exactly light speed. They don't go faster or slower. In fact, the can't go faster or slower.

[Aesthetica]

If Higgs particle cause mass; then shouldn't lack of Higgs particle mean mass doesn't become infinite?
We wont be able to travel on it, cos... we have mass. But probes and unmanned research vessels can be sent.

Mass is only huge in a reference frame in which the object is near light speed. For a reference frame at rest with respect to the object, it's mass never changes.

Also, "mass" is now used by physicists the same way "rest mass" is used by laypeople. Inertia increases as a function of kinetic energy, but mass is a Lorentz invariant in modern language.

Nonetheless, all massless objects travel at exactly light speed. They don't go faster or slower. In fact, the can't go faster or slower.

So a deeper understanding of Higg's thingies, and Higg Field, might open the door to a way to de-mass an object, allowing rapid acceleration to high end C fractional velocities? Without turning the crew into a layer of paint on the rear window?

[Four-sided Triangles]

So a deeper understanding of Higg's thingies, and Higg Field, might open the door to a way to de-mass an object, allowing rapid acceleration to high end C fractional velocities? Without turning the crew into a layer of paint on the rear window?

Well, you can't just decouple the Higgs field from an object by flipping a switch. It would still take enough energy to excite the Higgs field and get oscillations, and even then you can't change its vacuum expectation value unless you tunnel to a potentially lower energy state, which would create a nucleation bubble that destroys the universe.

[Leepaidamba]

Nonetheless, all massless objects travel at exactly light speed. They don't go faster or slower. In fact, the can't go faster or slower.

Photons have been slowed down to a near halt. This statement of yours therefore has to be false or I must have misinterpreted it. Tell me which and show me why.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Photons have been slowed down to a near halt.

Explain.

[Leepaidamba]

Photons have been slowed down to a near halt.

Explain.

I read this in "Experiment NL: deel 2", a (Dutch) publication of the NWO (Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research) and popular-scientific magazine Quest containing short articles about scientific discoveries made in the Netherlands. The article this came from was written by Gieljan de Vries and describes how Professor Kobus Kuipers of the FOM-Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics in Amsterdam slowed down light and measured it.

However you can easily find information about this through googling "Slow light". The references of the Wikipedia page on the subject also provide valuable information. This for instance states that light has been slowed down to about 38 Mi/h.

[Lordieth]

Okay, I guess I get it but it would still need very little energy to get to speed of light?

The closer you get to the speed of light the more energy it takes to go faster.

Yeah, to get to lightspeed with mass would take more energy than the entire Universe contains.

@Nepal; if you took away a fundamental particle's mass it would travel at the speed of light.

Glad to see Four-sided Tringles has arrived to make me look relatively stupid in comparison

It's what happens to time at lightspeed that fascinates me. If you could travel at lightspeed you would arrive at your destination instantaneously, but to an outside observer on Earth, that observer would age relative to how many lightyears you have travelled, even though the journey is instant from your frame of reference. This is known as Time Dilation and the Twin Paradox respectively.