Endgame for the Higgs Boson

The same situation, just symmetric can be observed at low energy sector with gravitational waves and at the middle of energy spectrum with WIMPS. The formally thinking scientists are actually rough aetherists of classical era in certain extent: they're expecting, the space-time consist of particles or waves of certain size or wavelength. While the zero hypothesis would be, no such particles should exist.

After all, why such background particles should exist at all in completely random Universe? It's observable structures are defined with us, human observers, not with intrinsic structure of Universe. Every fluctuation in it would interact with the fluctuations of the same size and energy density predominantly. Such selection could lead into well distinct masses of elementary particles and stellar objects of various types, but no uniformity actually exists here - it's only human abstraction of observations.

Hopefully the physics community will be more open to new ideas when the Higgs is not found... Ideas contradicting the Standard Model, like the "neoclassical atom" ( http://classicala...ons.html )!

Ideas contradicting the Standard Model, like the "neoclassical atom"

You can check the spin-loop model of electron in this connection, I believe it will inspire you even more.

http://members.ch...tron.pdf

The Higgs, if it exists, is now trapped between 114 and 145 GeV

If you check the graph of estimated Higgs boson mass spectrum, you will see, the excluded regions are separated into two gaps: one wide between 114 and 145 GeV and narrow one at ~ 183 GeV. If you check the top quark mass (172.0±2.2 GeV/c2), you'll realize, it's close to the value of the gap. The decay channel of top quark pairs is equal to dilepton channel predicted for Higgs boson. It's another indicia, (at least one of) the Higgs particle(s) is hiding right there...

Now the new study proposes, a top quark bound by to its anti-matter partner, the antitop, would act as a version of the elusive Higgs boson, conferring mass on other particles.

http://www.nature...436.html

This is how you can imagine it quite easily: http://oi55.tinyp...ocuu.jpg

The lightweight elementary quarks are surrounded with Higgs field, which lead into so-called Yukawa coupling and gluing of particles together. The heavier these quarks are, the more the space-time is collapsed around them and the more the Higgs field and the energy of Yukawa coupling becomes pronounced into account of quarks itself. At the case of the heaviest top quarks the mass of quarks is solely composed of their Higgs boson field - in this sense the top-quark pairs are behaving (nearly) like pure Higgs boson pairs.

Find out where Rosie O'Donnel eats, and you will find your Higgs.

wake up, it does not exist.
Energy binds on space time in a way that we do not understand, that't it. Energy does not exist in terms of matter. It is a concept that is useful to get an understanding. But the speed of light and what light is not even understood, so we are not going to fully know energy until we know what causes light speed limitation. Something is binding (energy, vibration, whatever it is), it creates "particules" in some conditions, and this causes a twist in the univers that we see. Maybe the Higgs Boson is doing that, but chances are 1 in a high number of other posibilites. At sub atomic level, the Univers seems to be much more highly related to the laws gouverning space time curvature than it is to the laws of Newton, so the Boson is not even likely. But there is a chance it exists, but as any other theories of unexplained phenomenons, it is just poetry as of today. Why so many physicis stick to this single theory is not rational.

There are interesting events taking place at a very obscure place in the world. It is not only about how gravity works but involves how space behaves, also, how it can be used for possible imaging. You can see my site for some details. Rest of the details shall be published soon in the form of a book. Thanks.

Higgsy is `hiding' precisely where the natural scales set by inflation & the cosmo constant demand: 123 Gev. Who cares if its the noisiest pert of the allowed parameter space ? "God is subtle, but not malicious" - A.E.

So billions have be spent to prove the establishment is wrong. Sounds like it's time to let the someone else drive the supercollider.

So billions have be spent to prove the establishment is wrong. Sounds like it's time to let the someone else drive the supercollider.

Sounds like you don't know how science works... proving it does not exist is as significant as proving that it does.

proving it does not exist is as significant as proving that it does.

