Admission of Fraud in High Energy Physics

    • New
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The standard model predicts nothing and factually never did predict anything

    Oh come on... Standard model predicted the W and Z bosons, the gluon, and the top and charm quarks, before they have been observed. Also Higgs boson - despite the solid dose of luck and misconception in its detection. Electron dipole moment and another quantitative predictions also belong there. Which were of course redeemed by huge number of experimental constants and corrections borrowed from many other theories. It's just an epicycle model with all its splendors and miseries. There's no doubt that there are fundamentally new models based on actual internal geometry of elementary particles lurking in the shadows (Heim's, Kornowski or Nigel B. Cook theories for to name a few) which are cowardly overlooked by mainstream.

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    It's just an epicycle model with all its splendors and miseries.

    Ptolemy’s ancient work was rediscovered, and new maps were drawn based on his thousand-year-old calculations.

    Indeed, Christopher Columbus’ voyage to America was partly due to Ptolemy—and errors in his cartography. Columbus carried a map influenced by the ancient Roman’s work. But Ptolemy thought the world was 30 percent smaller than it actually is; worse, the mapmaker was using Arabian miles, which were longer than Italian ones. Together these mistakes led Columbus to believe the voyage to Asia would be much shorter. It was an early example of a GPS-like near disaster.

    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/brief-history-maps-180963685/%23:~:text%3DPtolemy%27s%2520ancient%2520work%2520was%2520rediscovered,by%2520the%2520ancient%2520Roman%27s%2520work.&ved=2ahUKEwiAt8ubidmMAxW3hq8BHT4bF1AQFnoECBgQAw&usg=AOvVaw2ueZShtcLlXXtrzV6aRLZA


    Although much lauded the epicycles were much less useful than Ptolemy's mapping, which apparently Columbus used.

    Luckily no one depends on the ''Higgs boson" for survival except for a Phd'd priesthood

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Oh come on... Standard model predicted the W and Z bosons, the gluon, and the top and charm quarks, before they have been observed. Also Higgs boson

    The Standard Model. can't even calculate hot fusion let alone predict it...

    . "Standard Model predicted the Higgs Boson"


    If you read the original 1964. paper. you won't. find 'predicted. the Higgs Boson"'. you will find 'possible situations" ", "variables" and 'prediction of incomplete multiplets of vector and scalar bosons".

    Nowhere is there a prediction of one 125 Giga-eV boson

    Peter Higgs was understandably humble about his fame..

    but THE BOSON was certainly a breadwinner for CERN to trumpet about

    Quantum-Papers/1964 - P.W. Higgs, Broken Symmetries and the Masses of Gauge Bosons.pdf at master · yousbot/Quantum-Papers
    I share with you a range of quantum physics papers i've accumulated during years. Maybe it will be useful for you. - yousbot/Quantum-Papers
    github.com

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Oh come on... Standard model predicted the W and Z bosons, the gluon, and the top and charm quarks, before they have been observed.

    That is called circular reasoning or the way a Rube Goldberg machine is put together. Meaning, It is utter garbage the "standard model" comes up with.

    Q: Which atomic model is the correct one that is accepted in the SM?
    Q: Is 'time-travel' possible?
    Q: Where did all the N2 in our atmosphere come from?
    Q: How does a anti-matter particle even know when and where to pop up for a nuclear reaction?
    Q: where is the anti-matter or neutrino for that matter hiding out when not yet needed?
    Q: Do you believe that the universe started with a big bang form nothing or from all the matter collected in a single point?
    Q: Do you think that particles are a zero dimension point or have actual dimensions?
    Q: Do you think that starting on a flat table top meaning 2D for atomic structures might actually mean that you already implemented a mystical force or a constraint for your model?

    There are so many questions and fallacies to point out this is just a gentle touch of what I could point out regarding the so called "standard model". There not two persons that agree on anything at all, even in the main stream. except a few WIKI pages maybe. What is the standard model?? It is a collection of cherry picked models and wishful thinking that is put together like a Frankenstein monster, very very ugly when one looks at it.

    • New

    You can't mean it seriously: these questions even have nothing to do with the Standard Model. The fact that some half-educated journalist rises them in the name of Standard Model (or whatever else theory) somewhere on tabloid pop-sci page or YouTube "interview" doesn't indeed mean, that these problems belong into SM predictions which SM is capable to solve. I can understand and appreciate that many of you don't like mainstream paradigms - me neither, but lets argue meaningfully at least a bit.

    • New
    Quote from RobertBryant

    If you read the original 1964. paper. you won't. find 'predicted. the Higgs Boson"'. you will find 'possible situations" ", "variables" and 'prediction of incomplete multiplets of vector and scalar bosons".

