This post is inspired by recent blog post of Tomaso Dorigo, who announced finding of Higgs boson with mass of about 150 GeV. By official media coverage it's just a rumour, that's got out of hand, as expressed by Fermilab's spokes'girl. More interestingly is, what's behind this rumour - and I don't mean over imagination or exploding ego of Mr. Dorigo, as Fermilab's Twitter post implies spitefully. Or do you really believe, Fermilab would give its official stance through Twitter? Such anonymous message is even much less reliable, then the original blogpost of Mr. Dorigo. But such way of prematurely presentation of results and their vetoing indicates, how mainstream physics maneuvers between less or more opened tendency to announce findings as soon as possible for the sake of publicity and/or grant support ex una parte - and the demonstrative expression of conservative skepticism on the other hand.
IMO Higgs boson is the same fuzzy unparticle stuff, like the virtual bosons responsible for Casimir force - their effective mass depends on surface geometry. Just at the case of Higgs boson the upper bound is limited by mass of top quark, so it can form a fuzzy signal, corresponding the dilepton channel of top quark decay, which was observed already. If even more massive quark exists, then its corresponding Higgs should indeed exist too and the whole concept of unique "God's particle" becomes fringe.
Mr. Dorigo himself putted the nail into coffin of Higgs boson by his previous announcement of fourth generation of quarks in 450 GeV range. Before finding of neutrino oscillation, the Standard Model contained 19 arbitrary dimensionless constants describing the masses of the particles and the strengths of the electroweak and strong forces. After the discovery of neutrino mass the new Standard Model requires 26 fundamental dimensionless constants, whose numerical values are, to the best of present understanding, arbitrary. Currently Standard Model is indeed incompatible with fourth generation of quarks or neutrinos, but thanks so high number of constants flexible enough to implement even higher particle generations. It's sort of regressive epicycle model keeping the Ptolemaic physics of modern era alive.
We can say, this finding is of approximatelly the same relevance like the previous finding of Higgs boson anounced (about three sigma in error level). And quess what? In this time the blog article was handled by NewScientist quite seriously and it got full coverage in media. The whole trick here is, most of physicists actually do not believe in concept of Higgs boson on background - despite the massive propaganda in CERN related media, the main purpose is to justify expensive experiments at LHC.
The title of recent another NewScientist article "In SUSY we trust: What the LHC is really looking for" (full version) illustrates clearly, physicists are aware of the conceptual problems of Higgs field concept. The article should be interpreted like: "Uhm, well, ... we actually don't believe, Higgs boson will be ever found at LHC - so we should concentrate to supersymmetry instead. ."
With respect to AdS/CFT duality the success or problems with particle search at Planck scale will be replicated/mirrored at cosmological scales (WIMPs detection) and vice-versa. Therefore it's not so strange, when dual situation recently appeared in media, when scientists started to speculate, (primordial) gravitational waves cannot be found at all due the "quantum-spread", which would render detectors of gravitational waves useless in the same way, like the LHC at quantum scale.
This is an example, how seemingly spontaneous scientific PR is basically working - layman public should trace subliminal messages of it for to get the realistic picture about opinion of this close sectarian community in the noise of PR journalism and propaganda.
Posts
42 comments:
Dear Zephir,
The Higgs boson is a scientific idea, and this boson is not propaganda to get funds as you insure. The Higgs boson is the quantum of the Higgs Fields. An scalar massive field that is introduced as mechanism to explain the spontaneous symmetry breaking, that indeed occurs in the electroweak Salam-Glashow-Weinberg's Theory. This boson is coupled to the different particles of the standard model and provides them of their nonzero rest mass. Thanks to this boson, that fills the whole Universe, you are not moving to the speed of light c. The Higgs boson's VEV is not zero. The weak interaction and the electromagnetic interaction are not unified in the low energy regime. Without the Higgs boson how the hell could you differentiate between the Proca equations with the Maxwell equations?
Only a jealous savant like Hawking or a boeotian dude like you can hold such nonsenses.
Does the Higgs Mechanism Exist?
The Unhiggs
If Standard Model cannot predict Higgs boson mass, it actually means, it cannot use it in any equation, which actually means, it doesn't require it for anything.