Apparently this rule doesn't work for cold fusion, which nobody is even bothering to falsify. And why not to spend another billion of dollars in proof, there are no trees growing at far side of the Pluto?

We could waste billions of dollars in disapproval of whatever BS with scientific methods - but this is really not, what the science is about. Such approach is just about salaries and (over)employment politics, as Robert Wilson (a former president of APS) recognized and named pregnantly before years.

http://oi55.tinyp...tzqp.jpg

Apparently this rule doesn't work for cold fusion, which nobody is even bothering to falsify.

You are confusing the pure application of the scientific method with the politics that influence the funding of scientific investigation.

And why not to spend another billion of dollars in proof, there are no trees growing at far side of the Pluto?

If the majority of planetary scientists believed there were trees on the far side of pluto then it would be worth investigating.

We could waste billions of dollars in disapproval of whatever BS with scientific methods

An idea or theory is not "BS" when it has the backing of the majority of experts in the field to which it pertains.

all of this is highly amusing. complicated mathematical metaphors aside we have worked ourselves into a point in history where we think everything is explainable or can be understood on the human level. yet this doesn't seem to be the case at all. the universe doesn't seem to function in a way that can be explained even with the most complicated mathematical equations and even if it was would anyone be satisfied with it?

i think dropping the egotistical idea that there is a some theory of everything and that things simply are as they are is the fastest way to relax about things and find a lot more joy in the simple reality of life. basically these scientists are hanging out and doing something they enjoy. they mistake that it is of any real importance. when i can assure you it will make no difference what the answer is.

An idea or theory is not "BS" when it has the backing of the majority of experts in the field to which it pertains.

Well, just because of it. It apparently demonstrates the limits of intersubjective mediocracy of contemporary science. If the majority of experts can be wrong in most of aspects of theoretical physics of the last forty years (cold fusion, Higgs bosons, supersymmetry, extradimensions, WIMPS, micro-black holes, superstring theory - not to say about many ad-hoced phenomenological predictions, like the fat strings, W' bosons, Z' bosons, preons, Randall-Sundrum gravitons, leptoquarks, low-mass superpartners, di-jet suppression of QGC, CPT violation etc.) - then it's time to think about deeper limits of gnoseological system and scientific method - rather than about mistake of few isolated experts.

We could ask after then: what if such a majority of scientists will be always wrong as a whole? And if yes, why to support just these seemingly "uncontroversial" projects?

You are confusing the pure application of the scientific method with the politics that influence the funding of scientific investigation.

It's just you, who is mixing these two things together by now....;-) I'm just facing the failure of classical approach - so I'm trying to propose more effective one, because only stupid people will never learn from mistakes. It's solely utilitarian approach, motivated with optimization of the cost of scientific research. Because our resources are always limited, we will always face the necessity to optimize their redistribution into more perspective research into account of the less perspective one.

Who cares, if these people are calling such an optimization "a politics"? It's their POV, not mine.

It opens the question, whether the physicists have some methodology for prioritization of their research developed at all.

For example, the studying of low energy nuclear reactions and gravitational waves is the "basic research" in both cases. Under such a situation it would seem logical, the basic research with potential applications will always get some priority.

Whereas my feeling is, when physicists are clueless, then they will always choose the less useful research instinctively. Some guys revealed antigravity beams and/or room temperature superconductivity (which are both things, which are pretty fundamental for every theory of gravity and/or superconductivity) - but no, the rest of physicists will ignore these findings obstinately on behalf of the research of some useless things.

This is apparently waste of tax payers resources. If we want to deal with something really new - why not to choose the research of the usable new things first?

"Sounds like you don't know how science works... proving it does not exist is as significant as proving that it does."

Starting your respond with an insult to my intelligence is not a productive way to conduct scientific debate.

