Fact Check, debunking obviously false information

  • 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.


    That is weird. On the contrary mass is incredibly important. And the standard model predicts most of it, from binding energy, in an insightful way.


    There are a very small number of fundamental values of rest mass, determined in Standard model by couplings to the Higgs field, which are AFASK arbitrary. All the rest, however, is not. And arbitrary is quite distinct from important. In a geodite the direction of the crystals is arbitrary, determined by spontaneous symmetry breaking, but vitally important.

  • 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.


    Your world must be a very screwed up one as it exists only in a tiny virtual space of e.g. produced by CERN - by experiments that only can show a limited view of the reality.


    QED/QFT/QCD can obviously not reproduce the world as our world behaves like Newton/Maxwell/Einstein found a long time ago and is not virtual.


    It's time to concede that QED/QFT/QCD have no relation to Newton/Maxwell mechanics as they cannot deal with mass. Any proper theory must be a continuation of Newton/Maxwell like GER is.


    Until year 10000 when QED/QFT/QCD eventually claims to deal with mass, I myself and everybody with a grasp of reality will call QED/QFT/QCD a fringe model based on a screwed up thinking - or just on ignorance of reality (reality = all EM & mechanical forces) .

  • 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.


    There we can agree. Just two comments.

    1. Lack of power in this respect is identified with simplicity. A simpler theory that predicts more is better. You are agreeing with me that SM as formulated has an incredibly simple and beautiful foundation.
    2. If the Higgs field mechanism proves correct (and why not, it is simpler for all mass to have the same ultimate origin as binding energy, than for some to be special "rest mass") then it is the solution you need, and therefore your statement is meaningless. If the Higgs field mechanism is not correct then the proper solution will await a proper physical theory that explains why spacetime has the metric it has, and therefore GR. We are half the way there already, starting from the algebra (group and operator based math) you despise.


    Not every mathematician is an algebraist. That is OK. But it is the height of hubris to think that just because you don't like something it cannot be central to the universe.


    THH

  • 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 ...


    I expect politicians to use such rhetoric but not scientists. Are you claiming the TWO completely distinct LHC observations that are explained by a 125Gev Higgs (agreeing with the maths) are both conspiracy theories?


    If the only criterion for finding particles was energy then there would be no point at doing higher luminosity upgrades to particle accelerators. The LHC found (the two) signs of Higgs only after accumulating an enormously large amount of data - much larger than had ever been got before.


    https://www.sciencealert.com/t…red-large-hadron-collider

  • I expect politicians to use such rhetoric but not scientists. Are you claiming the TWO completely distinct LHC observations that are explained by a 126Mev Higgs (agreeing with the maths) are both conspiracy theories?


    Are you aware that you spread absolute nonsense ?? In which paper did Higgs predict two particles?????


    There was no and never will be any SM math that predicted two particles at 126MeV ! Now they try to fit the model (math) to the observation.


    As I already said 126MeV was the CERN energy level of 40 years ago! What did they miss....


    If the Higgs field mechanism proves correct (and why not, it is simpler for all mass to have the same ultimate origin as binding energy, than for some to be special "rest mass") then it is the solution you need, and therefore your statement is meaningless.


    Exact: Your statement is meaningless as the Higgs mechanism obviously is not able to give a correct mass to any real particle.


    It's time to concede that QED/QFT/QCD have no relation to Newton/Maxwell mechanics as they cannot deal with real & inertial mass. Any proper theory must be a continuation of Newton/Maxwell like GER is.

  • Are you aware that you spread absolute nonsense ?? In which paper did Higgs predict two particles?????


    There was no and never will be any SM math that predicted two particles at 126MeV ! Now they try to fit the model (math) to the observation.


    That is not what I said. The 125GeV Higgs particle (that you deny) is evidenced in two completely different (independent) sets of observations that relate to different decays.


    I'm not sure you are paying much attention to what the LHC data means, nor how it is interpreted and what leads people to be confident in particular interpretations?

