The church of SM physics

Quote from RobertBryant

What and when was the best electroweak theory prediction of the Higgs Boaston mass.

after the 1999 prophecy of anywhere btw 60 and 1000GeV

Post 2012? 125 Gev?

RB - no prediction of mass. Why so you feel that rest mass measurement is the only possible prediction a theory can make. It is about 0.001% of the experimental data predicted.

in case you had not realised, there are not very many fundamental particles - and they fit symmetries. They have all been found. Except (then) the Higgs, which does not fit into gauage symmetries. It was predicted but not found. And now found.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6753.pdf

W: Later you say QM is fundamental and claim it's not based on measurement.

Quote please. I never said QM is not based on measurement. it was developed exactly because of measurements that did not otherwise make sense!

However it is fundamental - and just possibly more fundamental than spacetime and GR, which it seems can emerge from a QM/QFT basis, at least in some special cases.

Wyttenbach‘s personal vendetta against all and everything that is related to SM and even more to all CERN physists becomes boring (at least to me). No wonder if his theory of a new and better physics that could and may replace the current SM and its limitations at some point in the future can hardly be accepted by those he is critizing all day long for their “church”...

I am in support of Wyttenbach questioning QM and the SM - but maybe more constructive criticism would be to show step by step where this model goes wrong ie the main argument is that it only applies to high energy vacuum physics but comes unstuck when dense matter systems are considered. Especially Bose-Einstein condensates, hydrinos and/ or ultra dense matter to the extent that anything that Mills, Santilli, or Holmlid's group publishes (although peer reviewed) is consistently ignored by the SM mainstream. We don't need new and bigger particle accelerators, rather ground-breaking research into why ultra-dense H spontaneously emits - muons, say follow up all these anomalous experiments - would be time better spent and yield more useful data for both energy production and for progress in NASA's direct fusion drive reactors. Too much theoretical physics investment and not enough practical experimentation results in our being 'lost in maths'.

Wyttenbach have to do as Einstein to sell his understanding.

Einstein became famous when planets came to prove his theory..

We live at buzz time even P&F had understood this.

Quote from Dr Richard

I am in support of Wyttenbach questioning QM and the SM - but maybe more constructive criticism would be to show step by step where this model goes wrong ie the main argument is that it only applies to high energy vacuum physics but comes unstuck when dense matter systems are considered. Especially Bose-Einstein condensates, hydrinos and/ or ultra dense matter to the extent that anything that Mills, Santilli, or Holmlid's group publishes (although peer reviewed) is consistently ignored by the SM mainstream. We don't need new and bigger particle accelerators, rather ground-breaking research into why ultra-dense H spontaneously emits - muons, say follow up all these anomalous experiments - would be time better spent and yield more useful data for both energy production and for progress in NASA's direct fusion drive reactors. Too much theoretical physics investment and not enough practical experimentation results in our being 'lost in maths'.

remember number of experts from flatearthforum.com before copernic ahhaahhaha.

your model looks good, especially since we have just seen that supernovae have lumps (architecture with entangled subassemblies).

https://arstechnica.com/scienc…-explosion-and-a-mystery/

your model comes out of my question, do hydrogen atoms have the same size regardless where they are in the universe ..?

Universe is a kind of avalanche made of lumps (multiple subsets that conform matter)

I have no more patience to explain really more for my part ...

go one last, dark matter doesn't exist because galaxies collapse naturally on their black hole. this is only a step. This grinding is only a reduction of number of space dimensions.

what becomes this matter? just radiations ..

https://www.space.com/fermi-bu…ay-radiation-mystery.html

To finish your 4D system remains an analogy from a 2D object that turns on itself and move forward both (need for universe expansion ..)

visible matter having a number of dimensions greater than the invisible one that which supports radiations but most importantly, all dimensions are linked all together as a 3D face spot on your flat 2D skin. ( see Nobel prize year 2348 )

Quote from Wyttenbach

That's why I (we) want to do better LENR experiments. Latest when we publish/patent more stuff some people get a wake-up call.