    Peter Higgs predicted the Higgs boson in a series of papers between 1964 and 1966, not necessarily in this first one. Also it became soon evident, that his theory doesn't provide specific answer for Higgs boson mass. Nevertheless it remains testable in this way: if we observe the same boson during decays of products of various collisions, then it's evident we are dealing with field predicted by Higgs. It's the universality of Higgs resonance which identifies it as a Higgs boson - not its mass actually.

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    his theory doesn't provide specific answer for Higgs boson mass.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    the universality of Higgs resonance

    I compliment Z on his AI assisted 'resonance.'

    The so-called "Higg's boson mass" can be calculated fairly closely from the proton magnetic moment and the proton radius based on the energy signature being due to a 'resonance' of the lowly proton, albeit excited a tad by collisions in the LHC.

    But that calculation cannot yet be found on AI

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    You can't mean it seriously: these questions even have nothing to do with the Standard Model. The fact that some half-educated journalist rises them in the name of Standard Model (or whatever else theory) somewhere on tabloid pop-sci page or YouTube "interview" doesn't indeed mean, that these problems belong into SM predictions which SM is capable to solve. I can understand and appreciate that many of you don't like mainstream paradigms - me neither, but lets argue meaningfully at least a bit.

    I speak for myself (and am serious), not for all others here on this forum, nor do I quote anyone, let alone a journalist.

    You can poo-poo these questions (and some clear traps for you to answer) all you want, but this is what it comes down to. You keep posting "out of this world" stuff all over but refuse to answer some things clearly or even address them. People point out problems with your 'views' but you ignore them or show some word salad that even the AI sees for what it is. A dodecahedron is not stable form on its own for example, you do not know geometry but talk about it. doing your homework is important, it prevents silly mistakes. We all makes those on occasion, but we tend to keep it limited, you make them each and every post.

    So which ATOM MODEL is to be used when we talk about nuclear physics>? It matters a lot you see. Just answer me that one please. Or if that is not an OK question for you then perhaps this one.
    How would 4 particles (nucleons) organize themselves through whatever force, power or magic? Now do this with 12 and then please answer me how to do that with 20 particles (and then the whole Periodic Table). Hint dodecahedron is wrong.

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Standard model predicted the W and Z bosons, the gluon, and the top and charm quarks,

    You can propose any nonsense and claim that you did find it. Predict means that you can give details like exact mass, half live etc.. Nostradamus like predictions can always be fulfilled.

    • New
    Quote from RobertBryant

    The so-called "Higg's boson mass" can be calculated fairly closely

    Here's some more AI for Z-salads about Prediction.



    "The Standard Model, a framework that describes fundamental particles and their interactions, doesn't have a formula to directly calculate the Higgs mass.

    "The Standard Model does not precisely predict the strength of the Higgs field, .. the Standard Model doesn't explain the underlying mechanism that determines the strength of the Higgs field itself, such as the value of the Higgs  self coupling

    • New
    Quote from RobertBryant

    The Standard Model does not precisely predict the strength of the Higgs field, .. the Standard Model doesn't explain the underlying mechanism

    For what the strength of Higgs field should be relevant and how it can be measured / inferred from observations? Note that Einstein's gravity theory also doesn't predict the strength of gravity - it just borrows it from empirical Newton law. It equates the gravity force to curvature of space around massive bodies - but it doesn't explain the underlying mechanism how this curvature is actually formed.


    I still wouldn't cite this ignorance as a fraud, because the origin of gravity isn't - somewhat curiously - discussed even on crackpot sites and/or free-thinkers discussions. These things just somehow works and everyone is fine with it and a very few people are actually interested about their mechanism. I don't really understand why under the situation when people are willing to passionately discuss the mechanism of way more contrived phenomena, like the Higgs boson.

    • New
    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Higgs field

    HIGGS field?

    Zero prediction and dubious measurement, even more dubious than the Higgs boson. In contrast to gravity. electrostatic and magnetic fields which are readily measurable by relatively simple/repeatable techniques the strength of the so-called Higgs field has only been inferred from statistical analysis of TEV collisions in the one LHC at the nucleus of a parasitic,self-serving elite.


    as Ben Recht discussed 23/10/24

    This brings me back to my original reply to Nico: we have an "object" that has been "observed" at a single location on Earth. This observation was done in an experiment where no single person understood the entirety of the procedure. It requires well over 6 years of graduate study to fully understand what was supposed to be seen in the most ideal experimental situation. Under these idealized conditions, which no one fully understands, the CERN folks tell us that the p-value of seeing what they saw if the Higgs wasn't there is less than 0.0000006. But this p-value is corrupted by all sorts of standard complaints about questionable research practices, and we are told not to take it literally.

    OK, so what’s the point of all this? Am I just trying to be a science denier who casts uncertainty at all fundamental discoveries? I’ll confess: a little. But I also think we can learn something about modern science and engineering by digging into a few follow-up questions. What does it mean that the Higgs Boson was discovered? And why would we be in a different situation without that p-value?

    The answers fit nicely in the argmin oeuvre.