100 predictions of Higgs mass
It would be better if we only had to introduce three coupling constants, i.e., one per factor that appears in the symmetry group SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) of the Standard Model. But, In the Lagrangian of the standard model there are another term that describe the Higgs boson field. Its vacuum expectation value gives a mass to the W and Z bosons. Unfortunately, the potential energy of this field, contains two new parameters which play a role in determining the W boson mass. And even worse, It's also necessary additional Lagrangian terms to provide the mass to the quarks and leptons, I mean three complex 3x3 matrices of new parameters Lij.
So, you are right, the standard model is incomplete, but is the best theory of elementary particles that I know. And you?
BTW, thanks for the first link, I'm very interested in the Philosophy of science. Great paper.
/*..standard model is incomplete, but is the best theory of elementary particles that I know...*/
Best theory of elementary particles (..actually the only one, which can predict something about them, not only to postdict..) is Heim theory.
I have not idea how Heim's theory can predict the mass of the elementary particles. I don't understand a word of the mathematical techniques used by this theory, i.e., Selector Calculus. I only can say that the theory is not accepted by the mainstream physics community. The best physicists, who I had the privilege of speaking, have told me that the theory is inconsistent. But unfortunately, my knowledge in the matter is insufficient to understand their assertions. My hope is that Garrett will calculate at last the mass of the elementary particles using the axions within his E8 Theory.
Anyway, the Higgs boson may not be accommodated in the Heim Theory. Because in the Heim Theory, the Higgs mechanism is not necessary for endowing a mass to the elementary particles. So, this theory could be falsified in the next few years when the boson Higgs was observed at LHC. Then I hope a post from you recognising that the theory has failed as a TOE, instead a probable post denying the experimental evidence. I know you, Zephir ;-).
Moreover, if the theory doesn't need the Higgs mechanism, then she will never be accepted by the mainstream physics community. The theory has been doomed by the academic authorities. So, we can see a clear case of numerology rather than physics. Elementary my dear Watson.
If the Higgs boson wasn't found at the LHC it would be one of the greatest scientific deceptions of all times, along with string theory and the Heck bull.
/*if the theory doesn't need the Higgs mechanism*/
Heim theory is said to be a Higgs-less theory as it is not dependent on the Higgs mechanism for the concept of mass.
Standard Model cannot predict mass of Higgs boson. It means, it cannot use Higgs mass for any prediction in any equation - so it actually doesn't need the Higgs boson, too.
Dear Zephir,
A standard model without Higgs boson is like a hornless unicorn. How the hell are you going to explain the mass of all elementary particles without Higgs mechanism? The Higgs boson is necessary in the standard model and indeed, does exist. It's a elementary particle that satisfy the B-E statistics. Why don't you also refuted all of the predictions made by General Relativity as this theory have the need to use the Newton's gravitational constant in the Einstein field equations?
Heim theory is able to compute properties of most elementary particles into five to seven digits of precision (compare the Java applet).
Whereas Standard Model will not able to do it even after confirmation of Higgs boson. The GUITAR theoryhttp://quantoken.blogspot.com/2005/02/predictions-of-guitar-theory.html can predict the neutron to electron mass ratio up to 10 decimal places.
How are you able to write such nonsenses whose sole propose is to discredit a well established theory, which has been build with a lot of effort of many physicists and investing much money, meanwhile you are promoting a system of absurd thoughts that form an inconsistent set of ideas dubbed AWT by yourself. You are doing a bad use of a misunderstood freedom, and you don't show any respect for science. But it's a common behaviour of all communist-ecologists like you that want to ruin the free market of assets and ideas.
Who cares about purpose? Have I said something, which is not perfectly true?
Why do we study?
We study to know that we are not alone. ;-)
Zephir,
The science needs money. Science is not free. Scientists need jobs to sustain to their families and themselves. It's legitimate to look for money, even if you need to think up a God's particle. The life is not a bed of roses, despite all the things that were said to you by the liars communists, when you were a child.
Hi ElCid,
Why these theories should be dismissed? In particular Heim's theory is the only theory, which can calculate mass of electron and LeSage theory is the only one, which can predict inverse square law for gravity. We've no better theories yet.
Zephir,
The answer to your question is very difficult. It's the main problem of the philosophy of science. What is science and what is non-science? Where is the demarcation criterion?
