Breakthrough in Physics

Quote from RobertBryant

Ptolemaic epicycles were very complex

This is a paralogism, an apparently rational statement that unfortunately doesn't work.

Does not exist such a thing as a simple computer or a "simple" living being. Humans are much more complex than bacteria.

Please, Just use common sense!

Almost all of physicists consider SM the state of art. How it is possible that they are wrong and a few percent right ?

How can be possible that global international hugely funded projects are not the right-thing to do ?

Only paranoic die-hard conspiracy theorists may think differently

Quote

It's should be clear to all now, that significant new advances in physics can come exclusively from large, well funded, organization as CERN or very large international projects as ITER.

Personally I don't disagree and I think, it applies at best only to certain epochs of physics development - this one driven with transverse wave spreading. Now the mainstream science is only starting to slowly reietrate hyperdimensional stuffs, which were experimentally revealed by Nicola Tesla before decades and/or revealed by various individuals like Burkhard Heim, Williamson & van der Mark or Nigel B. Cook. These guys were able to calculate mass of electron and to predict its structure without expensive and useless collider experiments and well before CERN cooparation will ever manage to do:

But mainstream physicists are so ignorant, that they even don't realize, how ignorant they actually are. Because they learned to ignore research of these individuals completely, so that they get no publicity in mainstream and laymen can thus easily get an impression, that only expensive large cooperations is the only reliable way of progress, because this is exactly what the mainstream physics wants they believe. But mainstream research just reiterates the results done by someone else before years. I don't really require CERN for knowing, how to calculate electron mass and how electrons really look like.

"The history of physics (alas, seldom studied by physicists) clearly shows that many simple theories have had to be abandoned in favour of more complex and ‘ugly’ ones."

https://aeon.co/ideas/richard-…auty-and-truth-in-science

Quote

Almost all of physicists consider SM the state of art. How it is possible that they are wrong and a few percent right ?

Easily, at the time of Galielo the Ptolemy epicycles were also considered a state of art. With compare to epicycle theory Standard Model looks ever worse for me, because it's not based on any geometric insight behind it - it's fully formal regression based on Lagrangians and their propagators fitted to collider data by two dozens of constants - so it also cannot also calculate nothing more than scattering amplitudes - i.e. no mass of any particle or its life-time. It's pure "WYSIWIG", i.e. "what you see is what you get" formal garbage disguised as a theory. It cannot even predict mass of simplest particle observable, i.e. of Higgs boson. The technical derivation of the Higgs mechanism, consists in a mere reshuffling of degrees of freedom by transforming Higgs Lagrangian in a gauge-invariant manner. Furthemore a well known "hiearchy problem" implies, that quantum corrections can make the mass of the Higgs particle arbitrarily large, since virtual particles with arbitrarily large energies are allowed in quantum mechanics. The guesses go from 10^-9 GeV to 760 GeV. There are so many comparably likely models - most of which contain continuous parameters whose values aren't calculable right now - that the whole interval is covered almost uniformly.

Quote from Walter Pegeto

Almost all of physicists consider SM the state of art. How it is possible that they are wrong and a few percent right ?

Physicists and physicians are not so different..

They fall in love with their majority pet theories.

However truth in science is not decided by a vote

we do not live in Galileo's age ... or do we ?

"

Dr. Alfred Sommer, the former dean of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, recalled how medical leaders in the 1980's rejected evidence that inexpensive vitamin A pills could prevent death from infections as well as blindness. Now it is standard therapy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/1…-battling-the-system.html

Quote

The history of physics (alas, seldom studied by physicists) clearly shows

It's important to learn from the past, but not to make religion of it because situation can objectively change - so that our experience may not remain fully transferable to it. In dense aether model the space-time around us looks like water surface, which is observed by its own ripples. At proximity it looks complex and incomprehensible like Brownian noise of underwater. With increasing distance these fluctuations compensate mutually, so that the surface rippes spread in regular circles. This corresponds the dominant era of mainstream science based on transverse wave model and ignoring background. The physicists got an impression, that observable reality is governed by two simple theories (general relativity and quantum mechanics) and that all practical predictions can be made by their adding of proper terms and propagators.

But with increasing scope of the observations regular character of surface waves disappears and water surface reality becomes chaotic and turbulent again in similar way, like the quantum reality at small scales.This is also why objects at scale of atom orbitals or average stars looks so perfectly round and outside them they gain irregular or even spikey hyperdimensional character again. So that the evolution of reductionists model in physics reverses its sign and seemingly individual models separated from mainstream gain their credit again. The reality described by these theories doesn't look like regular spheres at this scale - but merely like foam composed of many individual surfaces.

