<p>This is sure shaping up to maximum embarrassment on the part of the particle physics community--the Higgs doesn't exist, and won't be found. The amount of effort spent looking for it has to be one of the largest failures in all of science...</p><p>Sure, the model requires it--as currently written--but to have missed the fact that there may be some fundamental problems with the model seems unusually obtuse, even for the slide-rule crowd.</p><p>Face it--the photon communicates gravity, we don't need Dirac's spinny graviton (remember that other particle that will never be found?) and its hyper-ridiculous attendent idea of any arbitrary number of extra dimensions--truly absurd stuff.</p><p> </p><p>The parsimonous answer, using what we do know to explain the model--must be more closely looked at. Unification will be achieved by slightly re-writing the role of the photon, not inventing undiscoverable particles. </p><p>Care to weigh in?</p><p> </p><p>And by the way--blueman is back after 4 years in the woods--anyone still on from the old days?</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Why can't </p>
- Status
<p>And when you attack this idea, remember, please, that gravity is heretofore unexplained--care to reveal how the graviton works so well, and functions mechanically to create gravity?</p><p>That's the standard--not your ideas of how the above post seems paradoxical, or your personal standard about how we need a graviton to the exclusion of any other particle--it's time to get out of the same old arguments, and really look at this with fresh eyes and brains...</p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And when you attack this idea, remember, please, that gravity is heretofore unexplained--care to reveal how the graviton works so well, and functions mechanically to create gravity?That's the standard--not your ideas of how the above post seems paradoxical, or your personal standard about how we need a graviton to the exclusion of any other particle--it's time to get out of the same old arguments, and really look at this with fresh eyes and brains... <br /> Posted by blueman12</DIV></p><p>They've only begun to look for the Higgs particle. Give them some time before starting to make such claims.</p><p>PS. I requested this be moved to the physics forum. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They've only begun to look for the Higgs particle. Give them some time before starting to make such claims.PS. I requested this be moved to the physics forum. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>PPS... not to mention that we have several threads already open concerning this. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is sure shaping up to maximum embarrassment on the part of the particle physics community--the Higgs doesn't exist, and won't be found. The amount of effort spent looking for it has to be one of the largest failures in all of science...</DIV></p><p>Science tends to learn a lot from it's "failures" too. Part of science involves "risk" and "experimentation" to attempt to falsify and/or verify theories. I don't exactly see it as a "large failure" if we ultimately falsify a theory using this technology. We'll probably learn a lot about particle physics in the process even if we end up rewriting particle physcs as a result of what we learn. I guess I don't quite see ta negative result as a "failure" the way that you seem to feel.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sure, the model requires it--as currently written--but to have missed the fact that there may be some fundamental problems with the model seems unusually obtuse, even for the slide-rule crowd.</DIV></p><p>I think that's the idea of putting our theories to the "test", don't you? I mean if we do end up having to rewrite particle physics theory, we will need emprical evidence to support some other theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Face it--the photon communicates gravity,</DIV></p><p>Does that mean I'm heavier standing in the sunshine? Why am I not a lot lighter at night? 
