Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why do we need the Graviton?

Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 5:53:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it

I believe it's because there must be some kind of interaction between the masses. What's being sought is the reason for their weak "attraction" to each other, the reason for the "action at a distance", and that's not provided by merely talking about the mass itself--at least, not under current understandings.

I think.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 6:00:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Having mass is not quite the same as the interaction between masses.

The Higgs boson, is the thing that mediates the mass of matter, the graviton is the hypothetic particle that mediates the interactions between that mass (and indeed anything that is affected by gravity) in the way that typical force mediators operator.

Although we have never married gravity with the standard model :/
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 7:37:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no mass
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 7:44:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 7:37:01 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Alright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no mass

That's because photons follow the space-time curve, which is effected by gravity.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 8:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 7:37:01 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Alright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no mass

Now that is a tough, tough question.

The physics of electromagnetic field, the force that binds protons and neutrons (weak nuclear force) and those binding quarks together (strong force) can be modelled as an exchange of particles. Gravity can be thought of that, as it is kinda a similar type of effective force, but the maths that works for the first three doesn't work for gravity.

Gravity can be thought of an attractive force between objects with mass, which also effects objects with energy (photons). It is most commonly modelled as a bending of space and time that causes objects near a big object not to follow a straight line.
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 11:17:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it

First off, f=ma doesn't apply in relativistic scenarios (i.e. very small mass or very high speeds). f=(dp/dt) is true even in relativistic scenarios. Also, the gravition is massless, so it wouldn't exert a "normal" force anyway. The reason why physicists think gravitons exist is because every other force has an analog particle (electromagnetism has the photon; the weak force has the W and Z bosons; and the strong force has the gluon).

All matter is hypothetically massless, but because of the interaction between it and the Higgs field, it has a mass. The field must have an analog particle, and that is the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson simply explains why matter has mass. It doesn't explain where gravity comes from.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2013 11:26:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 7:37:01 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Alright, that makes sense I guess. I have another question though, is Gravity specifically an attraction between two masses then? Because thats how it sounded when you explain it like that, but photons get pulled into black holes even though they have no mass

Gravity isn't an attraction that is inherent in the masses themselves; gravity is simply the result that mass curves spacetime. So even though massless particles (i.e. photons) don't curve spacetime, they can feel a force to an object that does (i.e. a black hole). Large black holes are the result of supermassive stars collapsing upon death, and therefore, black holes have mass.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Bannanawamajama
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2013 1:44:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Alright, I think I get it. So we need the Graviton because there's a difference between having a property like charge or mass, and forces that are seemigly related to those like electromagnetism and gravity.

One more question, and I'm sorry this is going all over the place but I don't want to clog the forum with a bunch of separate threads. Does Color Charge in chromodynamics actually do anything beyond allowing the superposition of quarks? What I mean is, say you have a neutron, which has three quarks, two of which are the same type, but different colors. Would there be any way to distinguish between those two down quarks? Or if you had two protons, one which had a "red" down quark and one which had a "blue" one. Do those protons behave differently in any way?
chui
Posts: 510
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 9:17:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I recall that when gluons are exchanged between quarks, which is how the strong force is mediated within a neutron or proton, the gluons themselves carry colour charge in such a way that it causes the quarks to constantly change colour.

For example within a hadron a red quark might emit a red anti-blue gluon and the quark becomes blue. The gluon would then hit a blue quark making it red.

Within a meson the quarks have colour on one quark and anti-colour on the other. So a red quark could emit a red red gluon which leaves the first quark anti-red. When the gluon hits the second quark, that changes from anti-red to red.

This process happens, I believe, so fast that each quark appears 'white' as it rapidly cycles through. Thus individual quarks cannot be distinguished by their colour.
slo1
Posts: 4,355
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2013 10:19:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it

I think you have heard the explanations. One other thing to add to the discussion is that the Higgs field is not the sole variable which gives mass to particles. The kinetic energy of the bound quarks in protons and neutrons also give mass.

(excluding the fact that gravity affects massless particles while the higgs field does not) If you were to try to use the higgs field to reconcile gravity mathematically it would not match to the observed effects of gravity.

I'm not certain if it would over state the effects of gravity or understate the effects of gravity. I would assume understate it because it would not account for the effect of gravity on the additional mass from the quarks.
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2013 11:50:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/10/2013 1:44:04 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
Alright, I think I get it. So we need the Graviton because there's a difference between having a property like charge or mass, and forces that are seemigly related to those like electromagnetism and gravity.

One more question, and I'm sorry this is going all over the place but I don't want to clog the forum with a bunch of separate threads. Does Color Charge in chromodynamics actually do anything beyond allowing the superposition of quarks? What I mean is, say you have a neutron, which has three quarks, two of which are the same type, but different colors. Would there be any way to distinguish between those two down quarks? Or if you had two protons, one which had a "red" down quark and one which had a "blue" one. Do those protons behave differently in any way?

Baryons are made of three quarks, one blue, and green, and one red. The colors aren't really colors in the English sense - color would be analogous to charge for the electromagnetic force. Gluons, the force analog of the strong force, are made up of two colors; one regular and one anti. The regular color of the gluon is the sending quark's original color while the anti color of the gluon is the received quark's original color. The two down quarks would be in separate quantum "colors" while gluons are not being sent. The colors also represent different quantum states, and are thus different, but since quark colors are constantly changing, protons don't differ from each other. Because of the interaction between the three colors and the law of conservation of colors, all protons are "white".
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 7:44:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is more science fiction nonsense and a waste of time and money.

One of the huge problems for CERN, as it was for Fermilab, is validation and verification.

For a scientific hypothesis to be proven it must be observed and rigorously tested.

When dealing with subatomic particles this is a huge problem because the tests can"t be done precisely the same way each time, and capturing the results is dependent on many variables involving equipment that is not capable of measuring those variables precisely each time, e.g., electromagnetic calorimeters. There are tombs of studies on the inaccurate measurement problems using electromagnetic calorimeters.
http://www.hep.caltech.edu...

