merjet

Search for Higgs boson reveals new particle

Recommended Posts

Link. Here is another link. It even has links to an ongoing seminar at CERN in Switzerland.

Can you say "10 inverse femtobarns" knowing what it means? :smile: It's a memorable phrase, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link. Here is another link. It even has links to an ongoing seminar at CERN in Switzerland.

Can you say "10 inverse femtobarns" knowing what it means? :smile: It's a memorable phrase, for sure.

10^-28 meters squared. That is a very small area.

This unit is used mostly for expressing the neutron absorbing cross section of an atom.

Do you know what comes after atto and femto?

Groucho, Zeppo and Gummo.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you say "10 inverse femtobarns" knowing what it means? :smile: It's a memorable phrase, for sure.

10^-28 meters squared. That is a very small area.

This unit is used mostly for expressing the neutron absorbing cross section of an atom.

Do you know what comes after atto and femto?

Groucho, Zeppo and Gummo.

ROTFL. :D:laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some correspondence I wrote on the issue:

The energy they expected to find the Higgs Boson at has been all over the place

- theory kept changing to fit the data they weren't finding. Finally they seem to be finding

something after dozens of misses. The theory behind it sounds extremely weak to me.

They may discover something but it may have nothing to do with the theory behind what

was intended. A fine way to spend billions of dollars.

One thing is sure concerning the particle zoo. The more you collide the more things pop up.

********

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/03/how-does-higgs-particle-give-things-mass/?intcmp=features

"Except for masless photons and gluons, "all elementary particles get their masses from their interactions with the [Higgs] field,..."

The lack of a terminal velocity photon model in mainstream physics has generated the need for the Higgs Boson to explain why

the photon and apparently gluons don't make sense as just normal particles. They may label what they have found the Higgs Boson

but I don't buy that it gives anything mass.

******

My main point is that the inability to assign mass to photons and gluons is an error

in the QM and relativity description itself. This error leads to creating the need for

the Higgs Boson - a bandaid to cover a mistake - leading to more complex bandages

and an ever growing pile of assumptions disconnected from observation or models

having any connection to causality or experiments.

********

Paraphrasing a friend:

[photons and similar particles are measured massless - having mass would create contradictions]

Yes the contradictions are inherent in the wrong description of QM and relativity - hence the creation of the Higgs and rules to paper around the contradictions.

They create quasi-complete theories but they are full of internal contradictions and contratictions with observation. You are correct - easier to compartmentalize

contradiction than to admit to incomplete theories.

*******

Just some thoughts sent to a friend.

Needless to say I am no fan of the theory needed to fix the Big Bang Theory [when the Big Bang and GTR have already failed], and a theory to fix the errors of relativity

when GTR has already failed, and to fix QM when a proper QM would include photons as a terminal velocity phenomenon with mass.

If you keep colliding and colliding at higher energies more and more stable combinations are available and more and more particles with various properties appear.

Vary the species colliding and more and more combinations are available. Since the theory of the Higgs has been evolving all over the place it is a theory searching

for any particle that might fit at least one version the assumptions. Not a very compelling argument.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the contradictions are inherent in the wrong description of QM and relativity - hence the creation of the Higgs and rules to paper around the contradictions.

Could you please reference an experimental falsification of the Standard Model or either of the Relativity Theories?

By the way, incomplete theories are the rule rather than the exception. Any mathematical theory capable of expressing arithmetic is incomplete. that is the main result that Goedel proved in 1931. As long as physical theories are not falsified empirically and can explain/predict a wide class of events and effects they will do for the time being.

Do you have something better to offer? Has it been verified experimentally? If not, I would suggest speaking softly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...

"Speak softly and carry a small femtobarns!"

That sounds like a Ron Paul foreign policy and might work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the contradictions are inherent in the wrong description of QM and relativity - hence the creation of the Higgs and rules to paper around the contradictions.

Could you please reference an experimental falsification of the Standard Model or either of the Relativity Theories?