</p><p>FYI, I'm willing to entertain your idea really, I just couldn't help interjecting a little levity in the conversation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>we don't need Dirac's spinny graviton (remember that other particle that will never be found?) and its hyper-ridiculous attendent idea of any arbitrary number of extra dimensions--truly absurd stuff. </DIV></p><p>Hmm, I'm going to have to study history a bit. I didn't think that Dirac proposed the graviton. I'm not personally sold on extra dimensions, but again, I'm not sure these ideas directly related to Dirac. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The parsimonous answer, using what we do know to explain the model--must be more closely looked at.</DIV></p><p>Isn't the point of the LHC to "closely look at" particle physical interactions? It seems to me that if your own theories have merit, then the LHC data could be quite useful in helping you build a valid physical model and/or to verify that physical model. It seems to me that you need the LHC data as much as they do, no?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unification will be achieved by slightly re-writing the role of the photon, not inventing undiscoverable particles. Care to weigh in? And by the way--blueman is back after 4 years in the woods--anyone still on from the old days? <br /> Posted by blueman12</DIV></p><p>I guess you predate my tenure here by a year or so. Anyway, I'm glad to meet you and I look forward to you explaining how you intend to rewrite particle physics. I'm a bit busy trying to rewrite cosmology theory at the moment, but I'm definitely interested in your ideas. Glad to meet you.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>FYI, I'm willing to entertain your idea really, I just couldn't help interjecting a little levity in the conversation. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>we don't need Dirac's spinny graviton (remember that other particle that will never be found?) and its hyper-ridiculous attendent idea of any arbitrary number of extra dimensions--truly absurd stuff. </DIV></p><p>Hmm, I'm going to have to study history a bit. I didn't think that Dirac proposed the graviton. I'm not personally sold on extra dimensions, but again, I'm not sure these ideas directly related to Dirac. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The parsimonous answer, using what we do know to explain the model--must be more closely looked at.</DIV></p><p>Isn't the point of the LHC to "closely look at" particle physical interactions? It seems to me that if your own theories have merit, then the LHC data could be quite useful in helping you build a valid physical model and/or to verify that physical model. It seems to me that you need the LHC data as much as they do, no?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unification will be achieved by slightly re-writing the role of the photon, not inventing undiscoverable particles. Care to weigh in? And by the way--blueman is back after 4 years in the woods--anyone still on from the old days? <br /> Posted by blueman12</DIV></p><p>I guess you predate my tenure here by a year or so. Anyway, I'm glad to meet you and I look forward to you explaining how you intend to rewrite particle physics. I'm a bit busy trying to rewrite cosmology theory at the moment, but I'm definitely interested in your ideas. Glad to meet you.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>Rather silly to begin bashing results before the LHC is even online. Will you issue a mea culpa if they find it?</p><p>I doubt it....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather silly to begin bashing results before the LHC is even online. Will you issue a mea culpa if they find it?</p><p>Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Good point. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And when you attack this idea....it's time to get out of the same old arguments, and really look at this with fresh eyes and brains... <br /> Posted by blueman12</DIV></font></p><p>The only "fresh eyes" we will have on the sub nuclear world will be the LHC. Every new thing it sees will be a step forward. Nothing the LHC finds or doesn't find will be an embarrassment to it's builders. It is a tool for gathering information. Are you against gathering information?</p><p>Is your position that we should not look for the Higgs because it is not there? That reminds me of this quote: </p><blockquote> <dl><dt><font color="#333399">"Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."</font></dt><dd class="author"><font color="#333399"><u><strong>Bertrand Russell</strong>,</u> <em>Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1</em><br /><em>British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)</em></font></dd></dl> </blockquote><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only "fresh eyes" we will have on the sub nuclear world will be the LHC. Every new thing it sees will be a step forward. Nothing the LHC finds or doesn't find will be an embarrassment to it's builders. It is a tool for gathering information. Are you against gathering information?Is your position that we should not look for the Higgs because it is not there? That reminds me of this quote: "Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970) <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p> I agree..even if the LHC doesn't find the Higgs or any of the other things it's looking for, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. When Galileo used his first telescope we didn't say galaxies or quasars don't exist because he didn't necessarily see them with his instrument. I am not a high energy physicist so i'm not really familiar with what the LHC can/can't find, but I do know that instrumentation limits do not mean what we are searchign for isn't there. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Rather silly to begin bashing results before the LHC is even online. Will you issue a mea culpa if they find it?I doubt it.... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></font></p>I think the mea culpa is due in full right now, since he is wrong to think that the success of the LHC is contingent on the discovery of the Higgs. <br /><p>It's one thing to predict results of the LHC, quite another to declare the LHC a waste of time and money. The utility of the LHC does not rest AT ALL on whether it finds the Higgs or not. Not finding the Higgs would be as momentous, maybe more so, as finding it. The fact is we have to look. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>In another thread, I mentioned the Tevatron might actually find the Higgs before the LHC does. They're getting closer:</p><p>http://www.physorg.com/news138628170.html</p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em><span>"Fermilab physicists hope that the techniques they used to find the single top quark could help them in their search for the proposed Higgs boson, a particle that exists so far only in theory but if actually found would have a huge impact on physics. The Higgs is expected to reveal such basic information as why nature assigned certain masses to certain particles—the origin of mass, essentially."</span></em></font></p><p>I'm actually rooting for the little engine that could... Go Fermilab!!! I know the Tevatron has done an excellent job of eliminating what masses and energies to look for concerning the Higgs boson. I wouldn't count them out. </p><p>I almost wet myself when I read the title of the article thinking they found an unconfined quark, but apparently this is not the same thing. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p>Going to try to answer this quasi-collectively, as there were a lot of posts when I was out. Thanks for the responses--amazing, that some peeople find this stuff boring! Little do they know!!!!! </p><p> </p><p>If they find the Higgs, then yes, huge mea culpa--goes without saying. However, interestingly, if history is any guide, when they don't, they'll just regress the question, saying you must need higher and higher energies--the negative will not be taken as falsification criteria, just like it never has in the past. As Hawking said, maybe we need an accelerator as large as the solar system...</p><p>So, yes, they're historically not adhering to Popper's falsification criteria, as the Higgs is the proverbial moving target--watch if they don't find it, I predict the search continues at higher energies. If you just trend that out, one day it may become a proof past testing--we just can't build a large enough collider, doesn't mean the Higgs isn't there--you know the drill.</p><p> </p><p>While some here tried to say I'm not honoring the basic principles of scientific testing, I of course feel I am and the search for the Higgs is not--first, I made a prediction, challenging the extant alternative, second, I think falsification criteria are not being met, here--no one's saying we'll stop looking for the Higgs at "N" energies--they are in essence not providing that most-most-basic of Popper's precepts, a quantified null hypothesis, an energy value beyond which they will not look.</p><p> This is a crucial statement--they need a null hypothesis--anyone care to gave me an Collider energy at which not finding the Higgs becomes disproof? Does the lack of evidence of flying spaghetti monsters disprove them? </p><p>Now, fo course a million million quacks have alternative models--still, my things is, lets please look somewhere else for mass. Gravity doesn't need the Higgs--we can explain it with any binary set of particles in mutual attraction, the positron and the electron come to mind--funny, how the diameter of the electron is the Planck length--doesn't that measure brings us to the logical limits, but not under the mantle, of string theory?</p><p> </p><p>As for cosmology--yes, the Big Bang theory would have to be seen as congruently incorrect, and a modified steady state model put in its place. The photon--yes, the way we measure redshift--need to be slightly re-invigorated--intergalactic gravity does redshift light enough to radically challenge our distance metrics.</p><p> </p><p>Here's the broad strokes--no, there's not less gravity at night--very funny, but kinda heard that one before!!! No, gravity is a positronic phenomena, the photon, as usual, communicates the force just as with em forces, but isn't the root cause. </p><p> So now I've done it, throw out the Higgs and BB cosmology--mostly because neither theory has adhered to the rules of scientific inquiry. Care to explain the null hypothesis derived from the Friedmann models--oh right--there is none--in fact, the greatest mistake in modern science, the failure to predict the type 1a survey results, was simply absorbed by a BB model gone mad. Now we use dark energy and inflation--both violations of the known laws--to prop up a model completely past the point of testing.</p><p> </p><p>Personally, I feel that both models are in a sad state of disrepair... </p>