"HIGGS MISSING REPORT"
"The final product of producing a Higgs boson is a mess of high energy stable particles interacting with the detectors, but this is also the final product of just about every collision that happens in the detectors. Therefore it is with only a given probability that Higgs bosons can be identified. Only one out of 1,000,000,000 collisions produces a Higgs boson. The rest we call background. Even after doing our best analysis of a specific collision, we might decide that there was a 10% chance of it actually being a Higgs boson."
http://www-cdf.fnal.gov...

There is a 10% chance that it is actually a Higgs boson. Who is yanking whose chain?

Let"s not forget that CERN is not measuring subatomic particles as they exist in the space around us.

CERN is creating subatomic particles in explosions created in a self-contained tube by smashing protons moving at almost (99.999999%) the speed of light. Don"t be impressed with the 99.999999% the speed of light, which is 3 meters per second slower than the actual speed of life, which is 299,792,458 m/s. When dealing with the speed of light, 3 meters per second is very significant, especially since Einstein"s special theory of relativity states that nothing can exceed that speed.

So actually, they may be creating new particles by smashing protons together in a self-contained tube that don"t exist outside of that self-contained tube or in the real world or universe.

Beam me up Scotty.

"What are the experimental uncertainties in detecting Higgs bosons?"

"HIGGS MISSING REPORT"

"You can't see a Higgs boson with your eyes, or use a microscope to see a Higgs boson. And if you produce one, it instantly decays into other particles in a time that is too short to observe."

"Gawaly! Gawaly! Shazaam!" Wow! Really!

So, how do you know you have created a "Higgs boson"? You don"t, you speculate on the results of the spray " "Jet" of the particles that are created after the smashing protons explode. You speculate on the results captured by an electromagnetic calorimeter. The calorimeters measure the light deposited when the jet traverses the detector. But, how accurate are those electromagnetic calorimeters?

I am not sure why you think that because Higgs and Englert were awarded the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics that that proves anything. It doesn"t!

The Nobel Physics Committed is a Swedish organization that awards the prize in physics. Five of the six members on the Nobel Physics committee are involved in particle physics research. They teach at Universities that do research at CERN. So, it should be no surprise that the 2013 Nobel Prize was based on one experiment done at CERN on July 4, 2012, which has not been duplicated, not even once.

Scientists have been trying to prove the Higgs boson subatomic particle exists for over 40 years by using equipment at CERN or the other 100+ particle accelerator labs around the world. But, again, none of those labs has proven that the Higgs boson exists, despite the current hype.

Sweden was one of the 12 countries that initially signed the CERN Convention on September 29, 1954. Since then, Swedish scientists have been strongly committed to CERN, and have been active at all CERN"s Accelerators.

In 2012 alone, Sweden contributed 29,810,650 CHF (francs) or $33,307,976 US dollars. Sweden has a vested interest in proving that the Higgs boson exists. The total cost so far to try to find the Higgs boson is about $13.25 billion. And, guess what? It hasn"t been found yet, despite all the hype.

So of course most of members on the six-member Noble Committee for Physics in 2013 would vote for Higgs and Englert for something that was allegedly proven at CERN; despite the fact that the proof was not conclusive and has never been duplicated. Total political BS!

And, apparently there was much disagreement between these six adult (I use the word adult tongue-in-cheek) members of the Noble Committee for Physics because they engaged in late-night shouting matches that caused one of the two female members to see a therapist. Not to mention that the decision was the first in the 113 year history to be announced prematurely. Why any of these PhDs would be shouting is beyond me.

"In a stunning and premature decision that is a first in the 113 year history of the august institution, the Nobel Prize Committee in Stockholm today announced the awarding of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Physics to the Higgs Boson. Originally scheduled for October 8, the announcement instead came more than a week in advance. The change in date was guarded with the same secrecy that has always guarded the nominations for the coveted prize. The award has sparked immediate and intense controversy and speculation, both because of its premature announcement and because of the highly unconventional nature of the recipient."

"By no means was the radical departure from tradition an easy task; one member of the committee who chose to remain anonymous disclosed that the interminable late-night sessions, shouting matches and the unprecedented interruption of a proud and flawed human decision process by an objective, dispassionate analysis had forced her to see a therapist. Another member confided that "While I realize that science is a very human process, in this case it has been the "human" part of it that has really driven me up the wall."
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

"Is the Physics Nobel Prize Also Becoming a Joke?"
"The history of the physics prize is dotted with slights to those who deserved it and honors to those who didn't."
"Practically everyone, both left and right, considers awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize to be a joke. The late John Updike wrote that the Nobel Prize in Literature was a "prank." But practically everyone still considers the Nobel Prizes in the hard sciences to be serious prizes, awarded to scientists with genuine accomplishments. Is this really true? Or is the Nobel Prize in Physics, the hardest of the hard sciences, equally becoming a joke?"

"So it is an open question whether the Nobel Prize in the hard sciences is as much of a joke as it is in peace and literature. Perhaps we should retire the Nobel Prize in all fields, or at least not take it seriously in any field."
http://pjmedia.com...

As far as the Higgs boson subatomic particle being the building blocks of our Universe, you sound like a Star Trek Trekkie,

"Beam me up Scotty."

And yes, the earth is flat and supported on the backs of turtles all the way down.

Reports of an exotic non-Higgs boson particle discovery turned out to be likely a statistical fluke after the readings could not be confirmed in follow-up tests."
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 7:58:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2013 11:17:39 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it

First off, f=ma doesn't apply in relativistic scenarios (i.e. very small mass or very high speeds). f=(dp/dt) is true even in relativistic scenarios. Also, the gravition is massless, so it wouldn't exert a "normal" force anyway. The reason why physicists think gravitons exist is because every other force has an analog particle (electromagnetism has the photon; the weak force has the W and Z bosons; and the strong force has the gluon).

