Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

Quote

I read Einstein's 1939 paper along with Oppenheimer and Snyder’s 1939 frozen star paper on continued gravitational contraction, and thought something's missing here, because falling bodies don't slow down

This is supposed to be a relativistic effect, because when massive body collapses, then the time runs increasingly more slowly for it (due to gravitational dilatation of time within curved space-time) - so that at certain level the further condensation would require more time, than the age of observable Universe. One could consider it as a canonical reasoning, why black holes singularities cannot exist or - if they turn out to be still existing - they must be older than the Universe (or most probably that Universe is older than particle horizon of it). It's known that despite the fatherhood of black holes is attributed to Einstein in mainstream media, he never fully accepted this concept in similar way, like many other relativistic theorems (gravitational waves, Big Bang universe or even space-time concept itself), which are routinely connected with him.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

This is supposed to be a relativistic effect, because when massive body collapses, then the time runs increasingly more slowly for it (due to gravitational dilatation of time within curved space-time) - so that at certain level the further condensation would require more time, than the age of observable Universe. One could consider it as a canonical reasoning, why black holes singularities cannot exist or - if they turn out to be still existing - they must be older than the Universe (or most probably that Universe is older than particle horizon of it). It's known that despite the fatherhood of black holes is attributed to Einstein in mainstream media, he never fully accepted this concept in similar way, like many other relativistic theorems (gravitational waves, Big Bang universe or even space-time concept itself), which are routinely connected with him.

The thing is this, Zephir: an object falls down because "the speed of light is spatially variable". Because light goes slower when it's lower. Because there's a local gradient in the speed of light. A light-clock doesn't go slower when it's lower because some magical mysterious thing called time goes slower. It goes slower because light goes slower. So there is no mechanism by which a falling body slows down. Falling bodies don't fall slower and slower. They fall faster and faster. Because the speed of light is getting lower and lower. Eventually there would be some crossover point where the falling body would be falling faster than the local speed of light. That can't happen because of the wave nature of matter. So something else has to happen. BOOM! A gamma-ray burst. I cannot explain to you why Einstein didn't predict this. Perhaps it was because his paper dates back to 1939, and he had other things on his mind. Things like war and Nazis and genocide and nuclear weapons.

Quote

Falling bodies don't fall slower and slower. They fall faster and faster. Because the speed of light is getting lower and lower. I cannot explain to you why Einstein didn't predict this.

IMO you're combining intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives way too much...
Anyway Einstein in article linked also says: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality."

Quote from JohnDuffield

Perhaps it was because his paper dates back to 1939, and he had other things on his mind.

This reasoning is based on gravity alone and neglects the true forces at work...

It is a fact that dense mass gets compresses when it aggregates and it as a follow up reaction releases space-time energy associated with the reduced volume. The other fact is that dense mass does more rotations than gravitating mass.

Einsteins reasoning is classic as it assumes that time is always a free parameter only bound to mass(3D,t). Today we know that mass is EM mass only and thus the relation to time looks quite different.

But the reasoning is instructive as it proves that gravity cannot explain the process of forming black holes.

The accretion radiation thing is more complex than just gamma rays burst. We can imagine matter like copper grains glued with liquid mercury into larger ones. These clusters are again moistened by water and glued with its surface tension into larger clusters like particles of wet sand. When we immerse such a composite cluster into water, then the stronger mercury bond will not become loose - only surface tension of water will disappear. Only after when we submerge the rest into even more dense liquid, then the remaining bonds will dissolve.

In normal atoms the photons serve as an analogy of lightweight water glue, whereas the gluons inside atom nuclei are gluing the heavier particles residing there like surface tension of mercury. Therefore once massive object falls into black hole, then it's facing increasingly curved and dense space-time. Once the space-time density becomes comparable with binding energy of photons inside of electron orbitals, then atoms will lose their electrons and binding photons will get radiated - in visible light first, these remaining in UV and soft X-ray spectrum. Just after then the atom nuclei will start to disintegrate. This means that black hole actually exhibits multiple event horizons arranged like layers of onion - one for photons, another one for gluons and maybe another one for W/Z bosons. But can black holes condense any deeper? This is a question - IMO the degeneracy pressure of quantum mechanics would prohibit it.