</p><p> </p><p>If they find the Higgs, then yes, huge mea culpa--goes without saying. However, interestingly, if history is any guide, when they don't, they'll just regress the question, saying you must need higher and higher energies--the negative will not be taken as falsification criteria, just like it never has in the past. As Hawking said, maybe we need an accelerator as large as the solar system...</p><p>So, yes, they're historically not adhering to Popper's falsification criteria, as the Higgs is the proverbial moving target--watch if they don't find it, I predict the search continues at higher energies. If you just trend that out, one day it may become a proof past testing--we just can't build a large enough collider, doesn't mean the Higgs isn't there--you know the drill.</p><p> </p><p>While some here tried to say I'm not honoring the basic principles of scientific testing, I of course feel I am and the search for the Higgs is not--first, I made a prediction, challenging the extant alternative, second, I think falsification criteria are not being met, here--no one's saying we'll stop looking for the Higgs at "N" energies--they are in essence not providing that most-most-basic of Popper's precepts, a quantified null hypothesis, an energy value beyond which they will not look.</p><p> This is a crucial statement--they need a null hypothesis--anyone care to gave me an Collider energy at which not finding the Higgs becomes disproof? Does the lack of evidence of flying spaghetti monsters disprove them? </p><p>Now, fo course a million million quacks have alternative models--still, my things is, lets please look somewhere else for mass. Gravity doesn't need the Higgs--we can explain it with any binary set of particles in mutual attraction, the positron and the electron come to mind--funny, how the diameter of the electron is the Planck length--doesn't that measure brings us to the logical limits, but not under the mantle, of string theory?</p><p> </p><p>As for cosmology--yes, the Big Bang theory would have to be seen as congruently incorrect, and a modified steady state model put in its place. The photon--yes, the way we measure redshift--need to be slightly re-invigorated--intergalactic gravity does redshift light enough to radically challenge our distance metrics.</p><p> </p><p>Here's the broad strokes--no, there's not less gravity at night--very funny, but kinda heard that one before!!! No, gravity is a positronic phenomena, the photon, as usual, communicates the force just as with em forces, but isn't the root cause. </p><p> So now I've done it, throw out the Higgs and BB cosmology--mostly because neither theory has adhered to the rules of scientific inquiry. Care to explain the null hypothesis derived from the Friedmann models--oh right--there is none--in fact, the greatest mistake in modern science, the failure to predict the type 1a survey results, was simply absorbed by a BB model gone mad. Now we use dark energy and inflation--both violations of the known laws--to prop up a model completely past the point of testing.</p><p> </p><p>Personally, I feel that both models are in a sad state of disrepair... </p><p>Yes, of course we have to look--its the last undiscovered country, fersure. However, don't hold your breath about the Higgs, pay closer attention to data on the electron and positron...</p><p>Now, isn't that the point of science--to have some good competing theories, make some predictions, then see where the probabilistic chips fall? </p><p>Are you, in converse of the same standard you hold me to here, willing to word a null hypothesis regarding the Higgs? At what energies would you say that no, we need another explanation? </p>
<p>As you might see by reading my lengthier answer--I don't think the community is meeting the standards of scientific testing--I've as yet heard no answer about the Higgs null hypothesis energies--and without it, hate to say, no one ventured a real prediction. What would it take to disprove the theory--oh right, we won't say because we have no idea--well, maybe we already passed that point, the Higgs should have been seen an energies used elsewhere. </p><p>As usual, the community will probably stuff any discrepant data into their theory using the fudge factors we know and love--when I see venerated physicists saying superstrings is an elegant theory, I feel stupefied--this is so massively inelegant it makes everything in our dimension shake in its place. </p><p>Sillystrings, not superstrings.</p>
<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In another thread, I mentioned the Tevatron might actually find the Higgs before the LHC does. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></font></p><p>I don't know if the film "The Atom Smashers" has been mentioned on SDC before. http://cosmicvariance.com/2008/08/21/the-atom-smashers/ </p><p>Check out the trailer: http://137films.org/films/theatomsmashers/trailer.php </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And when you attack this idea, remember, please, that gravity is heretofore unexplained--care to reveal how the graviton works so well, and functions mechanically to create gravity?That's the standard--not your ideas of how the above post seems paradoxical, or your personal standard about how we need a graviton to the exclusion of any other particle--it's time to get out of the same old arguments, and really look at this with fresh eyes and brains... <br />Posted by blueman12</DIV></p><p>It is pretty clear that you are posting this rubbish merely to see how big a hornets nest you can stir up. It is rather pointless to wait until just before the LHC starts up and we see what actually is observed and how those observations are actually interpreted, unless your objective is simply to create fire and smoke.</p><p>It would rather hard, for instance, to explain how "the graviton works so well" when there is less evidence for the graviton than for the Higgs. Neither has been seen experimentally, however there are predictions for the Higgs via particle physics models. There is no quantum theory of gravity and hence no meaniingful prediction for the graviton beyond "If there is a quantum gravity and if there is a particle that carries the gravitational force we'll call it a graviton."<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p>you make excellent posts, here--I wa being a bit inflammatory, of course we need to investigate the sub-atomic--however, the search for the Higgs is not a good reason to do so, even rhetorically--when we fail to find it as widely expected, some may take that to mean the Collider was a failure. I don't see Collider-types saying that we built the thing just to see what's there (as seems implied in your response)--they have a model, and they want to verify it--so when (and if, I'm not certain of my position, just as they shouldn't be) they don't find the answers they expect, will they be able to say the model itself has a problem? That there is no Higgs?