All matter is hypothetically massless, but because of the interaction between it and the Higgs field, it has a mass. The field must have an analog particle, and that is the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson simply explains why matter has mass. It doesn't explain where gravity comes from.

Is Higgs really a genius or just a science fiction storyteller?

The Higgs boson junkies remind me of the science fiction junkies that believe that Star Trek science fiction is real - where spaceships travel at Warp factor 10 (infinite speed), teleportation is real, and terraforming planets is as easy as baking a cake.

"Beam me up, Scotty!"

"Higgs Boson and the Great Scam of Modern Physics"

"Heh! " "Physics would appear to have gotten away with it: a decades-long campaign of hype, propaganda, and outright deception that saw a ragtag bunch of social misfits swindle the world out of billions of dollars, monies which as of this writing have not been returned"."
http://www.theawl.com...

You folks can't prove anything you are saying; it is pure speculation.

There is a great book titled

"The Higgs Fake " How Particle Physicists Fooled the Noble Committee" by Alexander Unzicker.

He also wrote "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall " die absurde Jagd nach der Weltformel" which translates to "From the Big Bang to bang By: The absurd hunt for the Ultimate Theory", which was awarded the science book of the year award in Germany. He also co-authored with Sheilla Jones: "Bankrupting Physics: How Today"s Top Scientists are Gambling Away Scientific Credibility.

"Today"s scientific theories explaining the universe are brilliant and imaginative, but can they ever be verified? And if not, is it still science?"
http://www.sheillajones.com...

No it is not still science, it is science fiction!

"Unzicker's book starts off by claiming:

"The 2013 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs boson would have been considered ridiculous by physics' greatest minds such as Einstein, Schr"dinger or Dirac."

"Unzicker, a German physicist and award-winning science writer, argues that:

"1) The so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated,

2) None of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved,

3) History suggests that the current model is a dead end,

4) With their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results,

5) Scientific convictions in the community are established by trust in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and

6) The data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody."

I like numbers 4 and 6 the most; basically the results can"t be confirmed and we have to take their word on whatever they claim the results are.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 8:15:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 7:58:34 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 11/9/2013 11:17:39 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it

First off, f=ma doesn't apply in relativistic scenarios (i.e. very small mass or very high speeds). f=(dp/dt) is true even in relativistic scenarios. Also, the gravition is massless, so it wouldn't exert a "normal" force anyway. The reason why physicists think gravitons exist is because every other force has an analog particle (electromagnetism has the photon; the weak force has the W and Z bosons; and the strong force has the gluon).

All matter is hypothetically massless, but because of the interaction between it and the Higgs field, it has a mass. The field must have an analog particle, and that is the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson simply explains why matter has mass. It doesn't explain where gravity comes from.

Is Higgs really a genius or just a science fiction storyteller?

The Higgs boson junkies remind me of the science fiction junkies that believe that Star Trek science fiction is real - where spaceships travel at Warp factor 10 (infinite speed), teleportation is real, and terraforming planets is as easy as baking a cake.

"Beam me up, Scotty!"

"Higgs Boson and the Great Scam of Modern Physics"

"Heh! " "Physics would appear to have gotten away with it: a decades-long campaign of hype, propaganda, and outright deception that saw a ragtag bunch of social misfits swindle the world out of billions of dollars, monies which as of this writing have not been returned"."
http://www.theawl.com...

You folks can't prove anything you are saying; it is pure speculation.

There is a great book titled

"The Higgs Fake " How Particle Physicists Fooled the Noble Committee" by Alexander Unzicker.

He also wrote "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall " die absurde Jagd nach der Weltformel" which translates to "From the Big Bang to bang By: The absurd hunt for the Ultimate Theory", which was awarded the science book of the year award in Germany. He also co-authored with Sheilla Jones: "Bankrupting Physics: How Today"s Top Scientists are Gambling Away Scientific Credibility.

"Today"s scientific theories explaining the universe are brilliant and imaginative, but can they ever be verified? And if not, is it still science?"
http://www.sheillajones.com...

No it is not still science, it is science fiction!

"Unzicker's book starts off by claiming:

"The 2013 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs boson would have been considered ridiculous by physics' greatest minds such as Einstein, Schr"dinger or Dirac."

"Unzicker, a German physicist and award-winning science writer, argues that:

"1) The so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated,

2) None of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved,

3) History suggests that the current model is a dead end,

4) With their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results,

5) Scientific convictions in the community are established by trust in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and

6) The data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody."

I like numbers 4 and 6 the most; basically the results can"t be confirmed and we have to take their word on whatever they claim the results are.

Your whole argument is that just because you think the Higgs boson is ridiculous, that it does not exist. May I remind you of the countless scientific theories that have been ridiculed over the years, but were later found to be true (i.e. the heliocentric theory, atomic theory, climate change theory, evolution, etc...). While yes, the Higgs boson was first postulated theoretically, it was because it was found to exist that Higgs received the Nobel prize, as it was an experimental confirmation of his theory.

While the standard model is by no means scientific fact, nor will it be the last word in physics, it is a valid model on a number of levels. In fact, it has been argued by physicists asserting alternative models that the Higgs boson actually proves their own model, and the Higgs boson could be used to invalidate the standard model. The important thing to note now is that it has virtually been proven that the Higgs boson exists, as a number of tests have made its existence necessary.

Further, the whole basis of modern physics is not an alien, unproven concept, but a very real, albeit somewhat counterintuitive world where the laws of physics are bent (but not broken). There has been a lot of experimental verification of modern physics principles (i.e. the gravitational lensing of light, the existence of antimatter, wave-particle duality, and of course the numerous particles that have been detected over the years).