Well the problem is not solved, so I give my personal point of view. For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it. For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to the speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-). But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newton's laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents plasticity and bla bla bla. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)
“... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...“ :-O
Moreover, what is exactly a force F? the only things that are objective in classical mechanics are the concepts using in kinematics to describe the motion, namely, position, time, velocity and acceleration. The other concepts including force, momentum, energy ... are simply resources using by the human mind to explain the motion in an approximate manner. To describe more complex motions, you need to add more tools in the halo, and so on. But this concepts don't exists in nature. You could use another concepts or human mind's resources to describe the same motion. Then, why the scientists accept some theories and dismiss others? In the same manner why does the human beings embrace a particular religion?
I don't know, but for example Le Sage's theory can be used as a model of plasma and could have been used to predict cosmic microwave background. See the Wikipedia's article for more details. I think the science community has to pick up a theory as basis of a phenomenon and Le Sage's theory of gravity or Heim's theory had not luck.
Zephir,
The answer to your question is very difficult. It's the main problem of the philosophy of science. What is science and what is non-science? Where is the demarcation criterion?
Well the problem is not solved, so I give my personal point view. For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it. For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-D. But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newtons laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents plasticity and bla bla bla. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)
“... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...“ :-O
For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it. For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-D. But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newtons laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents plasticity and bla bla bla. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)
“... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...“ :-O
Zephir,
The answer to your question is very difficult. It's the main problem of the philosophy of science. What is science and what is non-science? Where is the demarcation criterion?
Well the problem is not solved, so I give my personal point view. For me science is primarily an activity done by human beings. And activity that lets us to make tools to interact with nature. Any theory is unable to depict the reality. All theories are wrong and are inconsistent by themselves. You need to build an halo around the postulates of the theory to cover it.
For example, is classical mechanics the correct theory to explain the motion of the macroscopic bodies with low speeds with respect to speed of light? Any physicist would say, sure without any doubt :-D. But it's simply false. What is the movement of a towel of mass m under a rap in vacuum?. The acceleration of the centre of mass of the towel, only a point :-(, is approximately described by the Newtons laws if you model the rap as a adequate force F. What about of the geometry of the towel? Well, the physicists would start to build the halo to salve classical mechanics, the towel presents plasticity and bla bla bla. Ask to a physicist, (Lubos i.e.)
“... the towel is a macroscopic body with low speed so, what is the evolution with the time of the geometry of the towel? ...“ :-O
Moreover, what is exactly a force F? the only things that are objective in classical mechanics are the concepts using in kinematics to describe the motion, namely, position, time, velocity and acceleration. The other concepts including force, momentum, energy ... are simply resources using by human mind to explain the motion in an approximate manner. To describe more complex motions, you need to add more tools in the halo, and so on. But this concepts don't exists in nature. You could use another concepts or human resources to describe the same motion.
Then, why the scientists accept some theories and dismiss others? In the same manner why does the human beings embrace a particular religion?
I don't know, but for example Le Sage's theory can be used as a model of plasma and could have been used to predict cosmic microwave background. See the Wikipedia's article for more details. I think the science community has to pick up a theory as basis of a phenomenon and Le Sage's theory of gravity or Heim's theory had not luck.
/*..why the scientists accept some theories and dismiss others?..*/
Scientists prefer theories, which are enabling them writing another theories. Some explanation or understanding or even ability to compute something plays there no role at all.
What theory explains the movement of fire?
Simulation of flame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vm5FTMPxz0
Exactly, Zephir, thanks for the link,
This simulation has nothing to do with physics, but rather with a graphic description of fire using kinematics tools. You don't have to know any physics in order to make a realistic simulation of fire. The tools using to make these simulations are kinematics quantities. You don't need forces, stresses, energies and other concepts used in mechanics, plasma physics, ... . Although, you could use them, if you wish, with good results.
As an example, we have two papers:
- The first paper proposes to make a simulation based on physics, including the three laws of classical mechanics plus an immense halo of tools or new concepts. The results are indeed very good. See “Depicting fire and other gaseous phenomena using diffusion processes“ for more details, it's free.
- The second paper proposes to make a simulation without physics. The results are even better.
Specifically,
“We introduce a set of techniques that are used together to produce realistic-looking animations of burning objects. These include a new method for simulating spreading on polygonal meshes. A key component of our approach consists in using individual flames as primitives to animate and render the fire. This simplification enables rapid computation and gives more intuitive control over the simulation without compromising realism. It also scales well, making it possible to animate phenomena ranging from simple candle-like flames to complex, widespread fires.“
See “Realistic and Controllable Fire Simulation“ for more details it's also free.