Historically science has hit bottlenecks where a group of respected scientist have adamantly defended a paradine that was wrong or outdated. Tell me the LHC couldn't be reconfigured to prove/disprove some other theory. (string-theories, quantum gravity ect)

Tell me the LHC couldn't be reconfigured to prove/disprove some other theory. (string-theories, quantum gravity ect)

Why not, the LHC disproved them already.

http://io9.com/57...tal-test

http://www.math.c.../?p=3338

thanks

Finding the Higgs isn't the only goal of the LHC people... There are several baryons and anti-baryons that have yet to be discovered. It wouldn't be a waste of billions of dollars, don't be overdramatic.......

http://www.fnal.g...ires.jpg

I can't decide which I am rooting for: Higgs, or no Higgs? On the one hand, finding the Higgs within one of the predicted ranges would be a major achievement of the human intellect that we could all be proud of, but the fun of new discoveries may come to an end. On the other hand, finding nothing means that we can look forward to new science as we struggle to understand why it doesn't exist and that is just plain fun. Of course, the best thing would be for something completely unexpected to happen that wouldn't necessarily invalidate everything that we have learned while at the same time challenging everything we think we know. That would be the most fun for sure. I think I will root for that outcome!

Re: "Hopefully the physics community will be more open to new ideas when the Higgs is not found"

What will surely occur is that theorists will try to imagine bridges from the Higgs to theories which don't involve the Higgs, which involve the least admission of error possible.

What will NOT occur is an admission that there is a fundamental error lurking somewhere in the logic and philosophy which got us here. Nor will there be some humble attempt to question the assumptions which got us here, from a different set of hypotheses.

It is amazing, but we are still repeating Plato's and Socrates' biggest mistake: The scientific method remains a form of *directed* inquiry. The Socratic dialectic was *never* intended to be a form of open-ended inquiry!

The Greeks favored an ideal state over the real, natural state. They favored the thought experiment over the real experiment. They would imagine what the universe *should* be, and then tried to elicit evidence to support that view.

What needs to be done is to accept that to err is human, and systematically and honestly investigate the weakest inferences which got us here.

And that would basically take us back to the Dayton-Miller experiment -- at the point where it was being alleged that the aether could behave as a liquid crystalline lattice which drags with the Earth and other large cosmic bodies.

The reason I say this has to do with water. Water is not turning out to be the homogenous liquid that everybody assumed. It has been known for 40 years now that water has an inherent structure. And it appears that water's extraordinary dipolarity leads to unexpected resonant qualities. Water's inherent crystalline structure appears to be the key to life and its origins, and we can refashion much of science from this new starting point. Where you find resonance, you will also find life trying to take advantage of this resonance.

We can probably re-investigate the aether by studying water.

we have worked ourselves into a point in history where we think everything is explainable or can be understood

Who is 'we'? Not the scientific community. Striving to understand is the method of science, but its practitioners are well aware of their limits and the limits of ultimate knowledge.

the universe doesn't seem to function in a way that can be explained even with the most complicated mathematical equations

We don't know that as we haven't exhausted the set of all theories. In any case, scientists tend to favor simpler solutions and oftentimes the highly complex reduces to the simple, when new insight is gleaned.

and even if it was would anyone be satisfied with it?

Probably not as we will never actually know if our models reflect the 'actual' nature of reality, though our confidence will be boosted.

so does the gravity of earth effect these test

i think dropping the egotistical idea that there is a some theory of everything and that things simply are as they are is the fastest way to relax about things and find a lot more joy in the simple reality of life.

Why is it egotistical to want to seek knowledge about the workings of the universe? You would rather be blissfully ignorant and carry on with idle daily pleasures? Has it occurred to you that there are those who actually DO find joy and pleasure in unlocking the secrets of the universe?

basically these scientists are hanging out and doing something they enjoy.

Of course they do - they're certainly not it for the big bucks!

they mistake that it is of any real importance. when i can assure you it will make no difference what the answer is.

What a tragically close minded view.

