The church of SM physics

Quote from Curbina

A category mistake in observational claims regarding ultrashort-lived unstable particles

• Marcoen J. T. F. Cabbolet

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732318502279Cited by:0
Previous

Next
About

Abstract

The physics literature contains many claims that ultrashort-lived unstable particles, such as a Higgs boson, have been observed. These claims are a matter of applying the 5𝜎5σ-convention in particle physics. This paper, however, shows that by applying this 5𝜎5σ-convention a category mistake is made, by which a pure reasoning is passed off as an observation. Not only are these two fundamentally different primitive notions at the very basis of science, but the pure reasoning in question is also weaker than an observation: what we have in each case is that the existence of the ultrashort-lived unstable particle is inferred to the best explanation, but that does absolutely not merit the stronger claim that the particle in question has been “observed”. Consequently, the observational claims in question will thus have to be dismissed as overstatements. On a general note, this demonstrates that the empirical support for the Standard Model of particle physics is significantly less than hitherto thought.

https://www.worldscientific.co…10.1142/S0217732318502279

Display More

So, this is written from the perspective of philosophy of science (this guy is a philosopher) not physics.

I would disagree with it (as I do many things in philosophy) because the semantic verbal distinctions made do not practically work.

Specifically the idea that inference is less sound than "direct observation" of a long-lived particle. In both cases we infer - from evidence on instruments and assumptions about how the particle would effect its surroundings - the underlying physical reality.

it is true that for short-lived particles we rely on the field theories and symmetries that define our particles, but these match many different observations in so many ways that we can be confident. Just as in a millican experiment we can be confident of a quantised charge particle even though we never see it.

For some macroscopic observations the assumptions can be wrong: for example the liquid He bubbles that appear to have 1/2 charge quantisation but can be equally explained as quantised vortices.

For field theories there is equally some wiggle-room in assumptions, but the fit with many experiments is so good and simple that for the claimed particles not to "exist" whatever that means would be weird indeed.

That does not mean that field theories are the best or final description of the world - merely that they have an exceptional fit to stuff that otherwise we cannot explain.

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Pseudo-scientific_study

Ted Goertzel on pseudoscience and mental health

“The logic of the conspiracy meme is to question everything the ‘establishment’ — be it government or scientists — says or does... Conspiracy theories can be useful for scientists who are so far out of the mainstream in their field that they seek to appeal to alternative funding sources or publication outlets. They also might occasionally surface when a scientist's mental health deteriorates to the point that he or she loses touch with reality.”

Quote from Wyttenbach

Just blabber nonsense: There was and is no theory and especially no field theory that predicted the fake Higgs resonance. There was also no measurement to gauge the Higgs. Its' just a religious claim by the "new philosophy" called SM.

Because todays SM church only can say "there will be" - not what energy (mass) live time etc..a prediction has the value of a brain fart only. Such untied predictions were made by thousands of fringe people all over man's history. I recommend to read Nostradamus.

Every religion first states: There will be a wonder - called Higgs. If something happens by luck, then the myths - in case of SM pages full of fantasy Lagrangians - must be woven.

Of course the religion (of SM church) does not discuss the live time of such a wonder called particle because most of them violate the basic laws of information theory and can only be called resonances. This, resonances, is even more close to classic wonders that usually happen in the brain only...

There is absolute no reason to question the competences of a philosopher and to claim it could be lower than that of an SM religion priest. Usually an SM religion priest has no clue of logic outside the few equation systems he had to learn. An SM religion priest usually is unable to think independently (outside) of his learnt base. Thus I think a skilled philosopher will deliver the much better overview than 99.999% of the SM religion priests...

Display More

You are in this post reductionist in the extreme.

The Higgs resonance WAS predicted - and indeed cannot be anything else because of the conserved quantities in and out etc.

What you don't like is that its exact energy was not predicted (and in fact was predicted not to be predicted). But the Higgs interaction energies are just one or two arbitrary scalars (constrained by physics to quite a wide range of values). The predictions from SM theory are thousands of times more informative than those factors. Not sure if you understand Bayesian modelling and how hypotheses (= theories) can be found probable or improbable based on how well they fit data, taking into exact account the number of arbitrary parameters used to get the fit. You are not showing this knowledge, if you do understand it?

Oh man...It is somehow boring to constantly read this repetitive assessment of current mainstream QM and physics being total BS. Not a good strategy...Interested folks from many specialties will browse through this forum probably regularly just to read and note that they are idiots... I would love to see W to discuss his new theory with his scientific colleagues (idiots?) out there at eyelevel and argue on all pros and cons in good style...if he continues with his vendetta there will never be a chance that his work will make it into mainstream media or to a celebrated presentation on important annual congresses around the globe...