    First, it was certainly not the case that digging into the Higgs made me feel better about the utility of statistical testing. Whether or not the Higgs exists has no bearing outside the insular world of particle physics. If you don’t have a four teraelectronvolt supercollider, you can’t make a Higgs. The Higgs field has no bearing on any physics at any scale anyone would ever care about. So I don’t care either way if physicists think they found a Higgs. It has zero bearing on my existence.

    Nico thought this view too pragmatic. But pragmatism too often gets short shrift in the history and philosophy of science. The philosophy of engineering remains underexplored! There has to be something we can do with substantive causal theories for them to be real.

    Now to the second question. When we ask, “Does the Higgs Boson exist?” we are not asking about the material reality of an object. We're asking about our belief in a system. Do we believe that a collection of determined, over-credentialed scientists can organize themselves, through their democratic, participatory decision-making schemes, to decide upon the connection of data and theory? Do we believe that such institutions produce trustworthy procedures and rituals so that if they say they did something, then no one else has to check? Do we believe that their presented statistical counts represent a close enough facsimile of experimental conditions to corroborate an ornate, impossible to understand theory? Do we believe their committees properly adjudicate statistical practice and preregistration plans?

    All of these questions are substantially less romantic than those popularized on YouTube or in Quanta magazine. They are questions about people, their budgets, and their committees. This is why statistics is so vital to the Higgs discovery. Just like how we need RCTs as a regulatory mechanism for drugs, big science needs 5σ as a way to set standards for pushing papers through their mass of review boards. Statistics is most useful in regulatory standards, providing compressed, crisp rules for stochastic approval. “5σ,” it turns out, is not different than “p<0.05.” It is another mindless convention needed for a well-functioning collaboration.

    And well-functioning CERN was! With 10 billion dollars, they confirmed a model of particles that connects the crowning achievements of 20th-century physics. Through a massive collaborative government, they achieved a democratic consensus about the fundamental building blocks of physical theory, a united nations of physics. The Higgs Discovery is a celebration of modern bureaucracy, not a revelation about material reality.

    • New
    Quote from Edo


    Q: How does a anti-matter particle even know when and where to pop up for a nuclear reaction?


    Q: where is the anti-matter or neutrino for that matter hiding out when not yet needed?

    All very based Edo, no disagreement. I quote because:


    I am genuinely interested in your observations regarding the first question, particularly in terms of under what conditions electron capture is 'active/viable'. (have you observed particular patterns in the segre chart data, for instance?)


    I have thoughts on the second, but they are somewhat speculative about the neutrino. Jere Jenkin's observations of annual variation in half lifes do suggest neutrinos might have some role in nuclear reconfigurations that would influence stability.)

    • New
    Quote from Cydonia

    Pretty sure however it's so difficult to study them..

    The neutrino involvement remains the basis of the Pr Parkhomov work.

    I agree. I think they generally get a bit too much attention given how ephemeral they are and how typically irrelevant they are to applications.


    That said, reports of half life variability seem annual and correlate with solar distance (1 / r^2) and *might* be neutrino mediated

    Sci-Hub | Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance. Astroparticle Physics, 32(1), 42–46 | 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2009.05.004

    • New
    Quote from EtherDais

    That said, reports of half life variability seem annual and correlate with solar distance (1 / r^2) and *might* be neutrino mediated

    The effect of proximity to the sun is nowhere more apparent than in the solar corona, which is hundreds of times hotter than the surface. Though the fact that the surface of the sun is even closer to the sun than the corona (outer atmosphere) does give me pause for thought.

    • New
    Quote from Wyttenbach

    But what they see is a fat proton not a Higgs.... - a real mass particle....

    What the fat proton is supposed to mean? Why fat proton is formed during diphoton decay, for example? How two photons should know, they should result just some fat proton - and not fat neutron, or fat muon or any other much simpler particle for example?

    Quote from EtherDais

    I think they generally get a bit too much attention given how ephemeral they are and how typically irrelevant they are to applications.

    IMO radioactive decay is catalyzed mostly with dark matter, which consists of scalar waves and many other heavier components, including neutrinos. Neutrinos form only minor constituent of dark matter (less than 5% by mass).

    Quote from RobertBryant

    Zero prediction and dubious measurement, even more dubious than the Higgs boson

    The matter of fact remains, that LHC and Tevatron started to search for Higgs boson in a way which Standard Model predicted, and they both detected common resonance during decays of wide variety of different particles, which is also what Standard Model predicted - no one else. It was organized streamlined search, not random finding and it was motivated solely by Standard Model, no other theory. Yes, we can discuss where other experiments in physics aren't more important for civilization or whether some aspects of Higgs were not intentionally overlooked for to make it more compliant with Peter's Higgs prediction (even into account of supersymmetry and other mainstream models sought at LHC). Many physicists also discuss the question if the Higgs mechanism is the best theoretical mechanism for giving mass to particles and so on.

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.