Tell me the LHC couldn't be reconfigured to prove/disprove some other theory. (string-theories, quantum gravity ect)

Why not, the LHC disproved them already.

http://io9.com/57...tal-test

If you bothered to read your own link you'd see the part where it says:

"This isn't good news for string theorists, but it doesn't invalidate string theory either. The original idea for this experiment was always a bit of a long shot".

@rawa1.
Thanks for the electron pdf. The potential rest mass issue of the photon was off putting, but I got over that. You are right, it was inspiring.

"This isn't good news for string theorists, but it doesn't invalidate string theory either. The original idea for this experiment was always a bit of a long shot".

The probability, some theory will remain valid after failure of two independent predictions is rather low, because of such probability is the product of the individual probabilities.

Until the string theory is actually unfalsifiable due its huge landscape of 10^500 predictions, indeed...

http://www.math.c...able.pdf

The physicists should decide, whether they will develop a "theories", which will "survive" all their falsifications - or whether they will develop a theories, which don't allow everything what you want.

Finding the Higgs isn't the only goal of the LHC people

So far most of predictions of LHC findings have failed, the Higgs is just one of them (Higgs boson, supersymmetry, extradimensions, micro-black holes, fat strings, W' bosons, Z' bosons, preons, Randall-Sundrum gravitons, leptoquarks, low-mass superpartners, di-jet suppression of QGC, CPT violation, etc..).

IMO it's not accidental coincidence at all - the physicists did the very same trivial mistake at all cases. Try to imagine, you're walking in the landscape under the haze. You can extrapolate the shape of landscape easily from the local terrain - but you cannot expect it anyway, until you don't realize, it will remain hidden inside of fog. It means, the physicists have no feedback about validity scope of their theories - this information doesn't follow directly from existing formal models. The equations will give you a median value, but they will not tell you, how fuzzy and widespread in quantum noise it will be.

This analogy could give a deeper understanding, what happens right now. Try to imagine, you're a bug who is drowning at the water surface and he makes a random waves around himself. At the first sight the response of environment appears chaotic, but soon he can distinguish a two main modes: a surface waves and underwater waves. Now the bug extrapolates his experience and he develops a theory, in which surface ripples aren't affected with underwater at all and he calls it a relativity theory. Alternatively, he develops a theory, in which all observable reality is mediated with overlapping underwater waves only - and he calls it a quantum mechanics theory.

His theories both work quite well, if the bug doesn't try to describe his closest neighbouring reality, where both kinds of waves overlap. So he extrapolates his theories farther both into large scales, both smaller scales...

But as we know, soon or later all surface ripples will disperse and merge with underwater waves again..

The point is, the water surface appears flat and infinitely large from very abstract perspective only. From perspective of its own ripples its determinism will be always violated for every local observer, whenever he starts to extrapolate from his local perspective too much. From local perspective of the observer of ripples the water surface will appear rather like doughnut or pancake with tiny holes at its center and its boundaries (both inner and outer one) would appear fuzzy and somehow interconnected mutually. This is basically a 2D model of our 3D universe in dense aether theory.

The first memo is, it doesn't matter, how clever you are and how brilliant your theory is: if you extrapolate it from your dimensional/energy density scale too much, it will always get wrong - despite the hypothetical remote observer would see all its predictions clearly. This is what the multiverse concept at the aether model means - the theories are such an abstract multiverses too.

THE MASS IS THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENT.
THE STANDARD MODEL IS WRONG.

Antonio Saraiva

An idea or theory is not "BS" when it has the backing of the majority of experts in the field to which it pertains.

Once upon a time: "Flat Earth"

Now: Well, gosh, it is a long list...

THE MASS IS THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENT.
THE STANDARD MODEL IS WRONG.

Antonio Saraiva

Could be, and if it is we will find out through experimentation... such as the subject of this article.

An idea or theory is not "BS" when it has the backing of the majority of experts in the field to which it pertains.

The cheapest criterion of truth can be, it's supported with many people at the same moment (intersubjective criterion). But it's not definitely most clever one as it's has no intelligence hardwired in it - it just reflects the actual situation on the market. From this reason the contemporary science is rather driven with mediocracy: the collective opinion of most influential/successful people is preferred.

Which is definitely better criterion of truth, but the pioneers of new ideas aren't influential by their very nature, whereas the recognized people tend to remain conservative at times.

Arthur C. Clarke: "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

It means, the recognized people are good advisers in general - but poor critics.

rawa1: If you hold to the multivers conception of ontology, I can show you why you ought to believe you're in a computer simulation. Then it doesn't really matter WHAT theory of physics you have, some nerd could just change the rules on you from day to day.

1

I can't post certain things to this page. Some kind of recognition error is blocking my posts... the "1" was a test. and so is this

@ED__269
I too have had various posting problems over time. I have had posts that have just vanished into the gloom of the information highway when I tried to submit them. Some have disappeared just from me scrolling back up the page to recheck someone else's information. This editor also won't allow you to use various basic symbols (what a joke!). There is no 'save' option. If the site goes down, you will be submitting to a page that is now off-line. That too can cause problems. When I tried to submit my last post earlier, the submit button was inactive. Here is a little trick that I have learnt:
1. Put mouse pointer into comment box.
2. Right-click. Choose 'select all' to highlight your entire text.
3. Right-click again. Choose 'copy'.
4. If your text has been lost for any reason, right-click back into box. Choose 'paste'
Congrats, you have just used your mouse as a single item virtual save button.
5. To get around inactive submit button, do the above, hit 'refresh', then paste.
-->

<--
Another tip; if you want to check if somebody else has posted something (no live updating here, ANNOYING) and you don't want to reload the entire page, hit the "Off" button for the ranking filter. Any postings made since the last time you checked, will then join the thread. Can be used to hasten a submission that is taking too long too.
Hope some of this helps,

Cheers, DH66

P.S. Has anybody else got any other useful 'tricks' to add?

If you hold to the multivers conception of ontology, I can show you why you ought to believe you're in a computer simulation. Then it doesn't really matter WHAT theory of physics you have, some nerd could just change the rules on you from day to day.

My stance is solely utilitarian. I know and understand the motivations of some people who are believing in it but I don't care if I'm living in simulation until I cannot get some new predictions from such hypothesis. I need not this hypothesis for anything in the same way, like Liebnitz didn't require the God. But it should be pointed out, the aether theory has some common point with God or simulation hypothesis: it points to some minute background random field which cannot be understood and explained. IMO the belief in this concept follows from misunderstanding of the nature of our reality: the introductory state which doesn't require any further explanation is not zero state, but a RANDOM state.

We should understand, the assumption of zero state (or any other particular state) is not minimal assumption with respect to Occam's razor criterion: we can always ask: "the zero state? Why just zero? Why not 3.18 number for example? Why our Universe should start just from nothing? Why it just should start? Don't we assume too much about it? If people are limited objects both in time, both space, why just the Universe should behave in the same way? If we are seeking the origin of Universe, aren't we looking for anthropocentric ghosts?"

In brief, we should always put a question, if our assumption is really unnecessary and if it doesn't actually make our models more complex, than it could be... The modern physicists aren't motivated in such simplification too much, because the more complex theories they develop, the more theorists can keep their jobs. Which is why they're adhering on Big Bang concept so much - it's mystery, which could be analysed - although it may not exist at all

@DarkHorse66: Thanx for the tricks. I'm using the first one for long time already, but the second one in new for me.

I just found another one: go into the 'Activity' part of your email account, click on any column heading (eg, last comment) and see what happens. It's neat.

Cheers, DH66

wake up, it does not exist.
Energy binds on space time in a way that we do not understand, that't it. Energy does not exist in terms of matter. It is a concept that is useful to get an understanding. But the speed of light and what light is not

Your spelling is worse than your science. Just kidding! Your science is way, way worse than the spelling of a blind monkey on coke.

go into the 'Activity' part of your email account, click on any column heading (eg, last comment) and see what happens. It's neat.

Yes. But nothing new. See, e.g., the forum software "phorum" at phorum.org .

@Greylensman,

Indeed, blind monkeys on coke do not spell well. At all.

But I've got to tell you, they are SO MUCH FUN to experiment with that it makes deciphering their final reports pretty much worth the effort. Plus, if you don't understand a certain passage, you can always just make something up - I mean, who is going to contradict you?

The LHC is not a failure, regardless of what the results will be.

The important thing is that the scientists remain honest to scientific principles and explore every possibility if something strikes them as being strange.

I would also love if whatever it is that they call "random background noise" would be taken much more serious. I hope they find ways to explore if there is matter that is smaller than anything we know.

I actually have the Higgs Boson. I set a trap in my backyard.

..not too sure what it eats though..

They like gravity waves for nourishment but sadly nobody at CERN has even a minuscule gravity ripple available.

CHollman82, Deesky, Eigenbasis, sleepaholic & few others:
Thank you for the intelligent, rational and on-topic comments and sanity-checks. The outcome will be a breakthrough - Higgs or no, there will always be more questions. Cool stuff. Some folks don't know just how many modern conveniences (miniaturization in electronics - that tiny cellphone in your pocket) result directly from the study of quantum-mechanics and the like. Even while it "doesn't make sense", contradicting/defying understanding, e.g. non-locality, photon-slit, etc.. Tech companies use these findings continuously (satellite, computer, etc..).

The closed-mind, for it's own sake or conspiracy lust; the guy who's smart, but apparently not self-aware, can't resist sharing his literary brilliance throuh imaginative sci-fi (double-talk, pseudoscience) to pontificate at real scientists about what he can't fully understand. Perhaps it's annoying that anyone else would even try to? ;-)

The closed-mind, for it's own sake or conspiracy lust

Please, don't use the "closed-mind" phrase at the moment, when 1) you've no idea of what the Higgs boson is or should be 2) you didn't accepted any alternative explanation here without counterarguments. I've read many apparent crackpots on the web, but I was always able to recognize, where their thinking appears good and where not - and I'm able to reason my stance. But you have simply ears and eyes closed. You're not only confused (which could be still understood easily) - but you're confused ignorants (which is unacceptable).

Everyone who is downvoting the opinion of others without counterarguments is just a troll - why is it so difficult to understand it for you? Don't use the downvote button (..nobody cares about it here anyway), use the arguments - and you'll see, where the problem with your approach is. Until you have no counterarguments, then every idea can be actually correct.

I haven't ranked ANYONE. But, I think it's intended to allow people to express an _opinion_ on how compelling or well-stated a post is. Doesn't make them trolls. A "troll" is one who uses the medium for a soapbox, perhaps to rant or complain. Honest.

I was simply thanking a few people who were discussing the process, experimentation and observation in testing theory; attempting to expand understanding, e.g. how a (theoretical) zero-mass fundamental particle (Higgs?) might be coupled with a quantum field (Higgs?) of non-zero vacuum expectation value that's associated to each point of spacetime, causing that particle to acquire mass. I like mass, it makes a pint far more enjoyable. On such a subject I am a layman, sir - but I've read a few "crackpots on the web" myself. No, not you. I do believe that *Data* is far superior to *reason* for supporting one's stance. And again - I have not ranked any post here. But I am skeptical that "nobody cares about it", as you've stated. Peace.

above did not show up...

@sleepaholic, I agree with everything in your September 17 post except for your first sentence:

The LHC is not a failure, regardless of what the results will be.

That's simply too broad a definition of success.

By that criteria, any endeavor that one undertook could be labeled a success if afterward you could somehow honestly say "Well, we learned something..." whether or not it was what you set out to find.

Failed experiments can be very useful. Failed experiments can provide us with crucial knowledge, even (and especially) from unforeseen quarters. But even doing so doesn't make them successful.