Message for next Sunday at the CERN church..in Geneva

Der Mensch lebt nicht nur vom Brot, sondern von jedem Euro, den der Steuerzahler verdient

Wow... CERN developed the world wide web.. wunderbar

Act now ...do not leave it to the Kurds!

http://www.erstestiftung.org/en/europe-needs-a-civic-cern/

Quote from THHuxleynew

Not sure if you understand Bayesian modelling and how hypotheses (= theories) can be found probable or improbable based on how well they fit data, taking into exact account the number of arbitrary parameters used to get the fit. You are not showing this knowledge, if you do understand it?

Funny that you mention Bayesian modeling because it is precisely after the application of Bayesian inference to the evaluation of LENR evidence that I became interested in that field. It just shows that the same model can lead to radically different opinions.

Quote from zorud

Oh man...It is somehow boring to constantly read this repetitive assessment of current mainstream QM and physics being total BS. Not a good strategy...Interested folks from many specialties will browse through this forum probably regularly just to read and note that they are idiots... I would love to see W to discuss his new theory with his scientific colleagues (idiots?) out there at eyelevel and argue on all pros and cons in good style...if he continues with his vendetta there will never be a chance that his work will make it into mainstream media or to a celebrated presentation on important annual congresses around the globe...

I completely agree with this assessment. In trying to take Wyttenbach seriously, one first has to wade through all sorts of conspiracy thinking.

In explaining his theories to Robert Hooke, Isaac Newton wrote "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants". He meant that previous work, even if it is wrong, sets the stage for truth to be revealed. It would be great if Wyttenbach could take on even a small shred of this attitude so that we could see him debate rather than simply unleash Jeremaiads over and over.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In the age of "trumpisms" it is - for outside people - difficult to distinguish between conspiracy and official fake news etc.. Building 7 of WTC has been borough down by an explosive charge according to the US union of building engineers. Over 10000 votes did agree with this. > 10000 highly educated specialists confirm "conspiracy thinking". There is no final official report about WTC building 7 because further reporting has been canceled after the engineers published their vote!

Or shall we say people like to believe (official) fake news because the world is much easier to understand if we have just see good and bad.

In physics we have no conspiracy thinking. It's just simple optimized propaganda for a live full of excitement and fun. This is the reality.

See what I mean?

Quote from zorud

Oh man...It is somehow boring to constantly read this repetitive assessment of current mainstream QM and physics being total BS. Not a good strategy...Interested folks from many specialties will browse through this forum probably regularly just to read and note that they are idiots... I would love to see W to discuss his new theory with his scientific colleagues (idiots?) out there at eyelevel and argue on all pros and cons in good style...if he continues with his vendetta there will never be a chance that his work will make it into mainstream media or to a celebrated presentation on important annual congresses around the globe...

It is total BS I'm afraid. The more you understand about physics, the more you realise this.

See for example the UCL small tutorial in gamma-gamma physics. It says this: “From Quantum Electro Dynamics (QED) we know that photons cannot couple directly to each other, since they don’t carry charge, but they can interact through higher order processes: a photon can, within the bounds of the uncertainty principle, fluctuate into a charged fermion/anti-fermion pair, to either of which the other photon can couple”. It’s flat out wrong. A 511keV photon does not magically morph into a 511keV electron and a 511keV positron. A 511keV electron and a 511keV positron do not magically morph back into a single 511keV photon. And pair production does not occur because pair production occurs, spontaneously, like worms from mud. Pair production occurs because photons interact with photons. It's a very strong interaction, but it's missing from QED and the Standard Model.

It gets worse. See what Cathryn Carson said in the peculiar notion of exchange forces part I and part II: the exchange-particle idea worked its way into QED from the mid-1930s, even though Heisenberg used a neutron model that was later retracted. That means the exchange-particle idea is wrong. That's why the Standard Model can't tell you why an electron and a positron move towards one another and around one another. Or why they go round in opposite directions in a uniform magnetic field. See my article on the theory of everything for more.

Quote from JulianBianchi

Funny that you mention Bayesian modeling because it is precisely after the application of Bayesian inference to the evaluation of LENR evidence that I became interested in that field. It just shows that the same model can lead to radically different opinions.

Quite a lot of the Bayesian inference work is not symmetry-prior-based Bayesian modelling. It does incorporate Bayes's theorem, of course, but does not do the much tougher job of distinguishing between a priori more and less likely hypotheses.

It is also true that LENR as a physical theory cannot be rated in Bayesian methodology because there is as yet no LENR hypothesis that makes predictions of physical outcomes.

Otherwise, application of statistical techniques to evidence will not distinguish between LENR as a genuine physical theory and LENR as a set of systematic artifacts.