In dense aether model the gravity force results as an effect of shielding longitudinal waves of vacuum by particles of matter (de Duiilier-LeSage model). But once particles of matter dissolve in highly curved space-time which is nearly as dense and curved, as the space-time forming massive particles, then there will be no force, which would convince them to condense even more.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

IMO you're combining intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives way too much...
Anyway Einstein in article linked also says: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality."

No I'm not. There is no magic. Light curves downwards like any wave curves downwards. Because there's an orthogonal gradient in wave speed.

Image from FAS and the US Navy, see course ES310 chapter 20

Quote

Anyway Einstein in article linked also says: "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the "Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality."

Because he didn't think about Oppenheimer's frozen star. The black hole grows from the inside out. Like a hailstone.

Quote from Wyttenbach

This reasoning is based on gravity alone and neglects the true forces at work...

It is a fact that dense mass gets compresses when it aggregates and it as a follow up reaction releases space-time energy associated with the reduced volume. The other fact is that dense mass does more rotations than gravitating mass.

Einsteins reasoning is classic as it assumes that time is always a free parameter only bound to mass(3D,t). Today we know that mass is EM mass only and thus the relation to time looks quite different.

But the reasoning is instructive as it proves that gravity cannot explain the process of forming black holes.

Sorry Wyttenback, but I do not recognise this as any physics I've ever heard of.

Quote from JohnDuffield

Sorry Wyttenback, but I do not recognise this as any physics I've ever heard of.

Time to understand it! Why should gravity explain anything ??? Gravity is the weakest EM force...

Or do you still believe as others that mass is made of Gremlins..?

Quote from Wyttenbach

Time to understand it! Why should gravity explain anything ??? Gravity is the weakest EM force...

I understand gravity thanks. Starting with light: it doesn't curve because it follows the curvature of spacetime. That’s a myth. Einstein never said that. He said: “the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable”. Light curves for the same reason other waves curve. It curves like sonar waves curve in the sea, because the wave speed varies:

Image from FAS and the US Navy, see course ES310 chapter 20

Matter falls down because it's composed of particles like the electron, and the electron is a dynamical “spinor”. See Hans Ohanian’s 1984 paper what is spin? He said this: “the means for filling the gap have been at hand since 1939, when Belinfante established that the spin could be regarded as due to a circulating flow of energy”. Remember that we make electrons and positrons in pair production, and that they both have a magnetic moment. Then think of the electron as light going round and round. Then simplify it to light going round a square path. What happens? The horizontals bend down. So the electron’s position changes. In other words, the electron falls down:

It's that simple.

Quote

Or do you still believe as others that mass is made of Gremlins..

Mass is just resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path. That's why the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content. Like Einstein said.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

So the whole idea of curved spacetime was fabricated by subsequent physicists?

Einstein postulated hyperspace in 1917..

Of course he couldn't be too forceful about it...

he might have been associated with séances and spiritualism... which were fashionable at the time

However Reimann had written of higher D spaces

about 50 years before...it was not a novelty

Quote from JohnDuffield

Mass is just resistance to change-in-motion for a wave in a closed path.

All mass is EM mass and thus in motion at light speed. In dense space this motion is reduced on "circular like" closed path orbits.

As classical mechanics of coupled rigid rotators shows (first about 100 years ago..). The interaction of rotating mass happens at so called energy surfaces or simple quantized states. Rotators do like motion that is not orthogonal to the momenta.

Quote from RobertBryant

Einstein postulated hyperspace in 1917..

Einstein worked more or less rest of his lives - with others (Klein..) - on a 5D model for everything. But he new that curvature must be constant to avoid resistance in motion!

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Very interesting and great link to the Einstein paper. The rest of that paragraph is even more fascinating. So the whole idea of curved spacetime was fabricated by subsequent physicists? I am curious if he perhaps later came up with this concept?