Overall, your entire point is predicated by an attempt to dismiss the counterintuitive. Just remember that, once, the heliocentric theory was counterintuitive.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 8:53:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 8:15:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/23/2013 7:58:34 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 11/9/2013 11:17:39 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it

First off, f=ma doesn't apply in relativistic scenarios (i.e. very small mass or very high speeds). f=(dp/dt) is true even in relativistic scenarios. Also, the gravition is massless, so it wouldn't exert a "normal" force anyway. The reason why physicists think gravitons exist is because every other force has an analog particle (electromagnetism has the photon; the weak force has the W and Z bosons; and the strong force has the gluon).

All matter is hypothetically massless, but because of the interaction between it and the Higgs field, it has a mass. The field must have an analog particle, and that is the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson simply explains why matter has mass. It doesn't explain where gravity comes from.

Is Higgs really a genius or just a science fiction storyteller?

The Higgs boson junkies remind me of the science fiction junkies that believe that Star Trek science fiction is real - where spaceships travel at Warp factor 10 (infinite speed), teleportation is real, and terraforming planets is as easy as baking a cake.

"Beam me up, Scotty!"

"Higgs Boson and the Great Scam of Modern Physics"

"Heh! " "Physics would appear to have gotten away with it: a decades-long campaign of hype, propaganda, and outright deception that saw a ragtag bunch of social misfits swindle the world out of billions of dollars, monies which as of this writing have not been returned"."
http://www.theawl.com...

You folks can't prove anything you are saying; it is pure speculation.

There is a great book titled

"The Higgs Fake " How Particle Physicists Fooled the Noble Committee" by Alexander Unzicker.

He also wrote "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall " die absurde Jagd nach der Weltformel" which translates to "From the Big Bang to bang By: The absurd hunt for the Ultimate Theory", which was awarded the science book of the year award in Germany. He also co-authored with Sheilla Jones: "Bankrupting Physics: How Today"s Top Scientists are Gambling Away Scientific Credibility.

"Today"s scientific theories explaining the universe are brilliant and imaginative, but can they ever be verified? And if not, is it still science?"
http://www.sheillajones.com...

No it is not still science, it is science fiction!

"Unzicker's book starts off by claiming:

"The 2013 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs boson would have been considered ridiculous by physics' greatest minds such as Einstein, Schr"dinger or Dirac."

"Unzicker, a German physicist and award-winning science writer, argues that:

"1) The so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated,

2) None of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved,

3) History suggests that the current model is a dead end,

4) With their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results,

5) Scientific convictions in the community are established by trust in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and

6) The data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody."

I like numbers 4 and 6 the most; basically the results can"t be confirmed and we have to take their word on whatever they claim the results are.

Your whole argument is that just because you think the Higgs boson is ridiculous, that it does not exist. May I remind you of the countless scientific theories that have been ridiculed over the years, but were later found to be true (i.e. the heliocentric theory, atomic theory, climate change theory, evolution, etc...). While yes, the Higgs boson was first postulated theoretically, it was because it was found to exist that Higgs received the Nobel prize, as it was an experimental confirmation of his theory.

While the standard model is by no means scientific fact, nor will it be the last word in physics, it is a valid model on a number of levels. In fact, it has been argued by physicists asserting alternative models that the Higgs boson actually proves their own model, and the Higgs boson could be used to invalidate the standard model. The important thing to note now is that it has virtually been proven that the Higgs boson exists, as a number of tests have made its existence necessary.

Further, the whole basis of modern physics is not an alien, unproven concept, but a very real, albeit somewhat counterintuitive world where the laws of physics are bent (but not broken). There has been a lot of experimental verification of modern physics principles (i.e. the gravitational lensing of light, the existence of antimatter, wave-particle duality, and of course the numerous particles that have been detected over the years).

Overall, your entire point is predicated by an attempt to dismiss the counterintuitive. Just remember that, once, the heliocentric theory was counterintuitive.

You don't read well.

"Unzicker's book starts off by claiming:

"The 2013 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs boson would have been considered ridiculous by physics' greatest minds such as Einstein, Schr"dinger or Dirac."


The Higgs has not been proven and it never will be proven. The results can't be duplicated and the test results rely on many models that are also not provable. We are proving the results by creating models and assumption that just are not valid. It is scientific dishonesty.

Albert Einstein is turning over in his grave over this nonsense.

Man is crashing particles together at high speed to produce particles that don't exist in nature, which can't be duplicated outside of a particle accelerator that only exist for a nanosecond; and their existence is only proven by a shadow that may or may not exist and could be a statistical anomaly; therefore, it is a man made event that does not exist in the real world.

Therefore, the results are meaningless; and they can't be duplicated.

CERN and sub-atomic partial research are a colossal waste of talent, money and time.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:11:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/23/2013 8:53:56 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 12/23/2013 8:15:54 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/23/2013 7:58:34 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 11/9/2013 11:17:39 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 11/9/2013 5:50:07 PM, Bannanawamajama wrote:
So I'm in a Physics class that is going to go into basic particle physics later in the semester, so I was just reading up on it a bit out of interest until then.

Apparently the Graviton is the only gauge boson we haven't conclusively discovered yet, but we HAVE found the Higgs Boson recently. What I don't understand is why the Higgs can't be used as the carrier for gravity. That particle is supposed to account for mass in particles, if I understand it correctly, but Einstein said that Gravity was basically identical and indistinguishable from what you feel from acceleration, which is why "G forces" happen when your in a rocket or whatever.

So if F = MA, and the Higgs boson is linked to the M, shouldnt that mean its proportional to the F? And that F is supposed to be the same as Gravitational Force. Theres a direct proportionality between the mass something has and the gravitational pull it puts on other stuff, so why doesn't the Higgs equal the force particle? If someone could help me understand this I'd appreciate it

First off, f=ma doesn't apply in relativistic scenarios (i.e. very small mass or very high speeds). f=(dp/dt) is true even in relativistic scenarios. Also, the gravition is massless, so it wouldn't exert a "normal" force anyway. The reason why physicists think gravitons exist is because every other force has an analog particle (electromagnetism has the photon; the weak force has the W and Z bosons; and the strong force has the gluon).