So, you can simulate a complex motion with or without physics. With or without academic science. But a physicist barely admits this evidence, that's the truth.
Do you understand now, why AWT, Heim's Theory or Le Sage's theory of gravitation are banned by physicists?
Exactly, Zephir, thanks for the link,
This simulation has nothing to do with physics, but rather with a graphic description of fire using kinematics tools. You don't have to know any physics in order to make a realistic simulation of fire. The tools using to make these simulations are kinematics quantities. You don't need forces, stresses, energies and other concepts used in mechanics, plasma physics, ... . Although, you could use them, if you wish, with good results.
As an example, we have two papers:
- The first paper proposes to make a simulation based on physics, including the three laws of classical mechanics plus an immense halo of tools or new concepts. The results are indeed very good. See “Depicting fire and other gaseous phenomena using diffusion processes“ for more details, it's free.
- The second paper proposes to make a simulation without physics. The results are even better.
Specifically,
“We introduce a set of techniques that are used together to produce realistic-looking animations of burning objects. These include a new method for simulating spreading on polygonal meshes. A key component of our approach consists in using individual flames as primitives to animate and render the fire. This simplification enables rapid computation and gives more intuitive control over the simulation without compromising realism. It also scales well, making it possible to animate phenomena ranging from simple candle-like flames to complex, widespread fires.“
See “Realistic and Controllable Fire Simulation“ for more details it's also free.
So, you can simulate a complex motion with or without physics. With or without academic science. But a physicist barely admits this evidence, that's the truth.
Do you understand now, why AWT, Heim's Theory or Le Sage's theory of gravitation are banned by physicists?
Oh, I almost forgot,
You can enjoy the fire with the art, the best manner.
Does Peer Review Work?
Peer review is important for professional scientific community, as it should prohibit earning money with complete BSs. But for truly innovative and independent scientists its just a brake of evolution, as Einstein already noted. BTW Most of string theory publications were presented just at ArXiv, simply because of lack of independent reviewers.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43691
Peer review cannot work well under the situation, when the density of informations and the degree of specialization increases up to level, only experts which are very close to authors can judge their article in qualified way. It violates the anonymity of referees and their objectiveness undeniably. The problem is, scientific community needs to decide about grant and money flow faster, then the completely objective process could enable. In general, I'd recommend, the works of independent researchers shouldn't be a subject of peer review. Only if scientists need a money from the rest of community for their research, they should accept rules of this community. The more public money is involved into research, the more strict should be its rules for publication.
For example, I'm developing AWT in my free time, I don't require money of tax payers for it - so it's solely in my competence to decide, where and how I will present it. Of course, professional scientists don't like it, because of my dumping price policy, but this is a life. Every community needs a competition from outside, or it will degenerate in less or more distant future. Actually I'm helping to increase effectiveness of scientific work for my own money, thus helping whole civilization.
Dear Zephir,
I'm still waiting for a rectification on this post ;-).
The fraction of the proton mass which comes from its interaction with the Higgs mechanism is less than 1%. When gluons are bosons and they're supposed to have the zero rest mass in Standard Model (which is not true in dense aether theory), then the mass of proton is apparently higher than the sum of quarks masses. If the binding energy is not hidden in the qluons, where it actually is? And vice versa - if we can have a mass generated just with binding energy, for what the Higgs mechanism is actually good for? The binding energy of weak nuclear force mediated with W/Z bosons is sufficient to "explain" the mass of these bosons even without need of some Higgs field.
Higgs mechanism for students
It is not Higgs - The basic concepts, principles and statements of the electroweak and the quark-gluon theories and the theory of gravitation are deduced from properties of the point-like events probabilities. Higgs, strings, Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not required.
The mass of Higgs boson found was at 4*PI/alpha. Alpha being the fine structure constant: 1/alpha = 137.03599911. So 4*PI/alpha = 1722.045.
The mass unit equals electron mass divided by alpha, or 137.03599911 times electron mass, or 137.03599911 * 0.510999 MeV = 70.0252585 MeV.
Thus the resonance state Quantoken predicted was 1722.045 * 70.0252585 MeV = 120.58666 GeV. That’s precisely where the “bump” occurs.
Post a Comment