My frustration is not personal: I just see how much live time is wasted for the support of a nonsensical model. 10000's of students do examen on stuff that only exists in weird minds and most possibly also damages their minds the same way as it happens in any cult that is just based on my uncle (e.g. Dirac) said...

Unluckily my strength is complex logic something most people miss to study in depth.

Just one example of complete weirdness of our discussion: THH claims the inability to calculate mass/energy by SM is not important. Next sentence he says: Oh yes QM could may be derive gravity... Oh no the mass is given by the Higgs field and ohhhh the Higgs particle has of course no mass at least not given by the Higgs field by what then ????? The Higgs particle is thus just not real and lives may be in a complex space called our mind that generates all mass we measure.... But why claims CERN it can be found by the same mechanism as all other particles???

Two more beers!

Display More

Quote from Wyttenbach

That's why I (we) want to do better LENR experiments. Latest when we publish/patent more stuff some people get a wake-up call.

My frustration is not personal: I just see how much live time is wasted for the support of a nonsensical model. 10000's of students do examen on stuff that only exists in weird minds and most possibly also damages their minds the same way as it happens in any cult that is just based on my uncle (e.g. Dirac) said...

Unluckily my strength is complex logic something most people miss to study in depth.

Just one example of complete weirdness of our discussion: THH claims the inability to calculate mass/energy by SM is not important. Next sentence he says: Oh yes QM could may be derive gravity... Oh no the mass is given by the Higgs field and ohhhh the Higgs particle has of course no mass at least not given by the Higgs field by what then ????? The Higgs particle is thus just not real and lives may be in a complex space called our mind that generates all mass we measure.... But why claims CERN it can be found by the same mechanism as all other particles???

Two more beers!

Display More

I never said calculating mass/energy is not important. Rather the key fundamental particle rest masses - a very small number of experimentally determined parameters, need not have predicted values. Remember most of the hadron mass-energy is energy not rest mass.

W has AFAICS not bothered to look at what is the standard model view of Higgs field and Higgs particle, so he says things about it that betray extreme ignorance, or maybe deliberate avoidance?

Higgs particle has of course no mass at least not given by the Higgs field by what then ????? The Higgs particle is thus just not real and lives may be in a complex space called our mind

The Higgs particle has a measured mass of 125GeV from multiple experiments. It has the right characteristics to give other particles rest mass - or, more precisely, interaction with the Higgs field does this, and the Higgs particle is the Higgs field excitation from QFT just as the photon is the em field excitation. However its own rest mass is non-zero independent of the Higgs mechanism - and most of the mass in the universe comes from energy, not the Higgs field rest mass.

The issue of Higgs particle rest mass is fascinating:

https://profmattstrassler.com/…particle-its-mass-or-not/

Anyway W above shows no understanding of it:

• rest mass given parameters otherwise not tied down (we don't know what determines these, because as is obvious SM is not complete)
• It does not have zero rest mass independent of Higgs self-interaction

From the above link:

Where does the Higgs mass come from, then? We can’t say it comes from the Higgs field’s value v; they’re related, but not closely enough for one to say that v is entirely responsible for the Higgs particle’s mass. All we can say is that it arises in a more complex way from the quantities a, b and d in the equation of motion, and so we have to figure out where they come from — which has not yet been done.

W:

But why claims CERN it can be found by the same mechanism as all other particles???

If W understood the theory he dismisses he would not ask this. As a heavy spin 0 boson it enters into Feynman diagrams no other particle can, and therefore has specific decay products which are detectable.

The SM is clearly only part of the picture. But it is a very successful part that is validated by prediction of the enormous corpus of experimental results. So any alternate needs at least to follow it in that, and SO4 does not (unless it can be shown equivalent to SM/QFT under the parameters currently observed).

W: Next sentence he says: Oh yes QM could may be derive gravity...