</p><p> </p><p>No, I expected they'll just regress the question--as I said, they have not provied a null hypothesis in this debate, always a truly bad sign.</p><p> </p><p>of course, they may find the real answers, they may locate mass through another route, and any intelligent person has to worship that quest...</p><p> </p><p>I think we're not going to find a lot of what is expected. Doesn't mean the thing shouldn't have been built, just that they should refocus the inquiry, and give the public a reasonable expectation of result.</p><p> </p><p>If you hint that you may deliver the Higgs--and it can't possibly be delivered--you set yourself up for the perception of failure, like it or not.</p><p> </p><p>Good points. Thanks for responding. </p><p> </p>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only "fresh eyes" we will have on the sub nuclear world will be the LHC. Every new thing it sees will be a step forward. Nothing the LHC finds or doesn't find will be an embarrassment to it's builders. It is a tool for gathering information. Are you against gathering information?Is your position that we should not look for the Higgs because it is not there? That reminds me of this quote: "Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970) <br />Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>this is overstated, no? Who in the world is against finding information? However, I am emphatically against the search for the yeti and the sasquatch, and I think building hot air balloons to search for them would be not only a waste of money, but would divert our attention from the little wolverines, which actually exist. </p>
I think you may have misread this--I don't think there's a graviton, either--as I sadi, Dirac may have been wrong
<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>this is overstated, no? Who in the world is against finding information? However, I am emphatically against the search for the yeti and the sasquatch, and I think building hot air balloons to search for them would be not only a waste of money, but would divert our attention from the little wolverines, which actually exist. <br /> Posted by blueman12</DIV></font><br />The LHC is not only built to look for Higgs, it is built to look for whatever is there. </p><p>If one cannot secure funding for a balloon to study the environment of an area, but can get funding to look for Yeti (and in the meantime manage to study the environment), where is the harm? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Going to try to answer this quasi-collectively, as there were a lot of posts when I was out. Thanks for the responses--amazing, that some peeople find this stuff boring! Little do they know!!!!! If they find the Higgs, then yes, huge mea culpa--goes without saying. However, interestingly, if history is any guide, when they don't, they'll just regress the question, saying you must need higher and higher energies--the negative will not be taken as falsification criteria, just like it never has in the past. </DIV></p><p>It's funny you should say that since I have many of the same criticisms as it applies to cosmology theories. I guess that really the root question behind the thread I started on this same topic. I wonder if someone could stick them together at this point?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As Hawking said, maybe we need an accelerator as large as the solar system...So, yes, they're historically not adhering to Popper's falsification criteria, as the Higgs is the proverbial moving target--watch if they don't find it, I predict the search continues at higher energies. </DIV></p><p>Well, that does remain a "possibility" doesn't it? I guess I need to hear to your whole "speal" to understand why your ideas are "better" or why you think they would eliminate the need for a Higgs boson (albeit some collection of electron/positron pair(s)).</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you just trend that out, one day it may become a proof past testing--we just can't build a large enough collider, doesn't mean the Higgs isn't there--you know the drill.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and there are also implications in that attitude as it relates to "dark matter" and "dark energy" etc.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While some here tried to say I'm not honoring the basic principles of scientific testing, I of course feel I am and the search for the Higgs is not--first, I made a prediction, challenging the extant alternative, second, I think falsification criteria are not being met, here--no one's saying we'll stop looking for the Higgs at "N" energies--they are in essence not providing that most-most-basic of Popper's precepts, a quantified null hypothesis, an energy value beyond which they will not look. </DIV></p><p>IMO that is a valid criticism and it applies to many fields of science, not just particle physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, fo course a million million quacks have alternative models--still, my things is, lets please look somewhere else for mass. Gravity doesn't need the Higgs--we can explain it with any binary set of particles in mutual attraction, the positron and the electron come to mind--funny, how the diameter of the electron is the Planck length--doesn't that measure brings us to the logical limits, but not under the mantle, of string theory?