As we have discussed here already the work of Stacy McGaugh Feb 2011 and subsequent papers by his and 2 other groups have disproven the viability of Dark Matter as a fix to General Relativity. There is no current Big Bang model with a replacement for General Relativity - hence the parameters of the Higg Boson are undefined because it is a child of the Big Bang model which is now without a gravitational foundation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913v1.pdf

General Relativity is falsified by numerous observations and statistical mechanics as clearly outlined by McGaugh.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the contradictions are inherent in the wrong description of QM and relativity - hence the creation of the Higgs and rules to paper around the contradictions.

Could you please reference an experimental falsification of the Standard Model or either of the Relativity Theories?

As we have discussed here already the work of Stacy McGaugh Feb 2011 and subsequent papers by his and 2 other groups have disproven the viability of Dark Matter as a fix to General Relativity. There is no current Big Bang model with a replacement for General Relativity - hence the parameters of the Higg Boson are undefined because it is a child of the Big Bang model which is now without a gravitational foundation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913v1.pdf

General Relativity is falsified by numerous observations and statistical mechanics as clearly outlined by McGaugh.

Dennis

Interesting paper. If you notice on the right hand side of p. 3 he points out some deficiencies in his proposal. He claims his approach is less worse than that of GTR. Can his theory account for the working of the GPS?

Bottom line: No fix to GTR in hand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the contradictions are inherent in the wrong description of QM and relativity - hence the creation of the Higgs and rules to paper around the contradictions.

Could you please reference an experimental falsification of the Standard Model or either of the Relativity Theories?

As we have discussed here already the work of Stacy McGaugh Feb 2011 and subsequent papers by his and 2 other groups have disproven the viability of Dark Matter as a fix to General Relativity. There is no current Big Bang model with a replacement for General Relativity - hence the parameters of the Higg Boson are undefined because it is a child of the Big Bang model which is now without a gravitational foundation.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3913v1.pdf

General Relativity is falsified by numerous observations and statistical mechanics as clearly outlined by McGaugh.

Dennis

Interesting paper. If you notice on the right hand side of p. 3 he points out some deficiencies in his proposal. He claims his approach is less worse than that of GTR. Can his theory account for the working of the GPS?

Bottom line: No fix to GTR in hand.

Ba'al Chatzaf

If you search "Duane McGaugh" [all papers option] in arxiv.org you can find his more recent papers where he mentions

two competing theories which are also less worse than GTR - one does better than his approach on the bullet cluster. The other two theories would work on GPS as would the relativistic version of MOND talked about elsewhere. All 3 replacements for GTR show that GTR plus dark matter is no longer viable. It is not clear to me that any of the three can save the Big Bang since they are still - as of December - fighting the battle over spiral galaxies and other smaller problems. I doubt they've had to time to plug in to Big Bang modeling programs.

I don't buy GTR or any of the three fixes but it is more than clear GTR plus dark matter is dead.

I have a very different view of the solutions needed as you know.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very different view of the solutions needed as you know.

Dennis

Without a critical review of your view plus corroborating experimental data (including replication) your view is your opinion.

We all have opinions, but unbacked up by fact they are vapor ware.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very different view of the solutions needed as you know.

Dennis

Without a critical review of your view plus corroborating experimental data (including replication) your view is your opinion.

We all have opinions, but unbacked up by fact they are vapor ware.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I would love a critical review - you indicated before you were not interested in such a critical review until experimental collaboration - unable to be explained by mainstream physics - were forthcoming. As such the theory remains unreviewed while GTR shown by observation and statistical mechanics to be incorrect continues to be taught as though it were correct.

It is not obvious there would be an incentive to share theory or experiment once experimental proof exists. At that point it might better be better viewed as a trade secret if it appears there are applications. If that becomes the case you won't be hearing about it.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the originally intended nickname for the particle was not "God particle", but "goddamn particle". :)

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Peter_Higgs

Higgs is an atheist, and is displeased that the Higgs particle is nicknamed the "God particle",[31] as he believes the term "might offend people who are religious".[32] Usually this nickname for the Higgs boson is attributed to Leon Lederman, the author of the book The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?, but the name is the result of the insistence of Lederman's publisher: Lederman had originally intended to refer to it as the "goddamn particle".[33]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that the originally intended nickname for the particle was not "God particle", but "goddamn particle". :)

godparticle.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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...