All matter is hypothetically massless, but because of the interaction between it and the Higgs field, it has a mass. The field must have an analog particle, and that is the Higgs boson. The Higgs boson simply explains why matter has mass. It doesn't explain where gravity comes from.

Is Higgs really a genius or just a science fiction storyteller?

The Higgs boson junkies remind me of the science fiction junkies that believe that Star Trek science fiction is real - where spaceships travel at Warp factor 10 (infinite speed), teleportation is real, and terraforming planets is as easy as baking a cake.

"Beam me up, Scotty!"

"Higgs Boson and the Great Scam of Modern Physics"

"Heh! " "Physics would appear to have gotten away with it: a decades-long campaign of hype, propaganda, and outright deception that saw a ragtag bunch of social misfits swindle the world out of billions of dollars, monies which as of this writing have not been returned"."
http://www.theawl.com...

You folks can't prove anything you are saying; it is pure speculation.

There is a great book titled

"The Higgs Fake " How Particle Physicists Fooled the Noble Committee" by Alexander Unzicker.

He also wrote "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall " die absurde Jagd nach der Weltformel" which translates to "From the Big Bang to bang By: The absurd hunt for the Ultimate Theory", which was awarded the science book of the year award in Germany. He also co-authored with Sheilla Jones: "Bankrupting Physics: How Today"s Top Scientists are Gambling Away Scientific Credibility.

"Today"s scientific theories explaining the universe are brilliant and imaginative, but can they ever be verified? And if not, is it still science?"
http://www.sheillajones.com...

No it is not still science, it is science fiction!

"Unzicker's book starts off by claiming:

"The 2013 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs boson would have been considered ridiculous by physics' greatest minds such as Einstein, Schr"dinger or Dirac."

"Unzicker, a German physicist and award-winning science writer, argues that:

"1) The so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated,

2) None of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved,

3) History suggests that the current model is a dead end,

4) With their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results,

5) Scientific convictions in the community are established by trust in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and

6) The data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody."

I like numbers 4 and 6 the most; basically the results can"t be confirmed and we have to take their word on whatever they claim the results are.

Your whole argument is that just because you think the Higgs boson is ridiculous, that it does not exist. May I remind you of the countless scientific theories that have been ridiculed over the years, but were later found to be true (i.e. the heliocentric theory, atomic theory, climate change theory, evolution, etc...). While yes, the Higgs boson was first postulated theoretically, it was because it was found to exist that Higgs received the Nobel prize, as it was an experimental confirmation of his theory.

While the standard model is by no means scientific fact, nor will it be the last word in physics, it is a valid model on a number of levels. In fact, it has been argued by physicists asserting alternative models that the Higgs boson actually proves their own model, and the Higgs boson could be used to invalidate the standard model. The important thing to note now is that it has virtually been proven that the Higgs boson exists, as a number of tests have made its existence necessary.

Further, the whole basis of modern physics is not an alien, unproven concept, but a very real, albeit somewhat counterintuitive world where the laws of physics are bent (but not broken). There has been a lot of experimental verification of modern physics principles (i.e. the gravitational lensing of light, the existence of antimatter, wave-particle duality, and of course the numerous particles that have been detected over the years).

Overall, your entire point is predicated by an attempt to dismiss the counterintuitive. Just remember that, once, the heliocentric theory was counterintuitive.

You don't read well.

"Unzicker's book starts off by claiming:

"The 2013 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Higgs boson would have been considered ridiculous by physics' greatest minds such as Einstein, Schr"dinger or Dirac."


The Higgs has not been proven and it never will be proven. The results can't be duplicated and the test results rely on many models that are also not provable. We are proving the results by creating models and assumption that just are not valid. It is scientific dishonesty.

Albert Einstein is turning over in his grave over this nonsense.

Man is crashing particles together at high speed to produce particles that don't exist in nature, which can't be duplicated outside of a particle accelerator that only exist for a nanosecond; and their existence is only proven by a shadow that may or may not exist and could be a statistical anomaly; therefore, it is a man made event that does not exist in the real world.

Therefore, the results are meaningless; and they can't be duplicated.

CERN and sub-atomic partial research are a colossal waste of talent, money and time.

lol
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
sadolite
Posts: 8,839
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:27:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I feel like getting pummeled and having my character assassinated. Here goes "There is not a scientific consensus on the Higgs Bossen being discovered at cern." It could be "a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter." Now I turn and run for my life.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/23/2013 9:43:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@GWL_CPA: The theoretical formulation of many of the sub-atomic particles is extremely sound, and they have been confirmed through experiment on numerous occasions, and this includes the Higgs boson. The 125 GeV particle isolated at CERN was found to have no spin, positive parity, and couples to mass. Between this and the interactions between the particle and other particles proves pretty much beyond a doubt that the particle detected was the Higgs boson. It's theoretically required and experimentally verified.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:47:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's true that few collisions produce Higgs bosons, so to achieve statistically significant results either the energy level must be increased to increase the probability or the beam current must be increased to increase the collision rate. The new CERN collider (the LHC) is providing higher energy levels than past machines, but it is still operating at half the design energy. The discovery was made by increases in the beam current at the current energy level. The occurrences are well above chance levels.

The experiments were confirmed at Fermilab, and were not announced until there was confirmation.

There are many other experiments planned for the LHC besides confirming the Higgs boson. The LHC began a two year shut down in Feb of 2013 to bring it up to the full energy level.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 2:21:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hilariously, you make three shockingly and laughably false arguments:

1.) every single calorimeter in the history of particle physics is wrong. I would actually google the calorimeters used in the LHC as the argument here is really a nonsequitor. You can TL whether the calorimeter is accurate or not by starting at low known powers and make sure the results at that power matches exactly every other particle accelerator in the world. Unless your arguing that all calorimeters in the whole word are wrong by exactly the same amount!