</DIV></p><p>I have often thought these same thoughts but how do you "build" a proton or any identified subatomic particle from "pairs and spares" of positrons/electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As for cosmology--yes, the Big Bang theory would have to be seen as congruently incorrect, and a modified steady state model put in its place. </DIV></p><p>You'll get no arguement from me on that point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The photon--yes, the way we measure redshift--need to be slightly re-invigorated--intergalactic gravity does redshift light enough to radically challenge our distance metrics.</DIV></p><p>http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Ari+Brynjolfsson/0/1/0/all/0/1</p><p>If you haven't read any of Ari's papers, you probably would enjoy them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's the broad strokes--no, there's not less gravity at night--very funny, but kinda heard that one before!!! </DIV></p><p>I still haven't hear youd explain why that might be true yet. Why not? Are you not suggesting that gravity is a "pushing" force composed of photons, sort of like a quantum mechanical approach to gravity? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, gravity is a positronic phenomena, the photon, as usual, communicates the force just as with em forces, but isn't the root cause. </DIV></p><p>Got a paper or a website that explains this a bit?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So now I've done it, throw out the Higgs and BB cosmology--mostly because neither theory has adhered to the rules of scientific inquiry. </DIV></p><p>Well, I'd personally be inclined to agree with you as it relates to BB theory, but I'm less convinced that is true as it relates to particle physics. It seems to me like there is a lot of physicsl support for various aspects of particle physics, including valence shells and how they release photons at specific wavelengths, etc. You'll need to show me a "better" way of achieving these same results.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Care to explain the null hypothesis derived from the Friedmann models--oh right--there is none--in fact, the greatest mistake in modern science, the failure to predict the type 1a survey results, was simply absorbed by a BB model gone mad. Now we use dark energy and inflation--both violations of the known laws--to prop up a model completely past the point of testing. Personally, I feel that both models are in a sad state of disrepair... </DIV></p><p>It seems to me that we're pretty much in total agreement on the cosmology issue, but I'll have to do more reading before I comment on your particle physics ideas. </p><p>I still think you're either understimating the value of these LHC experiments as it relates to your own theories. You won't overturn standard theory unless and until you can provide evidence that better supports your model. From my perspective these same experiments could prove rather vital in helping you make your case for some other model. A simply "negative result" probably won't falsify the old idea, but some other type of finding might help you make a case for a superior physical model.</p><p>I have often thought that electron/positron pairs may hold the key to unlocking the atom, but I've yet to see any such model explain the observed phemonemon of particle physics very well. What is a "proton" for instance, and how does it become "stable" at that specific rest mass? What is a neutron? Why does it decay into a proton, eletron and antineurtrino in about 10 minutes? Those kinds of answers would pique my curiosity. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
If they find the Higgs, then yes, huge mea culpa--goes without saying. However, interestingly, if history is any guide, when they don't, they'll just regress the question, saying you must need higher and higher energies--the negative will not be taken as falsification criteria, just like it never has in the past. </DIV></p><p>It's funny you should say that since I have many of the same criticisms as it applies to cosmology theories. I guess that really the root question behind the thread I started on this same topic. I wonder if someone could stick them together at this point?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As Hawking said, maybe we need an accelerator as large as the solar system...So, yes, they're historically not adhering to Popper's falsification criteria, as the Higgs is the proverbial moving target--watch if they don't find it, I predict the search continues at higher energies. </DIV></p><p>Well, that does remain a "possibility" doesn't it? I guess I need to hear to your whole "speal" to understand why your ideas are "better" or why you think they would eliminate the need for a Higgs boson (albeit some collection of electron/positron pair(s)).</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you just trend that out, one day it may become a proof past testing--we just can't build a large enough collider, doesn't mean the Higgs isn't there--you know the drill.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and there are also implications in that attitude as it relates to "dark matter" and "dark energy" etc.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While some here tried to say I'm not honoring the basic principles of scientific testing, I of course feel I am and the search for the Higgs is not--first, I made a prediction, challenging the extant alternative, second, I think falsification criteria are not being met, here--no one's saying we'll stop looking for the Higgs at "N" energies--they are in essence not providing that most-most-basic of Popper's precepts, a quantified null hypothesis, an energy value beyond which they will not look. </DIV></p><p>IMO that is a valid criticism and it applies to many fields of science, not just particle physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, fo course a million million quacks have alternative models--still, my things is, lets please look somewhere else for mass. Gravity doesn't need the Higgs--we can explain it with any binary set of particles in mutual attraction, the positron and the electron come to mind--funny, how the diameter of the electron is the Planck length--doesn't that measure brings us to the logical limits, but not under the mantle, of string theory?