See http://arxiv.org/html/cs/0607018
Feynman Checkerboard as a Model of Discrete Space-Time - arXiv<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fhtml%2Fcs%2F0607018&ei=aqZ0UbDmNYrR0wGkyYB4&usg=AFQjCNF_Pm7BVCIgr84uupwxvqDq-9LA4Q&sig2=VB3-ZtJqKDTSYxbFad229Q> The finite speed of light comes from the quantum (digital} nature of space/time, The reference explains it simply and elegantly.. On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 10:42 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Axil, > > I do not see any reason why it is not possible to effectively travel at > a speed greater than light. The time dilation that other observers detect > when looking at our progress through space is of little consequence to us > as we close the distances. It will take us less time than a simple > calculation of the measured distance at rest divided by c. This of > course assumes that we have a ship that could theoretically travel at > several times the speed of light when continual acceleration is considered. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 10:31 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA screws up bad. > > The Higg particle(s) is not the important consideration. It is the > action of the Higgs field that makes the electroweak force work. > The Higgs mechanism was incorporated into modern particle physics by > Steven Weinberg and Abdus Salam, and is an essential part of the standard > model. > In the standard model, at temperatures high enough that electroweak > symmetry is unbroken, all elementary particles are massless. At a critical > temperature the Higgs field becomes tachyonic, the symmetry is > spontaneously broken by condensation, and the W and Z bosons acquire > masses. (EWSB, ElectroWeak Symmetry Breaking, is an abbreviation used for > this.) > Charge accumulation sets up a tachyonic Higgs field in the nucleus where > the tachyonic field, or simply tachyon, is a quantum field with an > imaginary mass that represents an instability proportional to the strength > of the EMF charge. > Due to the instability caused by the imaginary mass, any configuration in > which one or more field excitations are tachyonic will spontaneously decay. > In some cases this decay ends with another, stable configuration with no > tachyons. A famous example is the condensation of the Higgs boson. Under > no circumstances do any excitations ever propagate faster than light in > such theories — the presence or absence of a tachyonic mass has no effect > whatsoever on the maximum velocity of signals. > This Higgs field tachyonic instability can result in the formation of a W > electroweak particle that causes LENR nuclear transformations. > > > Cheers: Axil > > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:15 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> It is important that the "Higgs" appears to have the correct spin. This >> apparently is required to get to the starting gate. Are you aware of any >> recent measurements of this interaction with other particles which can only >> occur in this manner? I tend to be skeptical of hype type arguments. Is >> it not normal for high mass particles, that are created in accelerator >> collisions, to decay quickly into less massive ones? Can the physics >> community say for a fact that they will not find more massive particles as >> the collision energies increase, assuming they can afford more powerful >> machines in the future? >> >> My supposition is that more energetic particles will always exist to be >> produced and found when more energy is available to generate them. The >> latest one might merely be the first among an infinite series. >> >> I hate to be so skeptic, but it seems that physics advances mainly when >> new things are observed which are not expected. Many of the great >> discoveries were there in plain view for years until someone got lucky. My >> favorite example is the laser which could have been discovered over 100 >> years ago (gas type instead of ruby rod) had physics known more about the >> behavior of atoms. Even though it was not understood, someone could have >> built one from available materials. The basic ideas and construction are >> simple. >> >> Dave >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joseph S. Barrera III <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, Apr 21, 2013 8:14 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:NASA screws up bad. >> >> On 4/21/2013 5:06 PM, David Roberson wrote: >> >> > It seems a little premature to talk about the behavior of the Higgs >> particle at this point. I am not aware of any tests that have been >> conducted to support the assumed characteristics >> >> It appears to (a) have spin 0 and (b) interacts with other particles >> proportional to their mass. Thus, so far, what has been seen is a strong >> candidate for the Higgs (or at least *a* Higgs). >> >> I highly recommend this blog: http://profmattstrassler.com/ >> >> Try starting here: >> http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/the-higgs-faq-2-0/ >> >> - Joe >> >> >> >