Gravity is nothing to do with the Higgs field or the Higgs particle. This is an amateur mistake:

https://profmattstrassler.com/…nd-gravity-are-unrelated/

So — the guess that the Higgs has something to do with gravity is natural for a non-expert, but I am afraid it is naive; it comes from misunderstanding both

1. the Higgs field, which is not universal: it gives masses to most of the known elementary particles but not to the Higgs particle itself, and not to protons and neutrons, dark matter (most likely), or black holes,
2. and Einstein’s gravity, which is universal and has to do with energy and momentum but not mass directly, and most certainly does pull on protons and neutrons, dark matter and black holes even though their masses don’t come entirely from the Higgs field.

As for how QFT can derive gravity at least in AdS cosmology:

https://www.annualreviews.org/…19?journalCode=conmatphys

Very active topic. W not knowing this is surely deliberate avoidance.

I'd like to back Wyttenbach up on this. I've said something about the Higgs mechanism elsewhere. Let me repeat it for you:

The idea comes from the electroweak sector of the standard model, where the weak force is said to be mediated by massive vector bosons. They have to be massive because the force is short range. See the Wikipedia Higgs mechanism article where you can read that “according to Goldstone’s theorem, these bosons should be massless”. If they aren’t, the bosons aren’t gauge bosons, and the theory isn’t a gauge theory. And since electromagnetism is, the result would not be the electroweak theory. So a fix was needed, and it was provided by a number of contributors. They “discovered that when a gauge theory is combined with an additional field that spontaneously breaks the symmetry group, the gauge bosons can consistently acquire a nonzero mass”. Interestingly enough Peter Higgs’s original paper was rejected by Physics Letters in 1964 as not having any relevance to particle physics. So Higgs added a sentence at the end saying it implied “the existence of one or more new, massive scalar bosons”, then he submitted it to Physical Review Letters. It was called Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons. It’s only a page and a half. You can read all about it in Higgs’s 2017 article on the prehistory of the Higgs boson. The trouble with all that is this: Einstein didn’t say the mass of a body was due to some interaction with some space-filling field. He said the mass of a body is a measure of its energy content, not something else. So somebody who says mass is something else, is saying Einstein was wrong. They’re also saying E=mc² is wrong. It isn’t. There is clearly something amiss somewhere. Sheldon Glashow didn’t call it “Weinberg’s toilet” for nothing.

Basically, the Higgs mechanism is moonshine. You guys will understand this when you understand that electron capture does what it says on the tin, and that beta decay is the reverse process. A neutron's mass-energy .939 GeV, It doesn't decay because an 80GeV W-boson pops into existence. Spontaneously. Like worms from mud. That's what's called "lies to children". And I'm afraid the Standard Model is a whole pack of them.

I know Einstein was an idiot e=mc² has to be "Higgsinated" now.

Weird. We (normal people that is) accept that interactions with fields can add mass-energy to particles. There is nothing special about the Higgs field in that. What is special is that it is needed as mechanism to break electro-weak symmetry. Predicted (and therefore Higgs predicted) by SM so strongly that if it did not exist SM would fall. One of the good things about strong theories is that they can be falsified. What would falsify SO4 dense matter physics?

For normal people mass and energy are equivalent but not for the Higgs church. Higgs postulates a third form of mass obviously not interchangeable with mechanical mass.

I've no idea even what this means! Mechanical mass is made up of 80% energy 20% rest mass of particles. That "rest mass" is itself product of Higgs field interaction. (non-tech summary as below).

The solution formulated by Higgs, Englert, and Robert Brout (who worked with Englert at ULB but is now deceased) proposes that all of space is filled with a field that interacts with the weak force particles to give them mass. It does so because the field is assumed not to be zero in empty space. This nonzero ground state violates a symmetry that is considered fundamental to quantum field theory. Earlier work had shown that this kind of symmetry breaking led to a massless, spinless particle that was ruled out by experiments [1]. Englert, Brout, and Higgs showed how one could make this unwanted particle disappear by coupling the space-filling field to the weak-force field. When they worked out all of the interactions, they found that the force particles effectively had a mass, and the unwanted, massless, spinless particle was essentially absorbed by the weak particles. These particles gained a third spin state as a result, and the only remaining spinless particle was the massive Higgs boson. A similar theory was developed by a third team of theorists in the same year [2].