</DIV></p><p>I have often thought these same thoughts but how do you "build" a proton or any identified subatomic particle from "pairs and spares" of positrons/electrons? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> As for cosmology--yes, the Big Bang theory would have to be seen as congruently incorrect, and a modified steady state model put in its place. </DIV></p><p>You'll get no arguement from me on that point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The photon--yes, the way we measure redshift--need to be slightly re-invigorated--intergalactic gravity does redshift light enough to radically challenge our distance metrics.</DIV></p><p>http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Ari+Brynjolfsson/0/1/0/all/0/1</p><p>If you haven't read any of Ari's papers, you probably would enjoy them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Here's the broad strokes--no, there's not less gravity at night--very funny, but kinda heard that one before!!! </DIV></p><p>I still haven't hear youd explain why that might be true yet. Why not? Are you not suggesting that gravity is a "pushing" force composed of photons, sort of like a quantum mechanical approach to gravity? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, gravity is a positronic phenomena, the photon, as usual, communicates the force just as with em forces, but isn't the root cause. </DIV></p><p>Got a paper or a website that explains this a bit?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So now I've done it, throw out the Higgs and BB cosmology--mostly because neither theory has adhered to the rules of scientific inquiry. </DIV></p><p>Well, I'd personally be inclined to agree with you as it relates to BB theory, but I'm less convinced that is true as it relates to particle physics. It seems to me like there is a lot of physicsl support for various aspects of particle physics, including valence shells and how they release photons at specific wavelengths, etc. You'll need to show me a "better" way of achieving these same results.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Care to explain the null hypothesis derived from the Friedmann models--oh right--there is none--in fact, the greatest mistake in modern science, the failure to predict the type 1a survey results, was simply absorbed by a BB model gone mad. Now we use dark energy and inflation--both violations of the known laws--to prop up a model completely past the point of testing. Personally, I feel that both models are in a sad state of disrepair... </DIV></p><p>It seems to me that we're pretty much in total agreement on the cosmology issue, but I'll have to do more reading before I comment on your particle physics ideas. </p><p>I still think you're either understimating the value of these LHC experiments as it relates to your own theories. You won't overturn standard theory unless and until you can provide evidence that better supports your model. From my perspective these same experiments could prove rather vital in helping you make your case for some other model. A simply "negative result" probably won't falsify the old idea, but some other type of finding might help you make a case for a superior physical model.</p><p>I have often thought that electron/positron pairs may hold the key to unlocking the atom, but I've yet to see any such model explain the observed phemonemon of particle physics very well. What is a "proton" for instance, and how does it become "stable" at that specific rest mass? What is a neutron? Why does it decay into a proton, eletron and antineurtrino in about 10 minutes? Those kinds of answers would pique my curiosity. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>Jeez, can you ever write a post that takes less than a hundred lines? And dozen replies to one post?</p><p>Your obsessive overdissection in your replies makes my eyes glaze over before I can even absorb the content.</p><p>{f}</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only "fresh eyes" we will have on the sub nuclear world will be the LHC. Every new thing it sees will be a step forward. Nothing the LHC finds or doesn't find will be an embarrassment to it's builders. It is a tool for gathering information. Are you against gathering information?Is your position that we should not look for the Higgs because it is not there? That reminds me of this quote: "Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths."Bertrand Russell, Impact of Science on Society (1952) ch. 1British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970) <br /> Posted by centsworth_II</DIV></p><p>I agree with those sentiments 100%. Everything we learn from these sorts of experiments helps us to better understand the universe we live in. The folks that built and will operate LHC have everything to be proud of, and nothing to be embarssed by. regardless of the outcome of their experiments. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>no real harm, I guess, I guess I just prefer a tightly focused inquiry. the best theories going in means the best chance of finding out the right stuff?</p>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
4 years after the giant Arecibo Observatory collapsed, we finally know what happened
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
China planning to build its own version of SpaceX's Starship
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Boom Supersonic's XB-1 jet sets new speed record during 7th test flight
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Why does classical physics gravity formulas/measurements do not work at a quantum level, what’s missing?
- Started by jhixon
- Replies: 6
-
NASA still mum about SpaceX Crew-8 astronaut's medical issue
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram