User talk:Lemonpeel

From Conservapedia

What do you mean by typing \cite are you asking for a source ? --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

You might be interested in Help:How to Code --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Contents 1 Mathematics articles 2 E (mathematics) 3 Multiplier ideal sheaf 4 Calabi-Yau 5 Higgs mechanism and mass

Mathematics articles

Hi Lemonpeel,

Welcome to Conservapedia. May I give you a few piece of advice.

First off if you upset a sysop they are going to make an issue of your name. Either agree with them always or ask for a name change.

• This in nonsense. Ignore Daniel, he doesn't know what he's talking about. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:42, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Second, the mathematical article are in a bit of a shambels I know. To answer your question they tend to be written by people passing by who have only a limited understanding of maths. There are some basic concepts missing all over the place. Some of the articles are far too advanced for the intended reader. Unlike Wikipedia I don't think the aim of this project is to create a encyclopedia as such but a homeschooling resource. Basically you should write this with the aim of taking a year 7 or 8 student through to early university mathematics. So instead of formal defintions try to write the article more with that in mind.

I hope you can be of help the last person who tried seems to have been scared off. At the moment I am working on filling out these lists Conservapedia:Mathematics articles by development of concept. If you can be of assitence that would be great. DanielB 21:58, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

• • No, he wasn't scared off. He pretended he was being pushed around, but that is not true. He simply refused to follow the same directions you just gave Lemonpeel.

• • Stop making misleading statements, or you will be removed from the project. First, last, and only warning. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:44, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

what's wrong with my name?--Lemonpeel 22:19, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

• • Nothing; don't listen to him. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:44, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Using your actual name is not required you can user can use something like User:Mathematician2008 --  Deborah (contributions) (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

E (mathematics)

If you please, the contents of the article titled E have been moved to a new one reflecting the math involved; the other should involve E's position and description in the alphabet. Karajou 00:57, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Multiplier ideal sheaf

Can you make this article better? The idea for this high-school-level understandability means that when anyone looks at it, they can read and understand it completely; they can tell what it is, how and where it's used, and what steps are needed to get the problem solved. That's my 2 cents worth, and I ran out of bunnies. Karajou 20:37, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Calabi-Yau

It's great to see that someone created a page for Calabi-Yau manifolds. I'm really impressed and looking forward to perusing it at length. Thanks, and great work! --PhyllisS 23:09, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

Higgs mechanism and mass

Lemonpeel asked me: >I often hear people say that the Higgs field accounts for why particles have mass. But I was under the impression that the Higgs field was only introduced to give mass to gauge fields by spontaneously breaking the gauge symmetry (so that, loosely speaking, the gauge field "eats" a Goldstone boson). As far a I can tell, it looks like the mass of leptons is simply inserted into the Lagrangian and plays no role in the Higgs mechanism.

Well, not exactly. You have to compare the two Lagrangians of the electroweak theory, before and after symmetry breaking. The Lagrangian before symmetry breaking has a term for the interaction between fermions and Higgs, called the Yukawa interaction. Before symmetry breaking, higgs is just h, and there is no mass term necessary for fermions. (Of course you could insert a mass term arbitrarily, but it's simpler without.) After symmetry breaking, h gets rewritten as h = h0 + h twiddle, where h0 is the vacuum value (undetectable) and h twiddle is the detectable higgs field, post-breaking. If you rewrite the Yukawa term with that substitution for h, you get an interaction term between fermion and h twiddle (detectable higgs-fermion interaction), and another term that is quadratic in the fermion field and proportional to h0. Since h0 is a constant everywhere in space and time, post-breaking, this second term looks exactly like a mass term for the fermion, with "mass" proportional to h0.

Now you could ask: why put in a Yukawa interaction anyway? It's not necessary a priori. Well, without that term, not only do you get no mass for fermions (of course you could stick in an arbitrary normal mass term to make up the diff), but in addition you'd get no fermion-higgs interaction pre- and post-breaking. Requiring fermion-higgs interaction post-breaking means you MUST have a Yukawa term pre-breaking, which means you MUST have a "mass" term proportional to h0 post-breaking. In theory, you still have the freedom to add another arbitrary fermion mass term if you like. However, this means more free parameters. As I have repeatedly emphasized on talk pages, PHYSICISTS ARE BIASED AGAINST THE THEORY WITH MORE FREE PARAMETERS THAN NECESSARY. Some people don't get this.

The Yukawa term was actually not introduced for symmetry breaking, it was first introduced for nuclear physics, with the fermion being a nucleon, and the scalar field being a spinless meson. The important difference is that the meson has positive mass term (mu squared > 0), the Higgs has a negative mass term (mu squared < 0) before breaking. So Yukawa has a history, and inserting it is more natural than not. If mu squared < 0, the rest follows.

Cuddlytakun 15:52, 22 June 2009 (EDT)