2.) you confuse your own source, by claiming that any individual Collision may mean only a 10% chance of being a Higgs that the whole Higgs is only 10% likely. Considering they didn't simply run a single collision, or even a thousand but millions: a significant, massive number which uses the sheer volume of results to show statistical significance.

3.) If you read your own source, the reason of the issues with the Nobel prize selection was concerning who would take credit for the discovery.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 1:37:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 2:21:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Hilariously, you make three shockingly and laughably false arguments:

1.) every single calorimeter in the history of particle physics is wrong. I would actually google the calorimeters used in the LHC as the argument here is really a nonsequitor. You can TL whether the calorimeter is accurate or not by starting at low known powers and make sure the results at that power matches exactly every other particle accelerator in the world. Unless your arguing that all calorimeters in the whole word are wrong by exactly the same amount!

2.) you confuse your own source, by claiming that any individual Collision may mean only a 10% chance of being a Higgs that the whole Higgs is only 10% likely. Considering they didn't simply run a single collision, or even a thousand but millions: a significant, massive number which uses the sheer volume of results to show statistical significance.

3.) If you read your own source, the reason of the issues with the Nobel prize selection was concerning who would take credit for the discovery.

Again, please cite any sources that say 100% that the Higgs Boson has been proven; it hasn't.

End of this nonsense.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 2:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 1:37:47 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 12/24/2013 2:21:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Hilariously, you make three shockingly and laughably false arguments:

1.) every single calorimeter in the history of particle physics is wrong. I would actually google the calorimeters used in the LHC as the argument here is really a nonsequitor. You can TL whether the calorimeter is accurate or not by starting at low known powers and make sure the results at that power matches exactly every other particle accelerator in the world. Unless your arguing that all calorimeters in the whole word are wrong by exactly the same amount!

2.) you confuse your own source, by claiming that any individual Collision may mean only a 10% chance of being a Higgs that the whole Higgs is only 10% likely. Considering they didn't simply run a single collision, or even a thousand but millions: a significant, massive number which uses the sheer volume of results to show statistical significance.

3.) If you read your own source, the reason of the issues with the Nobel prize selection was concerning who would take credit for the discovery.

Again, please cite any sources that say 100% that the Higgs Boson has been proven; it hasn't.

End of this nonsense.

Considering neither you nor I can 100% Proove the earth revolves around the sun, only be sure to the extent of the physical evidence available, the question is fairly irrelevant

However, as can be shown with the following, "One team there now reports a 5.9 sigma level of certainty that the Higgs exists. That equates to a one-in-550 million chance that the results are incorrect reflections of statistical errors."

Which is a little bit more than the "10%" you claimed.

http://www.popsci.com...
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 3:07:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 1:37:47 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
At 12/24/2013 2:21:38 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
Hilariously, you make three shockingly and laughably false arguments:

1.) every single calorimeter in the history of particle physics is wrong. I would actually google the calorimeters used in the LHC as the argument here is really a nonsequitor. You can TL whether the calorimeter is accurate or not by starting at low known powers and make sure the results at that power matches exactly every other particle accelerator in the world. Unless your arguing that all calorimeters in the whole word are wrong by exactly the same amount!

2.) you confuse your own source, by claiming that any individual Collision may mean only a 10% chance of being a Higgs that the whole Higgs is only 10% likely. Considering they didn't simply run a single collision, or even a thousand but millions: a significant, massive number which uses the sheer volume of results to show statistical significance.

3.) If you read your own source, the reason of the issues with the Nobel prize selection was concerning who would take credit for the discovery.

Again, please cite any sources that say 100% that the Higgs Boson has been proven; it hasn't.

End of this nonsense.

Take a minute and Google it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 3:52:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 1:47:39 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
It's true that few collisions produce Higgs bosons, so to achieve statistically significant results either the energy level must be increased to increase the probability or the beam current must be increased to increase the collision rate. The new CERN collider (the LHC) is providing higher energy levels than past machines, but it is still operating at half the design energy. The discovery was made by increases in the beam current at the current energy level. The occurrences are well above chance levels.

The experiments were confirmed at Fermilab, and were not announced until there was confirmation.

There are many other experiments planned for the LHC besides confirming the Higgs boson. The LHC began a two year shut down in Feb of 2013 to bring it up to the full energy level.

Actually, Fermilab has confirmed nothing, according to Fermilab.

But, first we need to take a close look at what Unzicker and Sheilla Jones stated:

"The Higgs Fake " How Particle Physicists Fooled the Noble Committee" by Alexander Unzicker.
http://www.broadwayworld.com...

Unzicker backs his claims with a short historical survey and concludes that particle physics, as practiced since 1930, is "a futile enterprise in its entirety." In the last section of his book, "Antidotes," he specifically attacks "the overstated claims by famous physicists such as Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, Sean Carroll, Brian Cox and Jim Al-Khalili." At the end, Unzicker gives a list of questions that he would like to be asked to particle physicists at press conferences, hearings and discussions.

Read more about THE HIGGS FAKE, a New Book by Dr. Alexander Unzicker, Criticizes the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics - BWWBooksWorld by www.broadwayworld.com

He also wrote "Vom Urknall zum Durchknall " die absurde Jagd nach der Weltformel" which translates to "From the Big Bang to bang By: The absurd hunt for the Ultimate Theory", which was awarded the science book of the year award in Germany. He also co-authored with Sheilla Jones: "Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists are Gambling Away Scientific Credibility.

"Today's scientific theories explaining the universe are brilliant and imaginative, but can they ever be verified? And if not, is it still science?"
http://www.sheillajones.com...

No it is not still science, it is science fiction!

For example the world"s second largest particle accelerator is Fermilab's Tevatron, just outside Batavia, Illinois, USA. Fermilab has not been able to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson subatomic particle. Why?

Are American scientists just dumb or just too honest?