Subsequent work showed that the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism (or “Higgs mechanism,” for short) could give mass not only to weak particles, but also to electrons, quarks, and other fundamental particles. The more strongly a particle interacts with the Higgs field, the more massive it is. It’s important to note, however, that most of the mass in composite particles, like protons, nuclei, and atoms, does not come from the Higgs mechanism, but from the binding energy that holds these particles together.

“Brout and Englert and Higgs put forth a very clever idea, now known as the Higgs mechanism,” says Michael Turner of the University of Chicago. “It provides an explanation for one of the simplest questions one can ask: why do particles have mass? Such a simple question—but very profound—that many don’t even think to ask it.” To validate this mechanism, particle physicists constructed the LHC, the largest, most technologically sophisticated machine ever built, says Joseph Incandela, spokesperson for the CMS experiment, which was one of the detectors that spotted the Higgs boson. “I think people look at this and feel that particle physics has pulled off something like a moon landing here,” he says.

...

Please THH I do not talk about gravitational mass just about its energy equivalent given by mechanics...

Conclusion: Higgs mass is the fantasy relation of virtual SM particle masses (what ever that is.. one Higgson?) as SM was unable to give any relation to mechanics & Maxwell equivalent masses. 2 digits precision is great. This is about the same people in the stone ages made their deals. 60 cows for 3 woman or 100 trees.

The distinction you make does not exist. Sure, all mass is energy. "Mechanical mass" is (known) to be mostly the energy pf quarks and gluons inside hadrons. And partly the "rest mass of particles.... which itself as an origin in an interaction with a field.

I think from anwers thus far your main issue with physics is that you don't like algebra, are suspicious of symmetry-based explanations of physics, particularly don't like broken symmetry as explanation for physics:

https://medium.com/starts-with…the-universe-fbf70e717229

A great popular account of what happened in the early universe when the Higgs field broke electroweak symmetry and as a result gave particles mass through their interaction with a non-zero vacuum field.

SM:QED/QFT/QCD -for dense Matter is fringe science not in any way related to classic physics and has no power to explain even the simpelst things we like to know e.g. how to calculate the energy of the first gamma line of 6-Li.

I've challenged you:

(1) to show how SO4 theory fits in with rest of physics and those 99.99% of observations other than particle rest masses directly predicted by QED/QFT/QCD.

(2) to write up your particle mass derivations in a self-contained way that can be critiqued by others and show that the numbers you claim to derive are not numerical alchemy but the only possible result of some real underlying theory. That is, as one or more research papers that do not depend on unpublished pseudo-scientific writings (Mills tome).

As i see it, the only successes you claim are all numerical alchemy - magic formulae from which fundamental numbers can be derived. There is a long and well known history of this stuff - possible because semi-classical approximations are sometimes exact, and sometimes close, and hand-waving "corrections" easy to generate. Then again - as with the closed form numerical derivation of the fine structure constant - there are often aphysical but surprisingly neat numerical very close approximations to fundamental physical constants. But single numbers are very low in information content compared with all the quantitative relationships that make up observed physics. Any experimentalist would tell you that it is the form of result dependence on parameters, not a single numerical value, that is often most insightful in showing mechanism.

Even though physicists love symmetry, the fact that the universe has cooled from an enormously hot start and that symmetry breaking is a well known phenomena throughout physics means the existence of "random" numbers as physical constants now is expected, not unexpected. So, while I would not assume that, I would not rule it out of any of the current uncalculable (except via numerical alchemy) physical constants.

Finally - I am not defending SM as the final theory of everything!!! Everyone looking at it thinks it cannot be that. And i have suggested from my own viewpoint where progress might come from, with exciting active research now, though i'm not saying my views are any better than anyone elses.

More technical description of Higgs field spontaneous symmetry breaking and how this creates particle masses.

https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~playfer/PPlect17.pdf

The terms look like a simulation of a magnetic coupling!