Quote

Only paranoic die-hard conspiracy theorists may think differently

The maverick researchers tend to overestimate importance and scope of their findings in similar way, like mainstream physicists. But the experience learns us, there is not smoke without fire. The pushing of anomalies made by conspirationists often comes in hand with pluralistic ignorance of mainstream masses, which tend to ignore all anomalies. After all, aren't we all in forum dedicated to cold-fusion/LENR which is still considered a typical pseudoscience founded and pushed by nanothermite conspiratorist Steven Jones?

Quote from Walter Pegeto

It's should be clear to all now, that significant new advances in physics can come exclusively from large, well funded, organization as CERN or very large international projects as ITER. It's important to discover always new particles and new laws that enrich more and more our knowledge database. SM is at moment the most advanced and consequently complex model available for understanding physical reality.

The predictive power of SM in regards to measurable quantities is "0" = zero. I just remind you what the working hypothesis for the fake-Higgs was. Give us some Terra EV an we will find it somewhere...

The fake Higgs is a simple resonance of the proton relativistic mass (what a surprise when using protons... just a simple multiplication...) ...

SM gives you a catalog of particles nothing more. No real masses, no radius, no magnetic moments ...

Large institutions only survive if they organize themselves by today more or less religious formulas like we are right/do the right thing.

As I already commented: All SM math is logically connected by just twisting /reshuffling rearranging re-gauging known formalism you will not find any real new insight that is logically above the todays catalog of particles.

SM is 180 degree wrong based because its connection to reality are potentials, what finally leads to completely silly reasoning like exchange particles, that should be massless - any even more outraging assumption...

SM is except for the particle catalogue and the high energy potential like behavior fringe science and it is easy to predict that in the future it will deliver a treasure for coffee break jokes.

Translating what you says in layman's terms, we can state that a large part of the international scientific community, like in the middle-age, follows sheeply a religious paradigm that simply does not work?

Sorry to repeat again the same mantra, but all this stuff looks to me as yet another conspiracy theory.

Quote

The fake Higgs is a simple resonance of the proton relativistic mass (what a surprise when using protons... just a simple multiplication...)

For me Higgs boson not only is real but even first supersymmetric particle ever discovered. If we would have microwave eyes, we would see sparse dodecahedral foam across the whole sky. Similar foam of "dark matter" emerges around particles and "Higgs bosons" are nodes of it. But because Peter Higgs predicted anything like this, this insight has been burrowed for not to threat Nobel prize appraisal and for to substantiate building of even larger colliders. There is lota stuffs hidden before eyes of laymen public.

Note also the dichotomy of experimental estimations of Higgs boson mass and Hubble constant. This isn't accident at all: both stars, both particles contain dark matter field around itself, which increases the density of Higgs field foam around them in comparison with observations utilizing photons only.

Quote

a large part of the international scientific community, like in the middle-age, follows sheeply a religious paradigm that simply does not work

People just (dis) believe the things, which provide them best perspective of their grants and jobs. This isn't conspiracy but it's dual emergent effect: pluralistic ignorance. From the same reason cold fusion community dismisses magnetic motors.

Quote from Walter Pegeto

Translating what you says in layman's terms, we can state that a large part of the international scientific community, like in the middle-age, follows sheeply a religious paradigm that simply does not work?

A better term for SM is phlogiston physics. But this would be unfair as it has large areas where it is quite useful. Just for detailed particle structure and measurable particle quantities it is of no use...

As I usually say Quark, Yoghurt, Bifidus all are real in my stomach. But quarks are not real particles only resonant waves of particles...

Quote

But quarks are not real particles only resonant waves of particles

In dense aether model the quarks are formed with aether vortices which are intertwined each other and thus forced to change direction, which is also source of their rest mass and charge field. This is how 2/3 and 1/3 charge quarks constitute closed loops of proton and neutron. Note that in this regard mobius strip of electron looks like degenerated two-quark particle too, i.e. sorta meson (Falaco soliton) living outside the surface of atom nuclei with one its half expanded and encircling the second shrunken one. This is why electron has two charges: Coulomb and leptonic one like neutrino. IMO the understanding of particle physics starts with their geometric models, not formal regression.

Quote from Walter Pegeto

Translating what you says in layman's terms, we can state that a large part of the international scientific community, like in the middle-age, follows sheeply a religious paradigm that simply does not work?

Sorry to repeat again the same mantra, but all this stuff looks to me as yet another conspiracy theory.

Being an "outsider", not a doctorate in maths, physics or chemistry, but an engineer with a working back ground in all three, I find this subject very interesting.

We have some of the "LENR" crowd, totally convinced that it is mainstream "mind control" that is keeping LENR from being acknowledged in science circles.

Some believe that it is "big oil" etc. that is keeping LENR from being used to solve the world's energy supply.

Some persons who propose radical or novel theories, that their "obviously correct" system is not accepted because it does not toe the line with the main stream dogma and is being consciously buried by them!

Often, all the above groups site supporting evidence of "The dark ages", "Galileo's persecution", "Wright brothers ridicule", etc. etc. as previous proof that these things still happen! Not did happen, but seemingly present them as evidence that they still DO happen.