  • Higgs evidence:


    Standard model analysis of expected decays and how much luminosity you need before Higgs was found


    https://www.albany.edu/honorsc…/files/ParentiThesis.docx



    The Higgs at 125GeV could not have been found from previous particle accelerators, and that was predicted before not finding it (not a fudge).


    We could go through the totality of evidance for Higgs now found, why it needs high energy and high luminosity. (mostly Higgs seems to come from top quark, which is a rare beast).

  • Standard model analysis of expected decays and how much luminosity you need before Higgs was found


    THH?! I Hope you understand the difference between luminosity and energy...

    As I already said 126MeV was the CERN energy level of 40 years ago! What did they miss....



    CERN did ask for more particle energy 7 TeV collision energy ( 50x needed for Higgs) not for more luminosity, when asking for money! In fact the large collider makes absolutely no sense and was the biggest waste of money ever.


    That is not what I said. The 125GeV Higgs particle (that you deny) is evidenced in two completely different (independent) sets of observations that relate to different decays.


    You again spread multiple FUD: There are 2 125GeV(126.7GeV) Higgs particles measured and not one. Both were never predicted by anybody at the found energy.


    Fact is: I know the proton resonances CERN measures I do not deny them. The lower fake Higgs proton resonance is a strongly charged one and the higher is more neutral - mostly magnetic coupling. This are not different decays! This are two different interactions with a potential detector.

  • Quote

    There are 2 125GeV(126.7GeV) Higgs particles measured and not one.


    This is probably incorrect - we only have indicia of two values for Higgs particle mass deduced from di-hadron and di-photon decay channels and they probably have similar origin, like double value of Hubble constant: massive objects are surrounded by dark matter and it makes them heavier/more red shifted in average. Similar stuff manifest itself for top quarks (and another less massive particles in lesser degree).


    JcFSvIBl.png

  • This is probably incorrect - we only have indicia of two values for Higgs particle mass deduced from di-hadron and di-photon decay channels and they probably have similar origin, like double value of Hubble constant: massive objects are surrounded by dark matter and it makes them heavier/more red shifted in average.


    Of course it's incorrect as both values represent a proton with a different excitation structure!

  • Zephir_AWT , what Wyttenbach says about the Higgs being a fake particle and the measurements being proton resonances comes from his SO(4) model calculations, so your insistence in trying to correct him is not going to be fruitful. He has stated clearly that he thinks QM and the SM are incomplete at best, so no amount of arguing with him that refers back to the QM and CERN data will be taken in account because he has done the calculations with his SO(4) model and thinks he has a better explanation for those measurements.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • In dense aether model space-time looks like foam at all scales, because this is how density fluctuations of very dense particle environment (aka supercritical fluid) look like. The foam has dodecahedral geometry of Weaire Phelan foam and Higgs bosons will be nodes of this foam after then. For me Higgs boson is thus as real as density fluctuations of dark matter, I just expect that observations of multiple Higgs bosons in dilepton decay channels will be confirmed. So that my attitude is exactly opposite than Mr. Wittenbach's one: I'm not only believing that Higgs boson is real - I even think that mainstream physicists cover existence of another Higgs bosons before public (for their own bad, for bad of SuSy theorists in particular). BTW Higgs boson has been itself proposed for to make Standard Model more complete - so it's a bit nonsensical to argue it with incompleteness of Standard Model.


    IbJgmCU.gif

  • Curbina: what Wyttenbach says about the Higgs being a fake particle and the measurements being proton resonances comes from his SO(4) model calculations, so your insistence in trying to correct him is not going to be fruitful. He has stated clearly that he thinks QM and the SM are incomplete at best, so no amount of arguing with him that refers back to the QM and CERN data will be taken in account because he has done the calculations with his SO(4) model and thinks he has a better explanation for those measurements.