The explanation (symmetry breaking) as said is a basic misunderstanding of physics because SM uses the wrong groups it would need for a proper circular coupling.

The presenter states :: This mass (Higgs boson) still has to be determined experimentally! ==> SM is not fundamental as it cannot give any relation to existing masses that should be given by existing masses.

3 more beers !!

So: for example, you could answer my challenge by showing how magnetic coupling explains that 99.99% of experimental data (everything other than a few field interaction strengths) correctly predicted by SM.

Now: SM is not fundamental. True. And I've said it over and over again. Neither is anything else currently proposed. Your SO4 ideas are so far from fundamental they do not even count on that front. Further, your argu,ment here is wrong. Inability to explain certain arbitrary parameters in physics says nothing as to fundamentality unless you believe spontaneous symmetry breaking can't happen (when manifestly it can). Rather, SM is not fundamental because it does not yet unify with GR, because things like the nature of the Higgs scalar field (WHY that potential?) remain obscure, etc.

But - suppose you deny Higgs field as reason for those particle masses. You have a lot of coincidences to explain away:

• If you deny electroweak unification - why the vector bosons exactly do what they need to - why is there that symmetry iosospin/spin
• If you deny Higgs field: why is there just one extra particle not in the symmetric set from QED/QCD discovered so long after prediction as the only spin 0 elementary particle? Note that a spin zero particle is predicted by by Higgs mechanism - again tis is falsifiable, failure to find it would mean rethinking Higgs, just as failure to find supersymmetric particles has led to a rethinking of supersymmetry.

==> next excuse of SM: particles have partially a Higgs mass and partially an other (what ??) mass...

Hadrons have been closely observed; the quarks inside identified. Hadronic mass comes from quark rest mass, and quark and gluon energy. Leptons are (naturally) zero mass, but given mass by Higgs field.

So all (particle) mass is either energy from composite particles tightly bound by strong force, or from Higgs field.

I still await even a partial answer to my long standing challenge.

Sorry CERN did find two distinct proton resonances - not one particle! Now they try to hide one resonance below the carpet.... (Ohh sorry: Dear Mr.Higgs predicted 2 particles - may be after 6 beers and 2 bottles of wine = SM tranquilizer...

Suspected resonances are found all the time. With more statistics they either vanish into the noise, or they become real.

perhaps you'd like to be more precise which resonances you feel make your point?

I'm aware of a few now vanished resonances, and the recent 28GeV dimuon resonance. All of which show that there is no fudge, and people look very carefully at all data for possible novelty and then check it.

28GeV dimuon resonance: looking unclear - probably nothing - December 2018:

We report on a search for resonances in the mass range 12–70 GeV, produced in association
with a b quark jet and another jet, and decaying to a muon pair. The analysis is based on data
from proton-proton collisions at center-of-mass energies of 8 and 13 TeV, collected with the
CMS detector at the LHC and corresponding to integrated luminosities of 19.7 and 35.9 fb−1,
respectively. The search is carried out in two mutually exclusive event categories. Events in
the first category are required to have a b quark jet in the central region (|η| ≤ 2.4) and at
least one jet in the forward region (|η| > 2.4). Events in the second category are required to
have two jets in the central region, at least one of which is identified as a b quark jet, no jets
in the forward region, and low missing transverse momentum. An excess of events above the
background near a dimuon mass of 28 GeV is observed in both event categories in the 8 TeV
data, corresponding to local significances of 4.2 and 2.9 standard deviations, respectively.
A mild excess of data over the background in the first event category is observed in 13 TeV data
and corresponds to a local significance of 2.0 standard deviations, while the second category
results in a deficit with a local significance of 1.4 standard deviations.
We provide a measurement of the fiducial cross sections and the upper limits on those at 95%
confidence level, evaluated for the mass and the width values obtained from the combined fit
to the two event categories in √s = 8 TeV data. In the lack of a realistic signal model, the 13 TeV
results are not sufficient to make a definitive statement about the origin of the 8 TeV excess.
Therefore, more data and additional theoretical input are both required to fully understand the
results presented in this paper.