The Fermilab scientists said that their results might boil down to random fluctuations or a statistical fluke. And, just like CERN, they could not confirm the readings in subsequent tests.

"What they've found so far is suggestive of the Higgs, but doesn't rise to the level of discovery. Combining data from both CDF and DZero, they've eked out a signal that might be due to the Higgs, but there is also a one-in-550 chance that it is down to random fluctuations."
http://www.pbs.org...

"Sadly, for all its great discoveries, the Tevatron (FermiLab in Batavia, IL, USA) is closing on the eve of a hollow note. Reports of an exotic non-Higgs boson particle discovery turned out to be likely a statistical fluke after the readings could not be confirmed in follow-up tests."
http://www.dailytech.com...

We have a bunch of CERN scientists that are predisposed or convinced that the Higgs boson exists. How can anyone ever trust their analyses or results?

And, there is no way non-CERN scientists will be allowed to look at all their data and question its validity - we have to take their word. Too funny!

http://www.broadwayworld.com...

I love it when they say they have to build the colliders that are bigger and longer with much more energy, then they will be able to prove everything without a doubt.

Prove nonsense that has no relevance to anything and will never benefit mankind. O" I forgot, it makes morons scientists like Higgs feel good.

Actually, the whole field of particle physics is a non-provable joke that is built on a number of hypothesis and models that can't be proven. Dr. Alexander Unzicker proves what a joke it is in his book "The Higgs Fake."

Even Einstein stated that "a complete physical theory should not contain any number which comes along unexplained. It's just a deficit of understanding."

Unzicker states: We may be far from such a complete theory; but it is clear as day that the fewer numbers you need, the better your theory is. If you find rigorous rules and a few important constants, you are closer to Nature's secrets, if you need the same amount of parameters as your data already had, you are threading water. Particle physics is treading water, and not in a pool but a giant swamp. Having lost the overview, they no longer even count their unexplained numbers. A conservative estimate is 18, but that neglects the masses and other properties of the heap of particles they're dealing with. Go and ask a high energy physicist about the number of free parameters in the standard model, he will quibble. It's just a mess. It upsets me to hear the epochal discoveries named on an equal footing with the baloney that comes out of the big collaboration who, despite their computers, cannot count their parameters any more""
http://www.amazon.com...

Maybe we should build a $ 100 trillion dollar collider with all the bells and whistles. Then we can try to prove nonsense that has no relevance to anything and will never benefit mankind. O" I forgot, it makes morons scientists like Higgs feel good.

Maybe they should build one that is 186,000 miles long - the speed of light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Just maybe then they could prove it - what utter nonsense!

Beam be up Scotty.
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 7:48:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I remember the first time I read anything about Quantum mechanics/physics/theory, I was very confused, especially when they started talking about objects traveling faster than the speed of light and silly things they called Quarks and Leptons, which can't be proven except in their man-made models.

See, I was an Einstein devotee and believed his theories of relativity. I learned and studied those theories in 1966 as a junior in high school in my Physics class. I learned that no object with mass could travel faster than the speed of light.

So, when I heard these Quantum nitwits telling me that something could, I was very skeptical; but, they were Ph.Ds. in Physics; how could a mere mortal like me question these demigods?

It was until I started reading Dr. Unzicker and Sheilla Jones that I realized that these Quantum PhDs were full of BS.

I didn't realize that entire nations were duped into believing their Quantum nonsense until I learn more about CERN.

How many trillions in dollars will governments waste on this CERN nonsense, deep manned spaceflight and worthless ISSs - International Space Stations?
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 8:04:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 7:48:38 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
I remember the first time I read anything about Quantum mechanics/physics/theory, I was very confused, especially when they started talking about objects traveling faster than the speed of light and silly things they called Quarks and Leptons, which can't be proven except in their man-made models.

See, I was an Einstein devotee and believed his theories of relativity. I learned and studied those theories in 1966 as a junior in high school in my Physics class. I learned that no object with mass could travel faster than the speed of light.

So, when I heard these Quantum nitwits telling me that something could, I was very skeptical; but, they were Ph.Ds. in Physics; how could a mere mortal like me question these demigods?

It was until I started reading Dr. Unzicker and Sheilla Jones that I realized that these Quantum PhDs were full of BS.

I didn't realize that entire nations were duped into believing their Quantum nonsense until I learn more about CERN.

How many trillions in dollars will governments waste on this CERN nonsense, deep manned spaceflight and worthless ISSs - International Space Stations?

So you don't believe that baryons aren't made of anything, that electrons (i.e. leptons) do not exist, most scientists actually think that something can travel faster than light, modern quantum physics is not irreconcilable with general relativity, two people who apparently know very little about physics are credible, scientific research is worthless, and anything you don't understand is wrong? Ok, you're the smartest person on this site.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 8:08:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 8:04:23 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/24/2013 7:48:38 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
I remember the first time I read anything about Quantum mechanics/physics/theory, I was very confused, especially when they started talking about objects traveling faster than the speed of light and silly things they called Quarks and Leptons, which can't be proven except in their man-made models.

See, I was an Einstein devotee and believed his theories of relativity. I learned and studied those theories in 1966 as a junior in high school in my Physics class. I learned that no object with mass could travel faster than the speed of light.

So, when I heard these Quantum nitwits telling me that something could, I was very skeptical; but, they were Ph.Ds. in Physics; how could a mere mortal like me question these demigods?

It was until I started reading Dr. Unzicker and Sheilla Jones that I realized that these Quantum PhDs were full of BS.

I didn't realize that entire nations were duped into believing their Quantum nonsense until I learn more about CERN.

How many trillions in dollars will governments waste on this CERN nonsense, deep manned spaceflight and worthless ISSs - International Space Stations?

So you *do* believe that baryons aren't made of anything, that electrons (i.e. leptons) do not exist, most scientists actually think that something can travel faster than light, modern quantum physics is not irreconcilable with general relativity, two people who apparently know very little about physics are credible, scientific research is worthless, and anything you don't understand is wrong? Ok, you're the smartest person on this site.