No it wasn't. But I would say some physicists don't understand this. Spacetime curvature is a “curved metric”, and a metric is associated with measurement. Imagine you could place a 15 x 15 array of optical clocks throughout a horizontal slice of space around the Earth. Then you plot all the clock rates, such that the lower slower clock rates generate data points lower down in a 3D image, and the higher faster clock rates generate data points higher up in the 3D image. When you join the dots, your plot looks like this:

CCASA image by Johnstone, see Wikipedia

It's the typical depiction of curved spacetime. But because it’s derived from optical clock rates, it’s also a plot of the speed of light. The height of the plot at some location depicts the speed of light at that location. The slope at some location depicts the first derivative of gravitational potential, and therefore the force of gravity at that location. The curvature at some location depicts the second derivative of gravitational potential, and therefore the tidal force at that location. That’s where the force of gravity changes most. That’s spacetime curvature. If you don’t have any spacetime curvature, your plot can’t get off the flat and level, which is why spacetime curvature is said to be the defining feature of a gravitational field. But note that a marble rolls down light curves where the sheet is sloping rather than curved, and that your plot is what’s curved, not space. Your plot of measurements is curved so your metric is curved, so spacetime is curved, but space is not. Instead space is "neither homogeneous nor isotropic" in a non-linear way.

It is interesting that this thread: entitled "debunking obviously false information" should have morphed into a series of unevidenced alternate theories for gravitation and electrons.

I guess they are posted here in the expectation of debunking.

The point about these is that none are fleshed out in the way that real theories, such as Yang-Mills electroweak unification, or quantum electrodynamics, have been. There are two questions asked of any physics theory:

(1) does it accurately predict all relevant existing observations

(2) does it accurately predict new observations

In the case of GR it does both. The various alternate ideas here seem more philosophy than physics - because they do not claim to better the predictions from GR. GR is a mathematical theory in which all the observations predicted by special and general relativity derive from the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime. Talk of "the speed of light" is very unhelpful until it has been defined, carefully, what "speed" means when we have no global time.

• It is helpful to say that light follows geodesics, where a geodesic follows the locally shortest path between two points. Because the spacetime metric is Minkowskian all geodesics have zero length. Compare this with the surface of an N-sphere in euclidean N-D space where all finite geodesics have non-zero length. Therefore the geodesics of spacetime these lie on a light cone - the boundary between temporal separations (positive metric) and spatial separations (negative metric) in space-time.
• It is helpful to say that because space-time is curved geodesics (as defined by the spacetime metric) are also curved.
• It is possible to say that space is curved, because otherwise it would be Euclidean and there would be no gravitation, but I don't think separating spatial curvature from spacetime curvature is particularly insightful.
• Anyway GR, as developed by Einstein and subsequently simplified, e.g. by coordinate-free tensor calculus approaches, is an incredibly compact way of exactly predicting gravitation and the host of Lorentz-space effects and things more complex like spinning black holes. All observations thus far have been compatible with it. Everyone keeps on hoping there will be something different, e.g. that would explain dark matter / dark energy, but noje of tose ideas (to my knowledge) have worked out yet.

There is no reason in principle why photons should not have some (very small) mass (in which case light would not exactly follow geodesics), but equally no evidence for it.

Now, with the caveat that I am just an amateur, having learnt some theoretical physics a long time ago, who is willing to read new stuff including maths and geometry:

So it is a pretty good call to debunk all non-GR theories as things stand. Debunking does not relate to philosophy or interpretation, neither of which affects the predictions. Personally, I find GR as interpreted as a curved Lorentzian spacetime and no gravitational force, compelling. I also hope to find a future GUT in which this curved Lorentzian spacetime emerges from more fundamental quantum interactions within field theories, as has been shown can happen for anti-de Sitter spacetime.

Otherwise, the various non-standard theories of electromagnetism promoted here do not seem to be testable, and therefore not PAWKI (Physics As We Know It). There are an awful lot of ideas out there, and any that have distinct different predictions from what is currently accepted are always welcomed with one arms, as long as they correspond to all current observations, and offer some hope of explaining new stuff. For example non-standard gravitation theories, which pop up whenever astronomical observations on very large scales seem inconsistent, as has happened many times, and remains in play due to dark energy/matter.