    You may be right that no arguing will change Wyttenbach's claims. But it can alter whether anyone else believes them. To kill the discovered 125GeV Higgs he would need to account for two completely different sets of measurements: a proton resonance from a Higgs decay path (showing Higgs production), and the direct decay products of Higgs from top quark production (showing Higgs decay). And I have no idea where this 125MeV resonance comes from, because the Higgs particle that has been unambiguously discovered is 125GeV. We are of course hoping to find other much heavier ones, but no luck yet. there is no lighter Higgs or we would have seen it.


    125 Gev resonance (first indication of Higgs, from 2012, with excess in gamma-gamma and Z-Zbar as would be expected from Higgs decay)


    Results are presented from searches for the standard model Higgs boson in proton–proton collisions at

    s=7 and 8 TeV in the Compact Muon Solenoid experiment at the LHC, using data samples corresponding to integrated luminosities of up to 5.1 fb−1 at 7 TeV and 5.3 fb−1 at 8 TeV. The search is performed in five decay modes: γγ, ZZ, W+W−, τ+τ−, and

    bb¯. An excess of events is observed above the expected background, with a local significance of 5.0 standard deviations, at a mass near 125 GeV, signalling the production of a new particle. The expected significance for a standard model Higgs boson of that mass is 5.8 standard deviations. The excess is most significant in the two decay modes with the best mass resolution, γγ and ZZ; a fit to these signals gives a mass of 125.3±0.4(stat.)±0.5(syst.)GeV. The decay to two photons indicates that the new particle is a boson with spin different from one.


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…cle/pii/S0370269312008581


    and the new (2018) evidence of Higgs boson decay:


    https://www.livescience.com/63…ays-to-bottom-quarks.html


    Today, physicists have another exciting announcement to add to the Higgs saga: They have made the first unambiguous observation of Higgs bosons decaying into a matter-antimatter pair of bottom quarks. Surprisingly, the Higgs bosons decay most often in this way. The new announcement shows a strong agreement between the theoretical predictions and the experimental data, which could in turn set strict constraints on ideas of more fundamental physics that strive to explain why the Higgs boson even exists.



    What LHC guys say now in summary:


    After discovery, we began to study the properties of the newly-discovered particle to understand if it was the Standard Model Higgs boson or something else. In fact, we initially called it a Higgs-like boson as we did not want to claim it was the Higgs boson until we were certain. The mass, the final unknown parameter in the Standard Model, was one of the first parameters measured and found to be approximately 125 GeV (roughly 130 times larger than the mass of the proton). It turned out that we were very lucky – with this mass, the largest number of decay modes are possible.

    In the Standard Model, the Higgs boson is unique: it has zero spin, no electric charge and no strong force interaction. The spin and parity were measured through angular correlations between the particles it decayed to. Sure enough, these properties were found to be as predicted. At this point, we began to call it “the Higgs boson.” Of course, it still remains to be seen if it is the only Higgs boson or one of many, such as those predicted by supersymmetry.

    The discovery of the Higgs boson relied on measurements of its decay to vector bosons. In the Standard Model, different couplings determine its interactions to fermions and bosons, so new physics might impact them differently. Therefore, it is important to measure both. The first direct probe of fermionic couplings was to tau particles, which was observed in the combination of ATLAS and CMS results performed at the end of Run 1. During Run 2, the increase in the centre-of-mass energy to 13 TeV and the larger dataset allowed further channels to be probed. Over the past year, the evidence has been obtained for the Higgs decay to bottom quarks and the production of the Higgs boson together with top quarks has been observed.[3] This means that the interaction of the Higgs boson to fermions has been clearly established.

    Perhaps one of the neatest ways to summarise what we currently know about the interaction of the Higgs boson with other Standard Model particles is to compare the interaction strength to the mass of each particle, as shown in Figure 4. This clearly shows that the interaction strength depends on the particle mass: the heavier the particle, the stronger its interaction with the Higgs field. This is one of the main predictions of the BEH mechanism in the Standard Model.

    We don’t only do tests to verify that the properties of the Higgs boson agree with those predicted by the Standard Model – we specifically look for properties that would provide evidence for new physics. For example, constraining the rate that the Higgs boson decays to invisible or unobserved particles provides stringent limits on the existence of new particles with masses below that of the Higgs boson. We also look for decays to combinations of particles forbidden in the Standard Model. So far, none of these searches have found anything unexpected, but that doesn’t mean that we’re going to stop looking anytime soon!

  • Well THHuxleynew , you have to admit that for skeptic outsiders the complexity of the LHC and the miriad of potential experimental error sources makes that all this hesitant analysis sounds like an attempt to fill the slot that was predicted by the model and justify their existence. Its the case that "we are the experts, believe us we found it" because "you would never understand". This is how it sounds to the general public, at least.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Well THHuxleynew , you have to admit that for skeptic outsiders the complexity of the LHC and the miriad of potential experimental error sources makes that all this hesitant analysis sounds like an attempt to fill the slot that was predicted by the model and justify their existence. Its the case that "we are the experts, believe us we found it" because "you would never understand". This is how it sounds to the general public, at least.


    Right. Quite a lot of v complex science is like that: easy for those who do not understand it to point to and say "that looks wrong!".


    But, equally, the material is available for anyone to check at least a little more than what W is doing here, so i don't have much sympathy.


    THH

  • This clearly shows that the interaction strength depends on the particle mass: the heavier the particle, the stronger its interaction with the Higgs field.


    This is exactly what the SO(4) strong force equation shows. Coupling depends on mass....

    The decay to two photons indicates that the new particle is a boson with spin different from one.


    Of course an excited proton doing one more rotation can only give up two photons. 2 are needed due to rotation symmetry , what others call pair production...

  • 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.

    You're clinging to misunderstanding Huxley. Light exists, and light moves. Reference frames do not exist. They are abstract things. The observational results that makes it clear that the speed of light varies is provided by NIST optical clocks. The lower clock goes slower because light goes slower when its lower. There is no actual thing called "time" flowing through those clocks.


    Quote

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

    Spacetime curvature is associated with the tidal force. That's there when there's a difference in the force of gravity at two elevations. The force of gravity at the floor of the room you're in is 9.8m/s². It's also 9.8m/s² at the ceilng, so there's no detectable tidal force. But your pencil still falls down. That's detectable. This is basic stuff Huxley. Try to understanding it instead of clinging to the popscience lies-to-children.


    Quote

    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.

    We know it. Again it's basic stuff. Einstein's E=mc² paper wasn't wrong.


    Quote

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

    I've written the article: http://physicsdetective.com/grand-unified-theories/.



    Quote

    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.

    When you understand the electron you understand mass. Then when you take the next steps you can understand electron capture and beta decay. Then you understand just how dire Weinberg's weak interaction is. Then you too will have a profoundly negative viewpoint. As for putting forward something better, I have another article in the works. But will you even read it? Here's an excerpt:



    The lower portion of the image above is a depiction of the electromagnetic wave that is a single photon. Note that most of the grid units exhibit a spin-1 symmetry, but the grid units in the centre exhibit a spin-2 symmetry. At this location E and B are zero but there’s still a trace of the wave present. And if you understand how gravity works you know what it is. Gravity is quite straightforward. Einstein explained most of it in his 1920 Leyden Address. A concentration of energy in the guise of a massive star conditions the surrounding space, making it “neither homogeneous nor isotropic”. As a result the speed of light varies, and as a result of that, light curves downwards:


  • Quote

    He has stated clearly that he thinks QM and the SM are incomplete at best, so no amount of arguing with him that refers back to the QM and CERN data will be taken in account because he has done the calculations with his SO(4) model and thinks he has a better explanation for those measurements.


    Why not - but adhering on math and ignoring rational arguments is exactly what Wyttenbach criticizes about mainstream physicists. He is not any different - just outnumbered one...;-)
    I can see sorta duality here.