Fix'd.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
GWL-CPA
Posts: 627
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 9:00:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/24/2013 8:04:23 PM, Subutai wrote:
At 12/24/2013 7:48:38 PM, GWL-CPA wrote:
I remember the first time I read anything about Quantum mechanics/physics/theory, I was very confused, especially when they started talking about objects traveling faster than the speed of light and silly things they called Quarks and Leptons, which can't be proven except in their man-made models.

See, I was an Einstein devotee and believed his theories of relativity. I learned and studied those theories in 1966 as a junior in high school in my Physics class. I learned that no object with mass could travel faster than the speed of light.

So, when I heard these Quantum nitwits telling me that something could, I was very skeptical; but, they were Ph.Ds. in Physics; how could a mere mortal like me question these demigods?

It was until I started reading Dr. Unzicker and Sheilla Jones that I realized that these Quantum PhDs were full of BS.

I didn't realize that entire nations were duped into believing their Quantum nonsense until I learn more about CERN.

How many trillions in dollars will governments waste on this CERN nonsense, deep manned spaceflight and worthless ISSs - International Space Stations?

So you don't believe that baryons aren't made of anything, that electrons (i.e. leptons) do not exist, most scientists actually think that something can travel faster than light, modern quantum physics is not irreconcilable with general relativity, two people who apparently know very little about physics are credible, scientific research is worthless, and anything you don't understand is wrong? Ok, you're the smartest person on this site.

I believe in electrons, but don't called them "Leptons."

I don't believe in quarks because they can only be created in particle accelerators and can"t really be observed. And, I think the "Standard Model of particle physics" is pure BS.

"There are six types of quarks, known as flavors: up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top. Up and down quarks have the lowest masses of all quarks. The heavier quarks rapidly change into up and down quarks through a process of particle decay: the transformation from a higher mass state to a lower mass state. Because of this, up and down quarks are generally stable and the most common in the universe, whereas strange, charm, top, and bottom quarks can only be produced in high energy collisions (such as those involving cosmic rays and in particle accelerators)."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

You know what I like best, you can't prove me wrong. And, no scientists have been able to prove the "Standard Model of particle physics." And, anti-matter is just science fiction BS.

I also know that Albert Einstein thought that Quantum Theory was BS.


"While he had contributed to its development, Einstein became the most prominent critic of the new quantum theory."

"Einstein's Principal Objection to Quantum Theory"

"That Einstein was uncomfortable with quantum theory attracted much attention and there have been many accounts of his reservations, some trying to locate their deeper sources. However these different accounts may vary, there is no doubt of Einstein's principal objection. He believed that the quantum wave function of some system, the `8;-function, was not a complete description of the system. Rather, it provided some sort of statistical summary of the properties of many like systems."

An example--NOT Einstein's--will make this a little clearer. Consider the air in the room. As far as ordinary measurements are concerned, the air forms a continuous fluid. When sound propagates in air, waves of compression and rarefaction move through the air. We can arrive at a powerful theory of air and sound solely using the representation of air as a continuous fluid that harbors pressure waves.

"Within the framework of statistical quantum theory there is no such thing as a complete description of the individual system. More cautiously it might be put as follows: The attempt to conceive the quantum-theoretical description as the complete description of the individual systems leads to unnatural theoretical interpretations, which become immediately unnecessary if one accepts the interpretation that the description refers to ensembles of systems and not to individual systems...

Assuming the success of efforts to accomplish a complete physical description, the statistical quantum theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to the statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics. I am rather firmly convinced that the development of theoretical physics will be of this type; but the path will be lengthy and difficult.
"If the quantum wave is not a complete description of the physical system, then Einstein has a ready explanation of the probabilities that have now entered into physics in quantum measurement processes: they are merely expressions of our ignorance. If an atom has a probability of one half of radioactive decay over an hour, then all that really means is that its wave function describes an ensemble of many different atomic systems, half of which decay in an hour. Whether one particular atom in the ensemble will decay in one hour is definitely determinable. However we will not be able to discern it if all we know is the quantum wave associated with it. Whether it decays or not depends upon properties of that system that have been smoothed away by the quantum wave and thus are unknown to us. It is our ignorance of these smoothed away properties that makes a probabilistic assertion the best we can do."

Anyway, Albert Einstein did not accept Quantum Physics as proving anything, nor do I.
http://www2.pitt.edu...
When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years."

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

Mark Twain
Subutai
Posts: 3,235
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2013 9:24:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@GWL-CPA: I'll post three points:

1. Electrons are a class of leptons: "Leptons and quarks are the basic building blocks of matter, i.e., they are seen as the "elementary particles". There are six leptons in the present structure, the electron, muon, and tau particles and their associated neutrinos." So essentially, by claiming that leptons do not exist, you are claiming that electrons do not exist. And b claiming that quarks do not exist, you are claiming that baryons do not exist (since three quarks make up each type of baryon). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

2. Antimatter is a very real thing. Quantum fluctuations are an example of this - you can't have a particle of matter without a corresponding particle of antimatter, and the countless quantum fluctuations and antimatter annihilation signatures prove that antimatter exists. This effect here would not happen if there were not two contrasting types of materials that annihilated on contact: http://pdg.web.cern.ch...

3. Quantum physics and general relativity are not incompatible: "Quantum Mechanics (QM) and relativity are both 100% accurate, so far as we have been able to measure (and our measurements are really, really good). The incompatibility shows up when both QM effects and relativistic effects are large enough to be detected and then disagree." In other words, we just haven't found a way to make them complete in "weird" physical situations yet. However, quantum physics very much agrees with and is a consequence of general relativity. http://www.askamathematician.com...

If you read a few good books on quantum mechanics, you may finally understand how quantum physics is a very real phenomena and the processes through which it works.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.