Numerical Alchemy

The slew of closed-form derivations of various particle mass ratios and other fundamental constants are known collectively as numerical alchemy. An interesting historical paper describing closed form equations for the fine structure constant, amongst other things.

Study of this shows that numerical alchemists can find surprisingly exact coincidental post-hoc expressions for any physical ratio.

My question for those with alternative semi-classical physical theories of the electron whose only successes thus far are prediction of things not predicted at all, or not predicted precisely, by standard model (alpha, particle mass ratios, etc) is how they can show these results are not a combination of semi-classical equivalence (often very good, sometimes precise) together with numerical alchemy?

High energy physics theories that claim as merit only the potential to unify, or simplify, have a tough job if evaluated just on their unification, because the competition is so outstandingly strong. The Yang-Mills field theory electroweak unification predicts so much structure from a small basis. Everyone would like an even simpler basis, rather than broken symmetries and akludged on Higgs field, but the fact that so much of physics is predicted (and observations correspond, even to the finding many years later of the Higgs) is difficult to beat. QCD similarly has merit because it unifies hadrons with electro-weak (particles as defined by particle properties predicted from a very simple set of symmetries). That does not deal with rest mass, which is largely arbitrary but has a quite satisfactory "leave it till later" Higgs field explanation. Given that we have as yet no unification between QFT and gravity, and find it really difficult to do experiments with gravity (it is so weak) it is perhaps not surprising that the masses of particles (and strengths of forces) have these arbitrary components. Given what we know about broken symmetry in the real universe it is an open equation whether we should expect a fair amount of arbitrariness in fundamental constants, coming from the random crystallisation at low energies of uniform and non-arbitrary high energy physics. I incline towards thinking we should expect it, and that this arbitrariness together with the anthropic principle is actually required for the incredibly coincidental development of complex causal structure and therefore intelligent life.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The Yang-Mills field theory electroweak unification predicts so much structure from a small basis.

The problem with this is that structure is not adding physics. It's just mathematical permutations of forces and dimensions.

We would like to believe that QED/QFD/QCD has some relevance if it would be able to relate e.g. the proton magnetic moment with its mass.

But THH would like to cheat the mass away as gravity is not well known (still 6 digits a way better than any dense matter QED/QFD/QCD calculation...)

Quote from THHuxleynew

That does not deal with rest mass, which is largely arbitrary but has a quite satisfactory "leave it till later" Higgs field explanation. Given that we have as yet no unification between QFT and gravity, and find it really difficult to do experiments with gravity (it is so weak) it is perhaps not surprising that the masses of particles (and strengths of forces) have these arbitrary components.

Unluckily we measure the proton with TOF and not with gravitation. Obviously there is no cheat available ...

Quote from THHuxleynew

The slew of closed-form derivations of various particle mass ratios and other fundamental constants are known collectively as numerical alchemy.

This is a good description of what QED/QFT does with Feynman loops - finding a "numerical alchemy" optimal, fitting higher order Hamiltonian based on a 2 digits exact measurement and finally making people believe its now 8 digits exact...

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is interesting that this thread: entitled "debunking obviously false information" should have morphed into a series of unevidenced alternate theories for gravitation and electrons.

I guess they are posted here in the expectation of debunking.

The point about these is that none are fleshed out in the way that real theories, such as Yang-Mills electroweak unification, or quantum electrodynamics) have been. there are two questions asked of any physics theory:

(1) does it accurately predict all relevant existing observations

(2) does it accurately predict new observations

In the case of GR it does both. The various alternate ideas here seem more philosophy than physics - because they do not claim to better the predictions from GR. GR is a mathematical theory in which all the observations predicted by special and general relativity derive from the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime. Talk of "the speed of light" is very unhelpful until it has been defined, carefully, what "speed" means when we have no global time.

Display More

It's no alternative theory Huxley. If you spent a little time following my references you'd appreciate that. See what EInstein said here:

See the second paragraph?

Quote

• It is helpful to say that light follows geodesics, where a geodesic follows the locally shortest path between two points. Because the spacetime metric is Minkowskian all geodesics have zero length. Compare this with the surface of an N-sphere in euclidean N-D space where all finite geodesics have non-zero length. Therefore the geodesics of spacetime these lie on a light cone - the boundary between temporal separations (positive metric) and spatial separations (negative metric) in space-time.
• It is helpful to say that because space-time is curved geodesics (as defined by the spacetime metric) are also curved.
• It is possible to say that space is curved, because otherwise it would be Euclidean and there would be no gravitation, but I don't think separating spatial curvature from spacetime curvature is particularly insightful.

No it isn't. It's wrong. Light doesn't follow a geodesic. It doesn't "follow the curvature of spacetime". That's a myth. Space isn't curved where a gravitational field is. That's another myth. It's "neither homogeneous nor isotropic". Here the link: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/192

Quote

Anyway GR, as developed by Einstein and subsequently simplified, e.g. by coordinate-free tensor calculus approaches, is an incredibly compact way of exactly predicting gravitation and the host of Minkowski-space effects and things more complex like spinning black holes. All observations thus far have been compatible with it. Everyone keeps on hoping there will be something different, e.g. that would explain dark matter / dark energy, but none of those ideas (to my knowledge) have worked out yet.

General relativity is right, but your understanding of it is wrong.

Quote

There is no reason in principle why photons should not have some (very small) mass (in which case light would not exactly follow geodesics), but equally no evidence for it.

Photons have no rest mass. They travel at c. A photon is energy, and the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content. You need to try to understand Einstein's famous E=mc² paper does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content? An electron is a body, but a photon isn't. The photon has momentum because a wave in an open path has a resistance to change-in-motion. The electron has mass because a wave in a closed path has a resistance to change-in-motion.

Quote

Now, with the caveat that I am just an amateur, having learnt some theoretical physics a long time ago, who is willing to read new stuff including maths and geometry:

I don't think you are willing to read any stuff at all. You have total belief in what you think you know, so much so that you won't believe me, and you won't read what Einstein actually said. You haven't read any of those 1920s papers in post 314 either. You remind me of a Young Earth Creationist, Huxley. I show them the strata, the fossils, the carbon dating, and they dismiss it all.

Quote

So it is a pretty good call to debunk all non-GR theories as things stand. Debunking does not relate to philosophy or interpretation, neither of which affects the predictions. Personally, I find GR as interpreted as a curved Minkowskian spacetime and no gravitational force, compelling. I also hope to find a future GUT in which this curved Minkowski spacetime emerges from more fundamental quantum interactions within field theories, as has been shown can happen for anti-de Sitter spacetime.

I'm writing an article about GUTs right now. The important papers date from 1974: Lepton number as the fourth color by Pati and Salam, Unity Of All Elementary Particle Forces by Georgi and Glashow, and Hierarchy of interactions in unified gauge theories by Georgi, Quinn, and Weinberg. It's all garbage I'm afraid, as is anti-de Sitter space.

Quote

Otherwise, the various non-standard theories of electromagnetism promoted here do not seem to be testable, and therefore not PAWKI (Physics As We Know It). There are an awful lot of ideas out there, and any that have distinct different predictions from what is currently accepted are always welcomed with one arms, as long as they correspond to all current observations, and offer some hope of explaining new stuff. For example non-standard gravitation theories, which pop up whenever astronomical observations on very large scales seem inconsistent, as has happened many times, and remains in play due to dark energy/matter.

The electromagnetism I'm talking about is Maxwell's. Just as some physicists don't understand gravity, they don't understand electromagnetism either.

Quote

High energy physics theories that claim as merit only the potential to unify, or simplify, have a tough job if evaluated just on their unification, because the competition is so outstandingly strong. The Yang-Mills field theory electroweak unification predicts so much structure from a small basis. Everyone would like an even simpler basis, rather than broken symmetries and a kludged on Higgs field, but the fact that so much of physics is predicted (and observations correspond, even to the finding many years later of the Higgs) is difficult to beat.

You really need to read The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. Also read the January 2003 physicsworld article Carlo Rubbia and the discovery of the W and Z by Gary Taubes. The Higgs mechanism flatly contradicts E=mc². Electroweak unification is based on Weinberg's 1967 paper a model of leptons, which is nothing of the sort. Neutron decay is nothing to do with the fabulous W boson. It's merely the opposite of electron capture.

Quote

QCD similarly has merit because it unifies hadrons with electro-weak (particles as defined by particle properties predicted from a very simple set of symmetries). That does not deal with rest mass, which is largely arbitrary but has a quite satisfactory "leave it till later" Higgs field explanation.

It isn't satisfactory at all. Not when you understand E=mc²

Quote

Given that we have as yet no unification between QFT and gravity, and find it really difficult to do experiments with gravity (it is so weak) it is perhaps not surprising that the masses of particles (and strengths of forces) have these arbitrary components. Given what we know about broken symmetry in the real universe it is an open equation whether we should expect a fair amount of arbitrariness in fundamental constants, coming from the random crystallisation at low energies of uniform and non-arbitrary high energy physics. I incline towards thinking we should expect it, and that this arbitrariness together with the anthropic principle is actually required for the incredibly coincidental development of complex causal structure and therefore intelligent life.

When you understand gravity you understand that there will never be any unification between QFT and gravity because QFT is wrong on multiple counts. Messenger particles do not actually exist. Virtual particles are virtual. QED says there's no photon-photon interaction, and so on. Symmetry was rolled out as some great principle, but when it didn't work, the next great principle was a "broken" symmetry. It's just another kludge, Huxley. It's moonshine. The anthropic principle is moonshine too. But sadly people like you cling to their pseudoscience misunderstanding even when I show you what Einstein said. Or what Shapiro said:

You're on the wrong side of the debunking fence, Huxley. And it's time you realised it.

We would like to believe that QED/QFD/QCD has some relevance if it would be able to relate e.g. the proton magnetic moment with its mass.

But THH would like to cheat the mass away as gravity is not well known (still 6 digits a way better than any dense matter QED/QFD/QCD calculation...)

You show a pseudoskeptical ignorance of the many successes of Yang-Mills QFT. You pick the one thing that cannot be related (mass) and therefore dismiss the theory when it predicts all the structure, and with a very few free independent paraemeters, e.g. rest masses an coupling constants, predicts everything.

We can agree that a theory that predicted everything would be better. But no-one has that, and for the reasons I suggested above it is maybe not even expected.

When you understand gravity you understand that there will never be any unification between QFT and gravity because QFT is wrong on multiple counts. Messenger particles do not actually exist. Virtual particles are virtual. QED says there's no photon-photon interaction, and so on. Symmetry was rolled out as some great principle, but when it didn't work, the next great principle was a "broken" symmetry. It's just another kludge, Huxley. It's moonshine. The anthropic principle is moonshine too. But sadly people like you cling to their pseudoscience misunderstanding even when I show you what Einstein said. Or what Shapiro said

Argument by assertion has never swayed me, so you will understand why your post does not change my current views.

No it isn't. It's wrong. Light doesn't follow a geodesic. It doesn't "follow the curvature of spacetime". That's a myth. Space isn't curved where a gravitational field is. That's another myth.

As I indicated above, you need to be precise what you mean before making statements about "the speed of light". For example, if you define it (Born) as sqrt(-g₄₄/g₁₁) then clearly it does vary. Equally clearly, clocks depend on reference frame so to define speed of light we need to specify reference frames and measurement method. In flat spacetime that is unambiguous. In curved spacetime that requires care, because there is no global reference frame, and no global clock. The way this is now done is completely consistent with GR and shows c as observationally constant. i don't see any merit in an alternative formulation, but if you do, that would come from some distinct observational results, since the mathematics of GR works well as is now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

No it isn't. It's wrong. Light doesn't follow a geodesic. It doesn't "follow the curvature of spacetime". That's a myth.

The maths that calculates this gives precise correct answers to all current observations, so to mythologise it you would need clear contrary observations.

Photons have no rest mass.

That is the current dominant view, and it may well be true. I suspect it is true. But it is also true that we do not know this, and it is possible to imagine consistent theories in which photon rest mass is very low but not zero. such a theory might in the end dominate. I'd recommend a less dogmatic approach.

I'm writing an article about GUTs right now. The important papers date from 1974: Lepton number as the fourth color by Pati and Salam, Unity Of All Elementary Particle Forces by Georgi and Glashow, and Hierarchy of interactions in unified gauge theories by Georgi, Quinn, and Weinberg. It's all garbage I'm afraid, as is anti-de Sitter space.

I applaud your enterprise, but fear that any such review is going to be no use if you approach it with that prejudgement.

You really need to read The Higgs Fake by Alexander Unzicker. Also read the January 2003 physicsworld article Carlo Rubbia and the discovery of the W and Z by Gary Taubes. The Higgs mechanism flatly contradicts E=mc². Electroweak unification is based on Weinberg's 1967 paper a model of leptons, which is nothing of the sort. Neutron decay is nothing to do with the fabulous W boson. It's merely the opposite of electron capture.

You quote material written before the Higgs was discovered, after it was predicted, that claims it is wrong.

(Wikipedia) It is worth noting that the Higgs field does not "create" mass out of nothing (which would violate the law of conservation of energy), nor is the Higgs field responsible for the mass of all particles. For example, approximately 99% of the mass of baryons (composite particles such as the proton and neutron), is due instead to quantum chromodynamic binding energy, which is the sum of the kinetic energies of quarks and the energies of the massless gluons mediating the strong interaction inside the baryons.^[27] In Higgs-based theories, the property of "mass" is a manifestation of potential energy transferred to fundamental particles when they interact ("couple") with the Higgs field, which had contained that mass in the form of energy.^[28]

Unzicker (and many others) view the Higgs field as unsatisfactory. That is understandable, and perhaps one day we will, with a true unification, which those whose minds are not closed to ideas after 1940 are beginning to discern, get something better. However Unzicker is an outlier in trashing the whole of current particle physics on philosophical grounds. I'd agree with him that it is "too complex" unless it is the product of symmetry breaking - that can generate arbitrary complexity. We just don't know whether that is so, or whether some deeper theory will predict the complexity. Unzicker has a profoundly negative viewpoint which sees the problems in their worst possible light and does not put forward anything better.

Quote from THHuxleynew

You show a pseudoskeptical ignorance of the many successes of Yang-Mills QFT. You pick the one thing that cannot be related (mass) and therefore dismiss the theory when it predicts all the structure, and with a very few free independent paraemeters, e.g. rest masses an coupling constants, predicts everything.

All basic and exact physics (Newton mechanics & EM theory ) we know deals with mass.

Due to your answer I can only make one conclusion : You are an adept of fringe science, that has no relation to classic physics. Fringe because you claim mass is not important at all.

The structure of a so called virtual particle universe QED/QFT/QCD e.g. CERN claims to see in experiments that are gauged by applying the very same model (s) ( QED/QFT/QCD) for such a detection is a self fulfilling prediction only.

If you ( QED/QFT/QCD) can give no relation between proton mass (and the undoubtable quarks...) , magnetic moment and charge radius then QED/QFT/QCD is a phantasy born ins screwed up minds.

I too can invent a phantasy theory that produces an other fantasy I predict if a use a measurement that guarantees the fantasy will occur.

Just to remind you: Group and operator based math is = a single prediction and mathematically not powerful enough to solve the stateful particle - particle interaction. Thus by basic induction on structural logic QED/QFT/QCD will never ever find a solution to explain mass unless they include a mediating part into their formalism.

All mass is "talking" to other mass as all EM fields to interact as soon as a mediator is involved, what QED/QFT/QCD exclude. They just try to change the weights (Feynman loops) of a field based on other fields with no states involved!

CERN claims to have found a so called Higgs particle. The mass should have been > 3TeV that's why CERN (we all..) invested more billions into an upgrade to find it. Now the claim a (simple to calculate) proton resonance around 126GeV to be a predicted particle... This at an energy they could produce already about 40 years ago ...

Of course there is no simple proof/disproof for such a fringe claim as the gravitational interaction of such a Higgs never will be possible to measure.

The problem with this is that structure is not adding physics. It's just mathematical permutations of forces and dimensions.

You must have some definition of physics I don't understand. For me, it is finding the simplest and most complete model to predict the behaviour of the world.