Now, I am not saying that there is NO / ZERO / Nada resistance to new ideas. Yes, there always is, humans are involved. But one cannot compare the "dark ages" to today. This is simply trying to defend and excuse lack of acceptance of one's pet ideas.

The reason for this is the advance of 1) total knowledge base and 2) wide spread communication of ideas. (Mostly due to the internet)

When Newton set forth his laws, they were not fully accepted. Yet they were proven correct. F=M*A was demonstrably proven. Proven widely and at will over time.

However, Einstein's theory "superseded" this. Technically, F=M*A is not correct, as faster than light travel would be allowed. Yet for most day to day situations, the formula works just fine. F=M*A is fine for day to day "Truth", but not for relativistic scale.

My point is that with each advancement, the knowledge base is expanded. The "Dark Ages" was an infant in knowledge and thus much silliness was rampant. Our knowledge base has expanded dramatically since then. This does not mean that we will not find new insights, new theories, but it is less and less likely that we will find revolutionary, 'turn the world on it's ear" models that will total undo all the past knowledge. Very unlikely.

So when someone proposes a new model that completely disrupts the existing, accepted one, it is nothing like the dark ages. There has now been untold number of experiments, educated people, proofs etc. to give credence to these models. This does not mean that they will not be refined, nor improved, nor better understood but it is increasingly unlikely that they will be completely over turned. We may even find more "advanced" models that supersede the SM under certain circumstances, just as Einstein did with Newston's laws.

But it is unlikely that the current SM will be found totally wrong and void.

This is not because of it being "Accepted by main stream", but because it has withstood the scrutiny of thousands of scientist over time, both experimentally and theoretically. Yes, it will change, it will be modified, it will be expanded. Completely over turned? Logically, probably not. I would be very surprised.

This is NOT the dark ages.

Those who have the ego to think their new, revolutionary insights surely are correct and that the thousands of other well educated, bright and insightful scientists are wrong, are quite remarkable. If they then start to state that their new theory is not being accepted because it is "outside" mainstream and is being "buried", then they have become unremarkable. It is far more likely that this revolutionary theory is not accepted simply because it does not stand muster or scrutiny. (Perhaps has not been published in a well formatted paper and widely circulated, but then it will have to pass muster still)

Stating with conviction that the current SM is completely wrong and invalid and that one has the real answer, is a very big statement and casts a shadow on many very educated and smart people. We are not just talking standard IQ's here. We are talking genius level. Saying they are all wrong is truly remarkable and requires a remarkable ego indeed.

Quote

This is NOT the dark ages.

Mark Twain: The history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Of course that the physicists aren't barbecued today for their contrarian ideas like Giordano Bruno (albeit Eugene Mallowe could possibly object it) - but in the times of informational explosion they are simply ignored with the same result: their opinions get silenced and inacessible for laymen. And the risk of excommunication and cutting from grant sources of research is way more imminent, than in the times of privately funded science of Galileo. Which is also why the members of scientific community are way more obedient in an average than Galileo did.

Quote

Q; Was Geoncentric model wrong?

A: No. It was just more simple model which produced complicated equations in more complicated stuff. Ptolemaic epicycles were all correct and working, but for the most of the people just too complicated see this;

Q: Is Standard model wrong?

A: No. It's just more simple model which produces complicated equations in more complicated stuff, but if these are ignored it's all correct and working. Dark matter etc are very good explanations for people who are too simple to understand bigger scale stuff.

I don't see any difference between Standard Model and Ptolemy's model after then... Was some theory even wrong according to you?

Quote from Jokela

What is wrong and what is right is defined by scientific method. This method alouds you to fill up your equations with pile of mathematical garbage if you like. And as long as the mathematics behind the theory produces results which can be verified with experiments with some usable accuracy, the theory can't be defined "right" or "wrong".

That's exactly the probelem with SM & CERN. They know from the SM directory that one entry is missing. Then they tell politics give us money we would like to find it.

LEP was a huge speculation and in fact nothing new has been found for billions. Then there was a signal and just because one entry was missing they linked it to the Higgs particle.

Unluckily SM cannot tell us what energy the Higgs should have even more unluckily one signal was just a proton resonance.

But it will take them years and a lot of new wasted money... to finally confess an error.

Quote from Bob#2

There has now been untold number of experiments, educated people, proofs etc. to give credence to these models.

Quote from Bob#2

This is NOT the dark ages

NASA

The universe =

Dark energy - 68%

Dark matter - 27%

Normal matter - 5%

Wikipedia - Dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, tending to accelerate the expansion of the universe

Wikipedia- Dark matter is a form of matter that is thought to account for approximately 85% of the matter in the universe and about a quarter of its total energy density. The majority of dark matter is thought to be non-baryonic in nature, possibly being composed of some as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles