Physicist explains significance of Higgs boson discovery

Sep 21, 2012 by Joe Kleinsasser
Physicist explains significance of Higgs boson discovery
WSU physics professor Nick Solomey is excited about the discovery of the long-sought Higgs boson particle. Credit: WSU file photo

In July, physicists were ecstatic in announcing preliminary results pointing to the discovery of the long-sought Higgs boson particle. The Higgs boson is a tiny subatomic particle that apparently weighs about 130 times as much as an atom of hydrogen, the lightest gas. The non-scientist might have no idea what's so important about this elementary particle, but Wichita State University physics professor Nick Solomey is excited about the discovery.

Solomey: "What excites me the most about the Higgs discovery is that we now know that there's a Higgs field that's present. And this Higgs field could be like the , where we're actually able to manipulate it to have control over magnetic and electromagnetic interactions. Can we now have some control over the interaction of mass?"

Solomey is no stranger to the subject of the Higgs boson, thanks to his work with a researcher at CERN, the for .

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Produced by Wichita State University

Solomey: "My involvement with the Higgs boson studies and research at CERN goes back to when I was the graduate student of the man who was doing all of the research on how to develop the various detectors, and all these large detectors that you see at the experiment are actually all based on his research that started back in the early '60s. And I only worked with him in the 1980s."

So how does the Higgs boson work? Solomey explains.

Solomey: "The Higgs boson will interact with this proposed Higgs field to give all these other particles that we see around us creating the normal matter and even some of the exotic matter produced at high energies its mass. And so, this interaction with the Higgs field with the particles that we see to produce the mass is the first indication of something major new beyond what used to be considered the ."

Even with all of the excitement surrounding the news about the Higgs boson, Solomey says it's hard to predict the future significance of the discovery.

Solomey: "The Higgs boson, now that it's discovered, shows that the Higgs field exists, but it's hard to predict the future. How are we going to be able to use it? There could be some amazing applications of it just like there was amazing applications of the electron, once we realized it existed."

The good news for those of us who don't understand all the fuss about the Higgs boson is that our lack of understanding doesn't mean we can't benefit from it.

Solomey: "So the Higgs boson with this Higgs field—it's going to be very complicated for a lot of people to understand. But imagine the world when quantum mechanics was just first discovered a hundred years ago. It eventually led to us making the transistor. And the transistor, although it relies on quantum mechanics, the average person carrying a cell phone with hundreds of thousands of transistors in it doesn't actually have to know how the transistor works to make use of it. And we can have some fantastic discoveries and applications of the Higgs boson and Higgs field once we understand how to manipulate that Higgs field."

Solomey says one of his concerns is the limited number of schools who teach quantum mechanics and at the chip level design.

Solomey: "With the concept of the and new applications, let's go back and look at the schools that are teaching and electrical engineering at the chip level design. Only a handful of schools around the United States have advanced programs that do this and they're all related in cities that have industries that really need these advanced educated people. And I'd like to see more people educated on advanced physics and advanced electrical engineering throughout these applications."

And Solomey says the potential is great for students studying physics.

Solomey: "Physics, the study of physics, or even if you're an engineer and you have a double degree in physics, there's a great potential for this field. It will give you an enhanced job. But it also, even if you're not going to study physics after you get a degree, but are going to study applied physics and applications of physics concepts, there's a huge demand in industry for these type of people."

Explore further: Researchers demonstrate ultra low-field nuclear magnetic resonance using Earth's magnetic field

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Physicists closing in on the elusive Higgs boson

Aug 17, 2011

Scientists at a meeting in Grenoble, France, recently stoked speculation that physicists at the world's biggest particle accelerator may soon provide a first look at the elusive Higgs boson - the final piece of evidence needed ...

Search for the Higgs: What’s next?

Aug 16, 2010

In July, the particle collider experiments at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory revealed their latest search results for the elusive Higgs particle. Based on the analyses of data collected by the ...

Recommended for you

User comments : 124

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DarkHorse66
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2012
"The Higgs boson is a tiny subatomic particle that apparently weighs about 130 times as much as an atom of hydrogen, the lightest gas."

This is the first time that I have come across an article that claims a direct Higgs proportion wrt something else. Not knowing much about the exact rules of this particle (apart from the fact that it is supposed to give certain other particles mass), I hope that a few of you more knowledgeable posters can provide some insights on the following questions: Is Higgsy supposed to be inside or outside of an atom? Is it of equal density to the above-quoted Hydrogen atom? If so, it would be proportionally much bigger than it (the atom). Or is it denser and therefore smaller? I had heard (anecdotally) that it was to be found within an atom. Therefore IF this were the case, it would have to be smaller & denser. I didn't find much enlightenment on google in that regard. Help?
Thanks in advance for serious answers. :) DH66

article82
4.6 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2012
DarkHorse66, I'll try to explain a little bit about it.

There are two things to think of: the Higgs Field and the Higgs boson. The field is something that exists everywhere all the time. We all move through it and it gives us mass. Think about trying to walk through water, except the Higgs field is invisible to us. It's a bit like that. The Higgs boson is a particle that is created by that field. They only exist in special conditions when there is enough energy to create them - just like at the LHC. So they aren't part of the atom at all.

The Higgs boson is a point particle, so it has no size. Therefore it isn't very helpful to think of density - mass/volume - like the atom (or atomic nucleus). Because it's a point, it is infinitely smaller than the atom.

All fundamental particles (including the electron), if they truly ARE fundamental as we understand it, have no spatial extent - they are simply points.

Hopefully I've explained that reasonably.
natello
Sep 21, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
Hi article82, I appreciate your answer.
My understanding is that the field is created by the particle, not the other way round. It is the field that is supposed to impart the mass, not the particle in of itself. So if there is no particle, there is no field and the other particles can't acquire mass. Else it would mean that the particle is unnecessary in the scheme of things.I'm not sure that Higgsy can be treated as a point particle, especially since the above article has given it a definite size. In fact, considering the angle of this story, I would exclude that interpretation altogether - unless they got it wrong. Also, most particles can only be treated as point particles under limited circumstances, eg when it is expedient to avoid dealing with their (real)masses. How would you reconcile the two sets of ideas? Best Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
"All fundamental particles (including the electron), if they truly ARE fundamental as we understand it, have no spatial extent - they are simply points."
Not quite sure what you mean with that one. Every definition that I have found simply gives 'fundamental' as another word for 'elementary', ie "non-divisible"
http://physics.ab...tron.htm
https://www.googl...damental particle&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=7mJcUIODB_CciAfS7oDADg&ved=0CB0QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=ff301ef4d48490c5&biw=2048&bih=1013
http://en.wikiped...particle
http://en.wikiped...articles

Best Regards, DH66
Eoprime
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2012
Higgsy can be treated as a point particle, especially since the above article has given it a definite size DH66


weight doesn't mean 'size'.
An electron also has weight but as far as we know no size.

The Higgsboson is an excitation of/in(?) the higgsfield.
This wikipage should help a little bit in understanding
http://en.wikiped..._carrier
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2012
And every fundamental/elementary particle comes with real mass, hence would real spatial extent.
That second link got truncated. Let's see if it will post properly this time:
https://www.googl...damental particle&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=7mJcUIODB_CciAfS7oDADg&ved=0CB0QkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=ff301ef4d48490c5&biw=2048&bih=1013

Cheers, DH66

Deathclock
5 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2012
"The good news for those of us who don't understand the Higgs boson is that our lack of understanding doesn't mean we can't benefit from it."

Yeah, the commoners have been benefiting from the extraordinary work of the intellectuals for centuries, and how do they repay them? By distrusting them, actively opposing them, and in some cases even attacking them...
Eoprime
4 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2012
Higgs field is the scalar field, i.e. it's described with single variable distribution like the pressure or temperature field - but it doesn't mean, that the Higgs bosons are pin-point particles (despite they're pretty tiny indeed). They just have no apparent inner structure or spin: they do appear like the blobs and/or fluctuations of hypothetical dense gas, forming the vacuum. This is what the "scalar" word means here.


Ok i will bite ... How do you know they are no Pointparticles?
I want to see a source for this:"despite they're pretty tiny indeed" handweaving..

Eoprime
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2012
In my opinion ... This is what the fundamental shapeless geometry means for me ... particles in my theory form


Ok, I See... pls leave us alone with your fancy mathless 'theory'
Its not even a hypothese... its plain wrong.

And every fundamental/elementary particle comes with real mass, hence would real spatial extent DH66


I think this is a common misconception.

DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
@Eoprime: I just read the wiki and it seems to allow for both interpretations. What gets me, is the fact that if eg an electron is a quanta of energy, how does that turn an atom into a solid? Thing is (if I click on 'fermion', that article reminds me that the electron/proton etc is a fermion. Up to this point I had only been aware of interaction with other boson. So does that mean that Higgs acts on both bosons AND fermions to create mass? Weren't there supposed to be particles (incl fundamental) that aren't affected by Higgs? Now I'm getting slightly non-plussed. Mmmm. (ponders...) Regards, DH66
DarkHorse66
3 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
And every fundamental/elementary particle comes with real mass, hence would real spatial extent DH66


I think this is a common misconception.


Are you then inferring that the quantised wave has mass? Or where did it go?
?DH66?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2012
My understanding is that the field is created by the particle, not the other way round.

The Higgs field is always there. Higgs bosons are not always present (you need something hefty like you get in the LHC to create them)
It is the field that is supposed to impart the mass, not the particle in of itself

It's the interaction of the field that gives mass. The point is that the standard model has gauge bosons which mediate the forces (photons for electromagnetism, W and Z bosons for the weak nuclear force and gluons for the strong nuclear force). The standard model requires these gauge bosons to be massless by themselves.
This happens to be true for the photon. But the W and Z seem to have mass, so the mass was explained by interaction with a (then) hypothetical Higgs field which can be excited into showing up as Higgs bosons.

Note that 99% of the mass of atoms is not due to their nucleons/quarks, but the gauge bosons which 'flit between them'

And the rest is history
DarkHorse66
1 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2012
@anti: Sooooo....are you subscribing to quanta or particle interpretation (I'm going off Eo's wiki article that allows for either)...? If it is quanta interaction with the field (the following for wont of better expressing, so I need humouring description-wise), does the interaction 'solidify' the quanta into a particle? I mean, the solidity of a particle has to start somewhere?? And if the Higgs particle isn't always there, is it really needed? IT is shutting, I will be back at the computer next week. Looking forward to your answers.
Happy weekend to all, cheers, DH66
ant_oacute_nio354
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 21, 2012
The Higgs doesn't exist.
The mass is the electric dipole moment

Antonio Saraiva
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (49) Sep 21, 2012
What gets me, is the fact that if eg an electron is a quanta of energy, how does that turn an atom into a solid? 'fermion', that article reminds me that the electron/proton etc is a fermion.


Which means it (electron) obeys Fermi (-Dirac) statistics, as opposed to Bose statistics,... which has to do with how amplitudes are combined for identical particles (for Fermi the phases subtract).

So, Fermi particles can't occupy the same state, while Bose particles can, in fact tend to. Two electrons can occupy the same energy state in an Atom only if their spins differ. This is the exclusion principal, and is the reason matter appears solid. Forget the notion that "mass" is the reason for solidity.

The Higgs field is at a non-zero value lock in since the big bang, or whatever. The higgs boson is only an excitation of that field,... a means of observing it. When a electron interacts with the electromagnetic field it's via a "virtual photon", perhaps likewise for Higgs.
Jitterbewegung
1 / 5 (5) Sep 21, 2012
"and gluons for the strong nuclear force). "

I think you mean: and gluons for the strong force and weak nuclear force.

The weak force is different to the weak nuclear force.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (46) Sep 21, 2012
There's no separate "weak force" and "weak nuclear force". There is the strong force (nuclear, gluon), and weak force (beta decay W's & Z).
Jitterbewegung
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
Well I was going to call it residual strong force but I'll have to check wiki;-)
Jitterbewegung
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
Ps. My understanding of the Higgs field is that ican't give an particle rest mass unless that particle is undergoing big bang conditions. Like those created at the LHC where Higgs bosons can be created and live to interact.
Moving through a Higgs field is another story.
Jitterbewegung
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
I checked and wiki is just as bad. Weak nuclear force is really just rubbish wording. Weak interaction, weak force. Color/colour force, strong force and residual colour/strong force are acceptable;-)
Sabriel
1 / 5 (2) Sep 21, 2012
The Higgs doesn't exist.
My thoughts...
It does and it doesn't. When the Higgs Boson particle is in the Higgs Field, we cannot see it physically manifested, so it does not exist as an observable physical phenomenon. When we use a particle accelerator to manifest it into our physically observable dimension, it then vibrates/exists where light can find it and we can observe it. The field does not create the particle, nor vice versa. Humans, beings of intentional thought and creation, are the bridge between the Higgs Field (non-physical) and our physically manifested electro-magnetic field.
Please share your thoughts on these ideas if you would. I would greatly appreciate it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 21, 2012
It's very vague description. How/why such an interactions should happen?

That's currently what the guys at the LHC (and people elsewhere) are looking into.

And why other particles than W/Z bosons gain their mass in another way?

They probably don't get it in another way.
'Mass' is a very new field now, since for the first time in history we have something to actually measure and work with beyond mere theories. It's a bit unrealistic to expect answers mere weeks after the Higgs has been found.

Why the Higgs field is required at all after then?

As noted: The higgs field is necessary because the mediators of forces should be massless. If it hadn't showed up then people would have needed to go back to the drawing boards. It's really cool that such a 'wild' prediction turned out to be right on the money. It's an indication that we're probably on the right track with the standard model.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2012
I was going to call it residual strong force but I'll have to check wiki
And you should really do it, because the weak force is repulsive, whereas strong nuclear force is attractive. Higgs field is a source of so-called the Yukawa force, which is attractive too.
That's currently what the guys at the LHC (and people elsewhere) are looking into.
But as a whole, they ignore the solution, which my theory provides, because they just follow their research programs and they've nowhere to hurry, when their money are going. This is the problem, because we as a whole could save a lotta money, if the scientific community would consider the insights from outside - but just from the same reason the scientists itself aren't motivated for it at all. As Wilson already explained, every insight from outside shortens the time of sweet careless researching for these guys. This leads to rock-steady ignorance of scientific community.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2012
In my experience the speed of evolution in certain branches of research, which are depending of mandatory fees completely (which is just the case of so-called basic research) actually proceeds even more slowly, than so-called natural evolution, based on random mutations. The progress in theoretical physics requires to check all possible and impossible solutions first, not just first one, which are better than the other solutions. This community moves forward only when it exhausts all ways, when it can get money for publishing of all possible permutations - it's an approach of amoeba, which moves forward only at the moment, when all sources of food in its proximity is already depleted - it doesn't care about gradient of food in its place. Such a progress is even slower, than solely random walk following the gradient and of course is way more slower than the progress in effectiveness controlled environment, which follows the path of optimal investments into research from beginning to end
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2012
Personally, I would keep the scientists their toys and random permutations based research in the areas, when this research has no apparent usage - but it shouldn't drain the money and human resources from research of stuffs, which are applicable right now, like the cold fusion, antigravity or ZPE machines or room temperature superconductivity. This approach would actually maximize the possible investments into science itself. Because right now the physicists are facing the closure of their research just due their ignorance of cold fusion and following energetic crisis. This community is not able to judge its priorities in wider macroeconomical context: if the research of cold fusion would mean, some physicists could lost their jobs, whereas the rest of physicists would profit significantly, then the decision of the whole group is rather to ignore it as a whole, because it does care about short term loss more than about long term profit.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
They discover an energy excitation amongst a shower of debri, and claim, with no incontrovertible evidence whatsoever that it IS the Higgs boson that DOES give the other "particles" their mass.

What has happened to physics? There is no proof whatsoever that this is so. One must first define an experiment that can either CONFIRM or FALSIFY these claims. I do not know of such an experiment and doubt that anybody can come up with such an experiment. If anybody on this thread can come up with such an experiment, this is now your chance!

Nonetheless it is claimed, as Prof. Solomey is claiming, that the Higgs boson HAS BEEN PROVED TO EXIST. This is TOTALLY irresponsible and goes against everything that physics is supposed to be.

REALLY!!!
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (47) Sep 22, 2012
There is no proof whatsoever that this is so. One must first define an experiment that can either CONFIRM or FALSIFY these claims. I do not know of such an experiment and doubt that anybody can come up with such an experiment.


Since science is inductive, it's not in the business of "proving" things. It's in the business of making predictions. That the Higgs field exists was a prediction, given the state of the standard model (as pointed out by AA above).

The experiment was the LHC, which theoretically may NOT have found the Higgs, but since there is sufficient signatures of the Higgs particle, it is valid to claim it as evidence of its existance. Of course there will be more experiments.

Nonetheless it is claimed, as Prof. Solomey is claiming, that the Higgs boson HAS BEEN PROVED TO EXIST. - johanfprins


That is patently false. Soloney never said that. You just made that up. There is sufficient evidence to call it a discovery.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2012
But as a whole, they ignore the solution, which my theory provides,

You know: If you had a solution you'd be in research, trying to get a degree and trying to get grants for research on your theory.
What you have is not a solution or a theory - it's a brainfart.
Learn to distinguish between the two.

The scientific community is - contrary to your belief - not a group that goes: "bring us your brainfarts and we'll check them out". These guys have their own ideas and not enough hours in the day to test them all out.

If you want your ideas tested: get off your lazy, overweight ass and do the work yourself - like every other scientist out there.

If you (who are fully enamored with your 'theory') can't be bothered to do the math then neither can anyone else.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
Since science is inductive, it's not in the business of "proving" things. It's in the business of making predictions. That the Higgs field exists was a prediction, given the state of the standard model (as pointed out by AA above).


A prediction must be "proved" by experiment: If not possible your "prediction" is "speculation" The ONLY preiction that CERN proved is that when you increase the energy of the protons you smash together you will get higher-energy excited states: Bravo CERN!! You do not nee the standard model to predict this.

The standard model cannot even predict what the energy of the so-called Higgs boson must be, or whether there y one Higgs or more than one. It is obviously a useless model when it comes to predictions!

Furthermore they have no evidence whatsoever that this exxcitation is responsible for mass; as predicted and also no experiment that will EVER be able to verify this prediction. Thus as usual Noumenon is just spouting pure BS.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
JFP: Nonetheless it is claimed, as Prof. Solomey is claiming, that the Higgs boson HAS BEEN PROVED TO EXIST. - johanfprins


That is patently false. Soloney never said that. You just made that up. There is sufficient evidence to call it a discovery.


I quote above from Prof Solomey is: "The Higgs boson, now that it's discovered, shows that the Higgs field exists,... " So as usual Noumenon is the liar!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
But as a whole, they ignore the solution, which my theory provides,

The scientific community is - contrary to your belief - not a group that goes: "bring us your brainfarts and we'll check them out". These guys have their own ideas and not enough hours in the day to test them all out.
Although I suspect that Valeria T has no solution, your advice also stinks to high heaven.

At present the mainstream scientists are the real brainfarts who are not open to anybody elses ideas. They are the Orwellian swine which are suffocating physics to death; and wasting billions of taxpayers money to search for the Higgs boson, without knowing how they are going to prove that it does bestow mass when they happen to find an excitation which by circumstantial evidence seems to fit their brainfart model.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
The ONLY preiction that CERN proved is that when you increase the energy of the protons you smash together you will get higher-energy excited states:

You failed to look at the results. What they did is show that when you go to high energies you get something that does NOT conform to just getting higher energy excited states. Something else showed up. Something that was not there at lower energy states.

Please take the time to watch the results from CERN before commenting on them. It's 2 hours long but well worth the time.
http://www.youtub...gAlZOf7k

It is obviously a useless model when it comes to predictions!

I think you don't get what scienece is. Not one bit. If a theory had perfect predictions for everything then science wouldn't be work in progress (which it always is). There are always competing theories for as yet unmeasured stuff (and why not?).
That's why we do experiments.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Sep 22, 2012
as predicted and also no experiment that will EVER be able to verify this prediction

You do suffer from very advanced megalomania, don't you? As someone who hasn't got an education beyond high school you already know more than all scientists in all the world what is possibele and what is not? For all time to come?

You're certifiable.

At present the mainstream scientists are the real brainfarts who are not open to anybody elses ideas

They do work that gets results. It works. That's all that counts in science. Grand ideas alone don't mean much.

As for ideas from "anyone else". As I said: Then those "anyone else" should start doing the work. Science isn't a service industry. Because the scientist are also "anyoen else's" who have their own ideas to work on.

Stop being such an idiot and start picking up a pen and paper and do your own work. Don't expect others to do it for you. We have enough wastrel armchair coaches/generals - and not enough people who DO stuff
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
it is claimed, as Prof. Solomey is claiming, that the Higgs boson HAS BEEN PROVED TO EXIST. This is TOTALLY irresponsible
But it's logical in historical context, because theoretical physics of last forty years passed trough crisis, because most of its concepts faded (QED), or they were left unconfirmed (string theory, supersymmetry, quantum gravity). The finding of Higgs boson represents a first significant success of theoretical physics after many years, so it's politicized.

IMO the resonance found at LHC really fulfills the basic criterion of Higgs particle postulated with Standard Model: it's a boson and it falls into energy range, which Standard Model doesn't predict by itself, but which corresponds the experimentally found mass of top quarks.

But we shouldn't ignore the fact, this resonance appears way more complex, than prof. Higgs originally predicted originally. From mass spectrum it's more and more evident, it's not distinct particle, but whole system of particles.
Noumenon
4.7 / 5 (46) Sep 22, 2012
At present the mainstream scientists are the real brainfarts who are not open to anybody elses ideas. They are the Orwellian swine which are suffocating physics to death; and wasting billions of taxpayers money


That the rejection of your ideas is due to some conspiracy against you by the rest of the physics community, is rather like the proverbial "tail wagging the dog", don't you think?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
The Higgs boson finding is considered quite bad for supersymmetric model, because it's mass is significantly higher, than the simplest supersymmetric extension of Standard Model predicts. With compare to Standard Model this boson appears to be rather product of lightweight particle decays (gamma ray photons), than the quarks - which is perceived as inappropriate, because it should be primarily responsible just for the mass of bosons exchanging the forces between quarks - not gamma ray photons. IMO the preferential formation of diphotons can be explained with influence of extradimensions, which lead into metastable fourth particle generation, which decays into photons pairs preferably (they're so unstable, so that the heavier particles have no time to form itself). These extradimensions will shift the mass of Higgs boson toward higher values, too.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
In my theory the Higgs boson corresponds the dark matter fluctuations at the cosmic scale and the neutrinos are supersymetric partners for photons - so that the contribution of supersymetry for Higgs boson resonance may be as significant at the role of neutrinos for dark matter. The neutrinos account to 7 - 15% of dark matter mass, so that the SUSY participates to Higgs boson mass in similar range. This is long distance shot - these things cannot be verified before new generation of colliders will be built, which may take another twenty years under current financial crisis.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
You failed to look at the results.
How do you know? People like you who jump to conclusions without first checking the facts should not be commenting on physics.
What they did is show that when you go to high energies you get something that does NOT conform to just getting higher energy excited states.
How do they know this?
Something else showed up. Something that was not there at lower energy states.
And without ANY proof that this "something" bestows mass, this "something" is claimed to be a Higgs boson! Only an idiot will call this physics!

It is obviously a useless model when it comes to predictions!

I think you don't get what scienece is. Not one bit.
I know more about it than you will EVER know!
There are always competing theories for as yet unmeasured stuff (and why not?).
That's why we do experiments.
So you agree that it is irresponsible to claim that this blip IS the Higgs without confirming thatit bestows mass?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
How do you know? People like you who jump to conclusions without first checking the facts should not be commenting on physics.

Because you claimed that making higher energy collisions just gets you higher energy states. And that is precisely NOT what the data shows. So you didn't look at the data (or did look and didn't understand it)

How do they know this?

Look at the data. (Hint: look for the bump. it doesn't show up at lower energies.
Please. Watch the video I posted. It's pretty useless to debate about the data with someone who hasn't looked at the data.

I know more about it than you will EVER know!

I doubt that. At least I got my latest article published this month in IEEE Biomedical Engineering. So unless your definition of 'science' is different from that of the rest of the world: You lose.

So you agree that it is irresponsible to claim that this blip IS the Higgs

The sigma values are high enough to claim a discovery. This is no 'blip'.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
Science isn't a service industry. Because the scientist are also "anyoen else's" who have their own ideas to work on.
Prins talked about professional scientists, the independent researchers are usually in opposition with scientific mainstream. For example the people at CERN are socially homogeneous entity and the members of this cooperation never publish something, which could impeach the LHC research. The CERN physicists are publishing collectively and they refute to apply peer review of their publications, claiming the "external peer review is less stringent than our internal peer-review process" and that "only people "qualified" (i.e. those checked for loyalty) to truly review the work are within the collaboration." The sectarian CERN community is calling itself "..a cognitive bubble that you can't escape - that you don't want to escape".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
You do suffer from very advanced megalomania, don't you? As someone who hasn't got an education beyond high school
Can you prove this or are you just blind with rage?
At present the mainstream scientists are the real brainfarts who are not open to anybody elses ideas


They do work that gets results. It works. That's all that counts in science. Grand ideas alone don't mean much.

Exactly my point!!! They did not get results that work! Where is the proof that this blip they discovered at CERN bestows mass?

As for ideas from "anyone else". As I said: Then those "anyone else" should start doing the work. Science isn't a service industry. Because the scientist are also "anyoen else's" who have their own ideas to work on.
And that is exactly what I have been doing for 50 years: We can always compare our citation indexes if you are brave enough.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
But it's logical in historical context,
To expect that you will find animals in a bush is logical but to conclude that when you see an animal moving in the bush it must be a lion is stupidity. There is NO EVIDENCE that what they discovered bestows mass.
IMO the resonance found at LHC really fulfills the basic criterion of Higgs particle postulated with Standard Model:
Prove experimentally that it bestows mass: "Your opinion" is not an experimental result.

But we shouldn't ignore the fact, this resonance appears way more complex, than prof. Higgs originally predicted originally. From mass spectrum it's more and more evident, it's not distinct particle, but whole system..
So you admit that it does not even fit the standard model but you still call it a Higgs boson that bestows mass: Are you completely insane?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
At present the mainstream scientists are the real brainfarts who are not open to anybody elses ideas. They are the Orwellian swine which are suffocating physics to death; and wasting billions of taxpayers money

That the rejection of your ideas is due to some conspiracy against you by the rest of the physics community, is rather like the proverbial "tail wagging the dog", don't you think?


Where have I EVER claimed a "conspiracy"? It seems you are into conspiracy theories. You do not need a conspiracy for mediocre people to flock together: In fact, there is no greater unifying force in Nature than shared mediocrity. It was beautifully decribed by George Orwell in "Animal Farm".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012
For example the people at CERN are socially homogeneous entity and the members of this cooperation never publish something, which could impeach the LHC research.

When people go to the LHC to work there they have a dedicated area of research that they can use LHC data for. No, they are not 'socially homogeneous'. The only homogeneity in there is that they do high energy particle research.
(Though scientists do tend to get along well with each other. This, however, has not much to do with being a scientist but with intelligent people in general who know that they can benefit from -and in the case of scientific resaerch are dependent upon- each other's input AND who are genuinely pleased when someone else makes a discovery/advancement). The overly competitive/elbow-type maverick doesn't get far in science.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
The CERN physicists are publishing collectively and they refute to apply peer review of their publications, claiming the "external peer review is less stringent than our internal peer-review process"

Sorry to burst your conspiracy bubble, but the paper published on the Higgs has been peer reviewed
http://www.newsci...val.html
(and I still am pretty sure that you don't even know what the words 'peer review' even mean.)
Exactly my point!!! They did not get results that work!

How so? Higgs was predicted and it showed up.
(And if it hand't showed up it STILL would have been a result. One that would have indicated that alternative theories need to be developed.)

And to quote from Terry Pratchett:
'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'

That never fails to hold true.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
Because you claimed that making higher energy collisions just gets you higher energy states. And that is precisely NOT what the data shows.
So there was no higher energy state: NOTHING? Is it then not dishonest to claim that there is a Higgs boson?

How do they know this?

Look at the data. (Hint: look for the bump. it doesn't show up at lower energies. So it proves a bump at higher energies: Bravo CERN: It does not, however, prove that this bump causes mass!

Please. Watch the video I posted. It's pretty useless to debate about the data with someone who hasn't looked at the data.
I have looked at the data and seen weak evidence of a bump, but I found no evidence that this weak bump bestows mass. Can you point this evidence out to me? Or even better outline a future experiment which might prove that this weak bump causes mass!

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2012
So there was no higher energy state: NOTHING?

Sigh...Look at the data. Yes you get high energy states. but not JUST high energy states.

And that is exactly what I have been doing for 50 years:

With that kind of attitude? No way you are 75 years old (no, you don't start publishing at 25 or younger)

I'll call "big fat lie" on that one.

Judging from your attitude you're a teenager - not a 75 year old researcher.

but I found no evidence that this weak bump bestows mass.

That is the next part of the research. I'm not sure you understand what the LHC does and what kinds of measurements are involved. (Well, the "I'm not sure" is putting it mildly. From what you write I'm pretty sure you do not understand any of it)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
I know more about it than you will EVER know!

I doubt that. At least I got my latest article published this month in IEEE Biomedical Engineering. Bravo! How many papers in Phys. REv. etc? How many citations have you had in then past?
So unless your definition of 'science' is different from that of the rest of the world: You lose.
I lose because you published a paper? It seems to me that you need psychiatric help my boy!

So you agree that it is irresponsible to claim that this blip IS the Higgs

The sigma values are high enough to claim a discovery.
I have NEVER denied that they MIGHT have discovered "something", I only state that it is scientifically irreponsible and probably also dishonest to claim that it is, or even might be, the Higgs boson without being able to prove that this "blip" is responsible for mass.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
Exactly my point!!! They did not get results that work!

How so? Higgs was predicted and it showed up.
It was predicted yes but there is no proof that what they found is a boson that bestows mass. So to cliam that it showed up proves that you are a sloppy scientist.

And to quote from Terry Pratchett:
'Multiple exclamation marks,' he went on, shaking his head, 'are a sure sign of a diseased mind.'

That never fails to hold true.

I bow to your expert opinion: After all who will know more about a diseased mind than a person like you who was obviously born with one.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
So there was no higher energy state: NOTHING?

Sigh...Look at the data. Yes you get high energy states. but not JUST high energy states.
Please stop BSsing.

And that is exactly what I have been doing for 50 years:

With that kind of attitude? No way you are 75 years old (no, you don't start publishing at 25 or younger)
I am 70 years old and got my PhD at age 24. So I did start publishing soon after my 20th birthday doing MSc. Those publications were not brilliant: That is probably the reason why it was not difficult to get them published. I did improve a lot after I reached the age of 30; and is at present really on top of physics!

but I found no evidence that this weak bump bestows mass.

That is the next part of the research. ...I'm pretty sure you do not understand any of it)
Since you do, I again ask how they are going to prove that this blip bestows mass? If they cannot do this they are not doing physics but speculation.
Anda
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
Really tired of all this bullshit. The discovery isn't confirmed yet. When it will be if it will be let's talk about it
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
Really tired of all this bullshit. The discovery isn't confirmed yet. When it will be if it will be let's talk about it

Bravo!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
Since you do, I again ask how they are going to prove that this blip bestows mass?

You're asking after a fully functionaly fusion generator 5 minutes after hydrogen has been discovered. If you had any clue about science (or were anything even remotly like you claim you are) you would know that this is not realistic.

The next steps will first be about characterizing the newly found boson. Is there only one with spin zero? Are there several with different spins? No one knows. So we'll just have to wait and see what the experiments turn up.
Currently what has been found is consitent with the Higgs to such a strobg degree that best practice is to call it a Higgs (if it looks like a duck,...).

I am 70 years old and got my PhD at age 24.

Yeah. Right. In your dreams. Take your meds.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
Currently what has been found is consitent with the Higgs to such a strobg degree that best practice is to call it a Higgs (if it looks like a duck,...).
And YOU think you can argue science? God forbid!

I am 70 years old and got my PhD at age 24.

Yeah. Right. In your dreams. Take your meds.


How about going to my website and looking at the facts. But on the other hand, you do not like to look at facts but rather prefer to live in Cloud-Cuckoo land. Give my regards to Alice.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012
And YOU think you can argue science? God forbid!

I don't need to argue it. I just do it. That's the final test of it: Do some that works.

If you're furious about the fact that you can't do it (even though you probably have a few 'theories') then don't blame anyone but yourself. (But not too much...watch that high blood pressure, gramps)

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
johanfprins & antialias_physorg:

You're arguing from two sides of the same coin. "Something" has apparently been found. What is it precisely? We don't yet know, for certain.

The use of the name "Higgs" is convenient, but otherwise irrelevant. But if we don't ascribe names to things, how will we know what we're talking about?

The fact that something has been found in these energy ranges indicates there's a good chance it is THE expected Higgs.

But if it isn't THE Higgs, calling it the Higgs in the interim, isn't harmful (it's just a handy name). If it turns out to be something else, either it will receive a new name, or the definition for the name will change.

Let's just calm down and wait to see what develops before we get too involved with names and definitions.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2012
And YOU think you can argue science? God forbid!

I don't need to argue it. I just do it. That's the final test of it: Do some that works.
Where? Publishing a second rate paper in IEEE does not mean that you do IT! You are funny you know. Claiming such nonsense without providing your curriculum vitae just shows how dishonest you are. Pathetic!

If you're furious about the fact that you can't do it (even though you probably have a few 'theories') then don't blame anyone but yourself. (But not too much...watch that high blood pressure, gramps)
I am willing to ANY time compare my CurVIT with yours and I am sure you will lose. Your arguments are those of a retarded idiot!


johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 22, 2012
johanfprins & antialias_physorg:

You're arguing from two sides of the same coin.
No we are not.
"Something" has apparently been found. What is it precisely? We don't yet know, for certain.
That is what I am saying!

The use of the name "Higgs" is convenient,
No it is not: It is dishonest and criminal, since it is used to beg for more billions of dollars to waste on a wild goose chase.
But if we don't ascribe names to things, how will we know what we're talking about?
If you call an elephant a lion nobody will know what you are talking about.

But if it isn't THE Higgs, calling it the Higgs in the interim, isn't harmful (it's just a handy name).
It is very harmful: All lies and distortions are harmful. It is called the Higgs purely because CERN wants more billions to waste. In fact to call it the Higgs before knowing that it is such an improbable "particle", is nothing else but criminal corruption.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (45) Sep 22, 2012
Crank; a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task; this is the essential defining characteristic of the crank: being impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference
Ilya Kuryakin
5 / 5 (1) Sep 22, 2012
They've discovered a boson compatible with the Higgs boson. More analysis is required to determine its properties, including spin (should be 0), parity, and decay modes/rates. CERN might have enough accumulated data by the end of the year to give a yes/no answer. The Quantum Diaries site gives thorough explanations.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2012
Crank; a pejorative term used for a person who holds an unshakable belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A crank belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. ..etc.
So according to this definition, Galileo was a crank. So was Einstein since his contemporaries in Germany even wrote a book entitkes "100 physicists against Einstein".

Maybe I am crank: This will be borne out with time and if it is the case I can change from not being a crank anymore. You, on the other hand, do not have this luxury since you are STUPID and STUPIDITY is like true love: It is forever!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2012
They've discovered a boson compatible with the Higgs boson. ....The Quantum Diaries site gives thorough explanations.

This still does not prove, and never will prove that this "boson" is responsible for mass. The Standard Model is like te Periodic Table of the Elements" (PTE). It has been derived from symmetry considerations based on phenomenology: Like the PTE it has limited predictive powers to conclude that there must be other excitations: But also, just as in the case of the PTE, there is no understanding of the physics which are causing these symmetries.

Although there were wrong explanations for the PTE (including Bohr's atom), Schroedinger's equation was required to prove that the electrons are forming stationary waves without any momentum and thus without any kinetic energy.

To date there is no real proof that the vector bosons are causing the so-called weak nuclear force. Similarly, the present result at CERN does not prove that this "boson" is responsible for mass.
ValeriaT
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2012
There is little doubt that this particle is a Higgs boson. It's true, the discovery relies to a large extent on observing a resonance in the diphoton spectrum, which could also be produced by another spin-0 or even a spin-2 particle that has nothing to do with electroweak symmetry breaking. What convinces the physicists of the higgsy nature is the signal in the ZZ and WW final states. This coupling responsible for the decays to W and Z bosons is a watermark signature of a Higgs boson, as it is substantial to its giving mass to gauge bosons.
.. there is no real proof that the vector bosons are causing the so-called weak nuclear force. the present result at CERN does not prove that this "boson" is responsible for mass...
What the real proof is supposed to mean? The Salam and Ward's theory leads to predictions of just the particles, which were found later. The broken symmetry SU(2)U(1) gives the prediction of the massive W/Z bosons, which were found at the correct mass in 1983.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
.. there is no real proof that the vector bosons are causing the so-called weak nuclear force. the present result at CERN does not prove that this "boson" is responsible for mass...
What the real proof is supposed to mean?
Formulating an experiment that could falsify the claim.
The Salam and Ward's theory leads to predictions of just the particles, ...
But to claim that these vector bosons are responsible for the weak nuclear force without being able to formulate an experiment that might be able to falsify this claim, means the claim remains nothing more than speculation. Pauli stated that such a model is not even wrong! This is an excellent description of the Standard Model: It is not even wrong!
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
Formulating an experiment that could falsify the claim.
Such a formulations already exist and they're used in identification of Higgs resonance. For example, if we wouldn't find the Higgs during decays of photons and W/Z bosons at the same point of energy spectrum, it would be a indeed a problem for Standard Model.
to claim that these vector bosons are responsible for the weak nuclear force without being able to formulate an experiment that might be able to falsify this claim
But this experiment was actually formulated: the scientists invented new force and invented new particles (vector bosons) responsible for it. Twenty years later they found them all. Without such a particles these forces couldn't exist, without these forces the particles would have no reason to exist. The W/Z bosons have no other usage in Standard Model, than to mediate forces. And from this time the existence of these forces has lead to finding of many other composite particles.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
I know, you're "everything is a wave" ideologist so you're fighting against everything, which appears to be similar to particle - but the existence of particle-mediated interaction is logical even in context of AWT. The particles are solitons and when some wave is exchanging the force between two particles, it may become so intensive, it will form another generation of particles, so-called the gauge or vector bosons of unitary spin. Even the photons itself are such a bosons: when the light is of low energy, I mean lower frequency than the CMBR noise, then the photons cannot be formed, being scattered with CMBR noise. So they're formed only when the intensity of energy exchange between particles becomes sufficiently high. At the nuclear scale this threshold is just considerably higher and the massive character of vector bosons formed more apparent, that's all. But conceptually the W/Z bosons don't differ from common photons, the existence of whose is beyond any doubt.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
Such a formulations already exist
No they don't
For example, if we wouldn't find the Higgs during decays of photons and W/Z bosons at the same point of energy spectrum,
If! if!Your argument is circumstantial: No physicist with an objective mind should accept such an argument as actual experimental proof.

But this experiment was actually formulated: the scientists invented new force and invented new particles (vector bosons) responsible for it. Twenty years later they found them all.
They did not prove that these "particles" actually do represent forces: The evidence is still circumstantial.
The W/Z bosons have no other usage in Standard Model, than to mediate forces.
In the Standard Model yes. But the so-called W/Z bosons could just be excited states of electrons and protons which have NOTHING to do with forces. There is no experiment that can falsify the claim that they are responsible for forces: Thus, this claim is speculation.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
I know, you're "everything is a wave" ideologist so you're fighting against everything, which appears to be similar to particle -
I have never bean and NEVER will be an ideologist: If I could have been one I would probably have believed the Standard Model!
but the existence of particle-mediated interaction is logical even in context of AWT. The particles are solitons and when some wave is exchanging the force between two particles, it may become so intensive,
This is your ideology which is nothing else but BS. A moving electron through free space MUST be a coherent wave or els it will not be able to diffract. A soliton is a superposition of waves with different frequencies, and therefore it cannot diffract to give separated diffraction-lines.

Even the photons itself are such a bosons:
Further BS: A photon can diffract and threfore it must be a coherent light-wave: Just as an electron has NOTHING in common with a particle, except that this wave has a centre-o-mass
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
A moving electron through free space MUST be a coherent wave or els it will not be able to diffract
I explained you already three times here, that the electrons is soliton of many kinds of waves - what diffracts is the wake wave around electron, which is regular and which is formed during its motion. The same applies to photon. This is my fourth attempt to explain you this simple controversy.
No they don't
The formation of gauge bosons is actually quite common in the nature, even inside of human society. For example, the people exchange the debts and credits with using of money (they can be imagined like the particles of energy, which appear so tiny, they appear like the continuum). But when the money exchange get sufficiently intensive, then the people will start business with financial products itself: with bills of exchange, with obligations etc... After then the bill becomes an independent subject of market, i.e. the goods. A wave of continuum changed into particle.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
A moving electron through free space MUST be a coherent wave or else it will not be able to diffract
I explained you already three times here, that the electrons is soliton of many kinds of waves - what diffracts is the wake wave around electron
The "wake wave" is a hallucinating-figment of a demented mind. Who needs a "wake-wave" when a moving electron is modelled by Maxwell's equation for coherently-moving EM energy at a speed less than the speed of light?
which is regular and which is formed during its motion. The same applies to photon. This is my fourth attempt to explain you this simple controversy.
You can explain until you are blue in the face: I am a physicist who does not believe in Voodoo! Both light and matter consist of EM wave-energy. The equations are so simple and self-consistent that any first year student can understand them. One does NOT require Feynman's wrong Voodoo-diagrams and "boson-particles" to explain the forces in Nature.
Newbeak
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
So the Higgs field is how UFOs execute instant 90 degree turns at thousands of miles an hour,without turning the pilot into jelly? They can turn the field off,and thereby rendering themselves massless? Just sayin..
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
The EM wave cannot even describe the simple photon, not to say about more dense particles. It's schematic theory describing non-quantized harmonic EM wave in the vacuum. Everything more complex goes beyond context of Maxwell's theory.

You're funny guy, really.. :-) And passionate one... Anyway, the discussion with you is waste of time. Just sit down, cool yourself and try to follow me. You have no better option anyway, despite you're realizing it or not.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2012
Hi all. I'm with the skeptics on this 'discovery'. I already (elsewhere) pointed out a well known observation that higher energy input to an 'event centre' can create more energetic 'versions' of the good old familiar zoo of particles. For example, I view particles like the LAMBDA and the SIGMA and the XI as merely more energetic temporary or 'transient' particles whose 'cores' shed energy quickly/by stages/products to eventually reveal the proton/neutron which was given the added energy in some event centre. Further example, I view the MUON as merely an electron at higher energy content/state, which quickly sheds added energy (as Neutrinos?) to reveal the stable energy level electron 'core'. So until it can be clearly demonstrated that the alleged higgs 'boson' is not just an excited (more energetic) state of some existing boson already in our 'zoo', there is no justification to claim this 'discovery' proves that the higgs field exists or that such a field confers mass etc.

Cheers!
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
Add to the above: With some of the systemic/instrument uncertainties involved in the relevant Gev range, I cannot in good conscience go along that this 'discovery' is even there in any 'form', let alone as a boson as advertised. I don't see ny need for all the excited to-ing-and-fro-ing about it all. I would agree with uba et al, let's all calm down and just wait and see what further transpires either way. Just saying. Cheers!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
The EM wave cannot even describe the simple photon, ......

As usual, you are wrong!

Start from Einstein's relativistic equation from which Dirac started to "postulate" his "relativistic wave-equation" for the electron by fudging the mathematics and thus producing BS.

Einstein's equation also models the photon when setting the rest-mass equal to zero. When you do that and do not mess things up like Klein and Gordon, just like Dirac, also did, you obtain Maxwell's equation for a coherent light-wave with any energy, also h(nu), moving at speed c.

If you set the rest-mass equal to the electron-mass me, you obtain Maxwell's equation for coherent light moving at a speed v lower than c, where this wave has energy m*c^2>me*c^2: m*c^2-me*c^2 is the kinetic energy of the electron.

If you are able to do secondary school algebra, which I doubt, you should to able to derive these equations on your own. Just for once try and do a derivation instead of hallucinating about "wakes".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Hi all. I'm with the skeptics on this 'discovery'. I already (elsewhere) pointed out a well known observation that higher energy input to an 'event centre' can create more energetic 'versions' of the good old familiar zoo of particles.... etc.

Owing to our previous altercations, I never thought that I will ever be able to agree with you on anything. Since physics is about logic and experimental facts one must agree when a person posts sense, no matter how senseless you have found him on previous occasions.

Thus allow me to warmly congratulate you.

As Carver Mead has stated: In future the last part of the 20th century (and I add the present) will be known as the dark ages of theoretical physics. It is just a pity that billions of dollars are wasted on hype. There are so many better endeavours on which this money could have been spent.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Einstein's equation also models the photon
Einstein's equations don't model the photon. Relativity is inconsistent with quantum mechanics equations ..
It must be difficult for a person like you who can only parrot official dogma without being able to think for yourself.

Einstein's equation is (E^2)=(p^2)*(c^2) (m*c^2)^2: When you set m=0, you get the relationship between the energy and momentum of a photon! Where have you learned your physics? You should sue your professors.

Now to get the QM wave-equation you must replace E with -i(hbar)*(d^2/dt^2)and p with -i*(del), and if you do that, after you have set m=0, you get Maxwell's equation for the photon with energy E=(hbar)*(omega): NOT the Klein-Gordon equation! Thus, the photon is a coherent light-wave: Not a particle!

GET IT?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Thus, the photon is a coherent light-wave: Not a particle!
Not really: this is how the gamma ray photons appear inside of spark chamber: they're spreading like the typical particles (a pretty tiny, actually) - not like the coherent wave. This is how the gamma ray (and hadronic) shower appears - do you see some waves here? Me not... You cannot change the reality.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Thus, the photon is a coherent light-wave: Not a particle!
Not really: http://www.nikhef...tail.jpg the gamma ray (and hadronic) shower appears - do you see some waves here? Me not... You cannot change the reality.
I do not see "particles" but waves of small size which interact with surrounding material. Obviously, coherent waves with the same frequencies can have different sizes: Have you NEVER seen Laser-pulses?

Only an utter fool will conclude that a coherent wave with a small size is a "particle": Especially when it follows from Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which is the result of Maxwell's wave equations, that this wave is accurately modelled in terms of Maxwell's wave equation for coherent light.

Sheesh: O my God help this man! How small must a coherent-wave entity be to be a "particle"?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Coherent wave is not particle, for example photons don't care about diffraction limit. Coherent wave is always part of spherical solution of Maxwell's equation, whereas the photons are solitons formed in it. The photons are actually breaking the coherent wave and they're transforming it into shower of particles.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Coherent wave is not particle,
I have not stated this utter stupidity: THERE ARE NO PARTICLES!
for example photons don't care about diffraction limit.
Wrong again: A single photon can interfere with itself: Have you heard about the experiments by Zeilinger? His experiments prove that a single photon can diffract: And for an entity to diffract it must be a coherent wave! Unless you want to believe in Voodoo! As you obviously do. I am not such a superstitious fool!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
Coherent wave is always part of a spherical solution of Maxwell's equation
Not true! As usual you do not know what the hell you are spouting about. Maxwell's wave equation can give a solution of a coherent wave with FLAT wave-fronts following one another through space: Have you ever heard about a Laser beam? I thought not. Please note that the year is 2012, not 1650 anymore.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Sep 24, 2012
No. Just no. Take your pill, Johan...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
No. Just no. Take your pill, Johan...

So you are claiming that a coherent wave with flat wave-fronts is not possible? Anybody who claims this knows so little about physics that even a pill will not help. Suffering from a frontal lobotomy cannot be rectified by taking a pill! I sympathise with you.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
So you are claiming that a coherent wave with flat wave-fronts is not possible
Of course it can, but it can be created from many photons entangled in laser beam


Let us again test your physics-ability, which you have time and again proved is non-existent: I will have to TRY and lead you step by step and hope that you might be able to use your grey matter.

Answer the following question: What happens when photons "entangle"? Are they still separate photons after entanglement, or are they not distinguishable anymore? Hint: Although they are identical, they remain distinguishable for as long as the are separate entities.

Another question: Why are you using different names to post the same c..p time and again as if there are many persons who have the same idiotic ideas that only you have?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
This doesn't say, photon itself are such a wave.

BS! Consider a laser source: It emits a coherent wave beam with parallel wave-fronts. Now add a shutter so that you slice up the continuous SINGLE coherent wave into parts. Each part is now a SINGLE coherent-wave.

If you make your laser source smaller and smaller, and slice the continuous wave up in smaller and smaller SINGLE coherent waves, the energy of each of these separate SINGLE coherent waves decreases until the energy of each of them becomes h*(nu).

They are now "photons" each of which is a coherent wave. If you try and decrease their energy further, you will find that you CANNOT. Thus a photon is the smallest energy coherent wave that can be emitted or absorbed. This is what Planck discovered: He did not discover "light-particles". Planck was suspicious of the idea of "particles".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Photons itself are spatially localized objects -
All harmonic light-waves are spatially localised objects: Or do you think tHat a laser beam fills infinite space? PLEASE!
solitons
Solitons play NO ROLE in quantum mechanics, since solitons are non-linear waves: i.e. non-harmonic

and the harmonic solution of Maxwell's equations cannot be applied for them.
I agree with this, but photons ARE NOT solitons: They are each a coherent light-wave as they must be for each of them to be able to diffract: AS IS EXPERIMENTALLY OBSERVED THAT THEY DO!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
What happens when photons "entangle"? ...
This is the same question, like at the case of entanglement of electrons,
Very good!
It's rather difficult to imagine, at the low temperature and energy density, as exist inside of boson condensate, all quantum waves of the whole particle would get into phase.
There you have said it yourself: The separate photon-(or electron)-waves fuse to form a SINGLE COHERENT MACRO-WAVE: And in the case of light, such a wave is modelled by Maxwell's equation for light: Just as I have deduced above.

Maxwell's equation is also applicable to a freely moving electron with mass-energy larger than its rest-mass energy. Schroedinger's eq. applies when the elect.-energy is less than its rest-mass. Maxwell's eq. and Schroedinger's eq. dovetails neatly when the elect.-energy is its rest-mass.

In 2000 I created the first electron macro-wave and found that it SC at room temperature.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
For me it somehow funny, you're opponent of Copenhagen intepretation proclamatively, whereas you're adhering on the same model:
You just do not get it do you! Copenhagen is based on the existence of particles, whatever the latter is: I have not yet come across a definition of what a "particle" is.

I am stating that what Copenhagen calls a "particle", is a localiecd wave.
in Copenhagen intepretation whole the quantum particle is represented with its quantum wave - nothing else.
Then why do they still call it a "particle"? It is meaningless mumbo-jumbo!
It means, when atoms are entangled mutually inside of boson condensate, then according the Copenhagen interpretation dissolve mutually into single quantum wave
It can only happen at low temperatures when the atomic parts (nucleus and electrons) first fuse to form a single coherent wave, which then in turn fuses with the other coherent waves to form a SINGLE macro coherent wave, which can then also diffract.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
all harmonic light-waves are spatially localised objects
Harmonic wave just cannot be spatially localized. "Harmonic" simply means pure sinusoidal wave and sine function has no beginning or end - it's the infinitely large function.
This is the problem with people like you who think that mathematics determine physics: You get such a sinisoidal wave from Maxwell's equation when you do not solve it subject to boundary conditions. Only an idiot will claim that a
A solution of a differential equation without the appropriate boundary conditions, can model physics! AS I have pointed out a Laser beam IS a purely sinusoidal wave AND it does have a beginning and an end. So you are again as usual posting claptrap.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
So, whenever some wave gets localized in space or time, then it's evident, it does contain a less or well balanced mixture of waves of various frequencies - so it cannot be harmonic anymore. This is quite fundamental, conceptual thing.
Correct, this happens when you trap a wave by suiable boundary conditions which causes superposition of waves with different frequencies: Such a wave then moves at a lower speed.

A laser beam, of any length, IS NOT such a superposed wave: It still moves with the speed of light c even though it does NOT fill an infinite space. Sheesh, when are you going to try and think in terms of physics instead of hallucinating all the time?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
In 2000 I created the first electron macro-wave
You're actually saying, you created the boson condensate from electrons, because in boson condensate the particles behave like the coherent wave. But at the same moment you're refusing all attempts for interpretation of superconductivity with boson condensate = you're confused in the same way,
If you would not be such a closed-minded bigot who refuses to first read what a person has published, you might be able to stop making such an utter fool of yourself.

Firstly you should note that although a laser-beam and the electrons that I have fused, are condensates, they are NOT Bse-Einstein Condensates: The latter requires low temperatures while a laser beam and my SC phase DOES NOT.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Secondly: WITHIN a material the superconducting phase is NOT a boson-condensate since the current is transported by separate charge-carriers. When a current is not flowing the charge-carriers all have the same lowest energy independent of whether they are "bosons" or fermions. This they can do since they are still distinguishable.

Within the SC I generated in 2000, the electrons are not distinguishable after they have formed the condensate; just like photons are not distiguishable after they have fused to form a laser beam. Andas I hvae already pointed out these condensates are NOT Bose-Einstein condensates since they they do not need to be colled in order to form.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Their wake waves just get undulate in phase. It's similar to swarm of birds which is kept in synchronicity with wake wave around each bird, but inside of such a swarm each particle still remains pretty distant from coherent wave concept. It undulates independently, if waves its wings, etc. You're apparently not able to distinguish these two things...

You are hallucinating again: You are not modelling physics but spouting nonsense; as usual. Duck on ponds, Birds flying, You really need some mental help,you know!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Paradoxically, inside of superconductive phase the electrons are moving highly chaotically each other. They lose the character of organized grid of Mott insulator and they move wildly with subluminal speed. This fast motion just enables the wake waves of photons to manifest clearly and interfere mutually. The vacuum foam becomes more thick and dense, when it's shaken intensively in similar way, like the soap foam. So that the system of wake waves around electrons undulating at phase becomes an independent physical entity. We can say, it's a dense field of virtual photons exchanged with individual electrons randomly.

More hallucinations! Oh my!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Copenhagen is based on the existence of particles, whatever the latter is
Copenhaged is based on particle-wave duality. It's just you, who is denying the particle aspect of photons and claiming they're all formed with coherent wave. Which is semantical nonsense: the coherent wave cannot be localized in time or space like the photons.
You are talking semantical Voodoo by "explaining" what happens in terms of another unexplained concept called "wave-particle" duality: If you need the latter Voodoo concept you must first explain WHY! And this requires that you must define what a "particle" is. So PLEASE try and argue like a mentally normal person, and define what you mean by the concept "particle"
johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
when the atomic parts (nucleus and electrons) first fuse to form a single coherent wave
They cannot fuse, or the cold fusion would occur...;-)
Obviously if you can get helium atoms to fuse so that they form a single coherent wave, cold fusion will occur: But it will not last since heat will be released that decoheres the wave.

Furthermore, long before you can entice the nelium atoms to form a SINGLE coherent macro-wave, they will first form a superfluid.

The latter superfluid is NOT a single coherent macro-wave, since the helium atoms are still distinguishable. It must be modelled in terms of classical particles, each of which reached its lowest energy that it can have.

The correct term for this superfluid would be to call it a Boltzmann-Quantum condensate. The atoms do not need to be bosons, as we know from the fact that He3 also form a superfluid. The statistics that applies is Boltzmann-statistics NOT Bose-Einstein.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
You get such a sinusoidal wave from Maxwell's equation when you do not solve it subject to boundary conditions
LOL, just these boundaries, i.e. surface gradient of vacuum density is what defines the particle concept in physics...;-)
All light waves have size and thus exist within a limited region of space: This region is determined by the source of the light wave: The geometry of the source, and the time when it starts emitting the light-wave and stops emitting the light-wave.

In the case of a laser-source which emits light for a time T, the emitted light will be contained within a moving volume with lenth cT, and cross-sectional area as determined by the semi-transparent mirror through which the light is emitted.

Any FOOL should know, even YOU, that laser-light is a coherent-wave.

Thus, to maintain that a photon cannot be a coherent-wave since it does not fill infinite space is the most retarded argument I have heard in my whole life!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
So, if you introduce some boundaries or time domain to the "harmonic" wave, this wave cannot be "harmonic" anymore.
Laser beam IS a purely sinusoidal wave
Only because its photons are entangled and (partially)
Can you define what you mean by "partially"; Why do you keep on using concepts that you do not, or most probably cannot, define.
dissolved mutually. But when we are talking about individual photons, then their isolated particle character arises clearly.

Here again, you talk that "their particle character arises clearly". For God's sake PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "particle character". If a person cannot define his terms he is a moron!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Such a wave then moves at a lower speed. /q]Which for example implies, the individual photons should move with lower speed than the harmonic (light) wave.
Yes this is what your "solitons" imply: But we KNOW that individidual photons each does move with the speed of light c: and therefore each photon MUST be single coherent-wave in its own right; as demanded by the physics of wave-motion!
I dunno, what the "superposed wave" is supposed to mean. It's new concept for me. Have you NEVER heard of composite waves being formed by the superposition of waves with different frequencies?
The laser beam is still composed of individual photons,
It cannot be, since it will then NOT be a SINGLE coherent wave as we KNOW its is.
they just undulate in phase, because their wake waves are in synchrony.
THERE ARE NO WAKE-WAVES! Stop hallucinating.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
But I don't think, inside of laser beam the individual photons could live longer, than when they're moving in incoherent way.
Correct! That is why there are NOT separate photons within a laser beam: If this is so the laser beam will NOT be a SINGLE coherent wave AS WE KNOW THAT IT IS. The separate coherent photon-waves lose their separate identities to form a SINGLE coherent macro-wave! And they are able to do this since they are also smaller coherent waves with the SAME frequency!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
they are NOT Bose-Einstein Condensates
Atoms need a low temperatures for their entanglement, because they're heavy. But for example inside of dense stars they could form a superfluid even at the room temperature - it's just matter of their mutual compression. Photons are very lightweight, so they form condensates at room temperature and electrons can be convinced for it, when they're sufficiently compressed mutually (as you just managed with surface of diamond). I don't think, that the mutually entangled photons inside of laser beam differ from boson condensate (where the atoms are entangled mutually as well) conceptually. Boson condensate state is defined with entanglement, not with temperature required for its creation.

I will need to write a book in order to "disentangle" this BS you have posted. So I am going to just skip it.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
WITHIN a material the superconducting phase is NOT a boson-condensate since the current is transported by separate charge-carriers
It's transported with charge pairs at low temperatures,
Wrong; the charge-carriers need not be electron-pairs and I do not think that there is a single SC that conducts by the formation of Cooper pairs.
at higher temperatures a higher number of electrons may be involved.
Wrong again! When superconduction occurs, there is no electric-field that can accelerate normal charge-carriers, so they can NEVER participate in superconsuction.
But if the electrons would remain separated, they couldn't form a "coherent wave", as you claimed above.
I have NEVER claimed that they do form such a coherent wave WITHIN a material. Only the mainstream idiots believe that this is required.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
My phase formed in vacuum OUTSIDE a material: In this case, the electron density increases until they can form pairs (which they cannot do WITHIN a material) these pairs, akin to covalent bonds, then form a single macro-stationary wave: Which is akin to a MACRO chemical bond. This phase IS not a BEC since you do not need to cool the extracted electrons to form it; It is for this reason that it SC's at room and MUCH higher temperatures.

Within the SC I generated in 2000, the electrons are not distinguishable after they have formed the condensate
So are the superconductors formed with condensate or not?
NOT BY a BEC WITHIN A MATERIAL: CAN YOU GET THIS SIMPLE FACT THROUGH YOUR BONEY SKULL.
Now you're just promoting the BCE theory of superconductivity, nothing else..
Only a simpleton will reach this conclusion. Firstly the macro-wave I formed from electrons is NOT a BEC: You do not have a BEC WITHIN a material and, in addition, in this case, pairing is not needed
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (47) Sep 25, 2012
For God's sake PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "particle character".


I mentioned the photo electric effect, in the other thread, and the fact that a single photon does not have an intensity, that is, ...it is the number of photons that define intensity...

The fact that increased intensity of coherent light upon a metal, does Not cause increased kinetic energy of the ejected electrons,.... whereas increased frequency of light does, ... defines a "particle" of light, and forces the derivation of h. That is all that is meant, by 'photon is a particle'.

The underlying reality may not be either "particle" nor "wave",... these concepts are a means of modeling results from experiments. That's it. Why are you anti-particle in this regard?

It seems you are emotionally invested in "scientific realism" in expecting an intuitive "explanation " of how the underlying reality "IS".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
So are you believing, just the cooling of Rubidium atoms to 0.001 K is sufficient for the dissolving of their orbitals and atom nuclei and convert them into single coherent wave?
Not necessarily. Rubidium atoms need not fuse to form a single coherent wave: They could still be distinguishable but all have the same lowest energy.
Actually it's quite apparent even with naked eye, these atoms don't form a continuum or coherent wave here: they're visible as a tiny glowing sparks under the loupe.

I am happy with that: It does not contradict anything I have posted above. But if they could have formed a single macrowave, as my electrons have done, then they would have had to first form individual single-waves, which then in turm totally merge to form a single macro-wave within which the Rubidium atoms would not be distinguishable anymore. If this could happen, you will NOT be able to see them as separate entitiies by using a loop.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
The latter superfluid is NOT a single coherent macro-wave, since the helium atoms are still distinguishable. It must be modeled in terms of classical particles, each of which reached its lowest energy that it can have.
You see, the same applies to electrons within your "coherent wave" at the surface of diamond and even photons inside of the laser beam.
No they do not: If they do you will not have a single macro-wave but a collection of smaller waves
All they remain a classical particles up to certain level. Now we can just ask, in which way they get synchronized, when they remain isolated classical particles?
They cannot get synchronised to be a SINGLE coherent macro-wave. They can however interact by means of (delta)E*(delta)t when they are near to one another. This is what happens when SC occurs WITHIN a material. But this is NOT what happens within a laser beam or within the macro-wave formed by electrons extracted from diamond.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Can you define what you mean by "partially"
Please explain, what you mean by "up to certain level."..;-)
Did I use this phrase? If I did please be more specific where and in which context.
PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "particle character"
Please explain what you mean with "classical particles"..;-) Yup I should not have used this term, but it is difficult to communicate with somebody who is as retarded as you are by not trying to make it easy for you. I should have used "localised wave entities". Shall we create a new term and call them locwaves?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
OK, try to explain, in which way the atoms inside of boson condensate are behaving like "superposed waves", when they still remain "classical particles up to certain level". I can assure you, you'll start to hallucinate fast in the same way, like me...

If you have taken the time to read my model for SC within a material, you would not have asked such a question. Why do you viciously attack my ideas without FIRST doing your homework as any other rational being would have done?

When locwaves are each within the same lowest energy state that they can be in, but are still separate entities, since they cannot overlap by enough to form a SINGLE macro-wave, they can, when near to one another, interact by means of quantum fluctuations, (delta)E*(delta)t. This allows them to borrow-energy in order to move, and then return this energy: therefore no dissipating energy. In this respect a superfluid and SC within a material are the same. NOT because they are BEC's.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
For God's sake PLEASE DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY "particle character".


I mentioned the photo electric effect, in the other thread, and the fact that a single photon does not have an intensity, that is, ...it is the number of photons that define intensity...
A photon is the amount of energy that can be emitted by an electron-wave, or absorbed by an electron-wave as determined by the boundary conditions under which the electron-wave finds itself. Thus, even when you irradiate the metal with a laser beam which has no separate photons, an electron-wave must first resonate with the frequency of the impinging laser-wave: But it cannot absrorb the whole laser-wave: It thus "disentangles" the amount of energy it can absorb from the laser-light and absorbs this energy. Continued

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
This is the same that happens at a radio-antenna: The antenna does not absorb the whole carrier-wave that has been emitted at the radio-station, but ony splits off what it can absorb.

Obviously the continuous carrier radio-wave need not consist of separate entities which have energies that are equal to what an antenna can split off. Why should it be otherwise for the photo-electric-effect. The electron-antennas within the metal split off the photon-energies which they can absorb.

The fact that increased intensity of coherent light upon a metal, does Not cause increased kinetic energy of the ejected electrons,.... whereas increased frequency of light does, ... defines a "particle" of light,
No it does not: It only means that more electron-antennas can split of and absorb light-energy to, in this process, become excited. If this excited energy is high enough the electrons are ejected. Continued.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
The underlying reality may not be either "particle" nor "wave",...
But if you find a consistent model in terms of waves, why is it a SIN?
These concepts are a means of modeling results from experiments. That's it. Why are you anti-particle in this regard?
How can I be anti-particle when I have not found a single physicist during the past 50 years who could define what a "particle" is.

It seems you are emotionally invested in "scientific realism" in expecting an intuitive "explanation " of how the underlying reality "IS".
I am not "emotionally" invested. Why should I be emotional about it when pure logic and a sound mind has led me to a unification of classical physics (Maxwell's equations and SR) with QM when modelling everything in terms of waves and how we have known for more than 400 years how waves behave and interact?

Is this not better than to supersitiously believe that the "gods" do not allow us to understand the "underlyng reality"?

Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (47) Sep 25, 2012
How can I be anti-particle when I have not found a single physicist during the past 50 years who could define what a "particle" is.


It is not defined in a metaphysical sense, (i.e. in Realism), but as a model.

Is this not better than to supersitiously believe that the "gods" do not allow us to understand the "underlyng reality"?


That's not the point of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It's an epistemological problem, that qm is non-intutive,... no such metaphysical presumptions about it.

The opposite is the point of Bohr/Heisenberg; It is an a-priori assumption, that mind which evolved to operate on the macroscopic scale, also be equipped with concepts consistently applicable to the microscopic scale. Physics was reluctantly forced to abandon that metaphysical assumption, if it was to make progress.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
It is not defined in a metaphysical sense, (i.e. in Realism), but as a model.
PLEASE stop pasting Gobbledy-gook.

Is this not better than to supersitiously believe that the "gods" do not allow us to understand the "underlyng reality"?


That's not the point of the Copenhagen Interpretation. It's an epistemological problem, that qm is non-intutive,... no such metaphysical presumptions about it.
To an idiot NOTHING is intuitive. Bohr, Heisenberg, Born and Dirac did not want it to be logical or else they would have had to admit that Schrodinger's wave equation can visualise QM. They thus produced the same stupid arguments that you are still spouting to throw physics totally out of kelter.

It is an a-priori assumption, that mind which evolved to operate on the macroscopic scale, also be equipped with concepts consistently applicable to the microscopic scale.
Further Copenhagen BS.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2012
Physics was reluctantly forced to abandon that metaphysical assumption, if it was to make progress.


What "metaphysical" assumption? Furthermore, there was only reluctance on the part of the only three physicists with brains at that time: Einstein, Schroedinger and de Broglie.

What happenned in 1927 was that the rabble shouted down the intelligentia and hijacked physics away from the search for reality, into the hallucinating world of metaphysics. From that day on the ONLY real progress made was by the Solid State Physicists and Chemists who applied Schr. Eq. without wondering about the interpretation.

During the same period the Theoretical Physicists took a massive leap backward to happily live in Cloud-Cuckoo land looking for impossibilities like quarks, gluons, Higgs bosons etc.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (47) Sep 25, 2012
What "metaphysical" assumption?

It was an a-priori assumption, that the mind which evolved to function on the macroscopic scale, also be equipped with intuitive concepts consistently applicable to the microscopic scale.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (46) Sep 25, 2012
Furthermore, there was only reluctance on the part of the only three physicists with brains at that time: Einstein, Schroedinger and de Broglie.


Not true. Paul Dirac was never intuitively "satisfied",...

"If we accept Maxwell's theory, the field in the immediate neighborhood of the electron has an infinite mass. [...] One may think that this difficulty will be solved only by a better understanding of the structure of the electron according to quantum laws. However, it seems more reasonable to suppose that the electron is too simple a thing for the question of the laws governing its structure to arise, and thus quantum mechanics should not be needed for the solution of the difficulty. Some new physical idea is now required, an idea which should be intelligible both in the classical theory and in the quantum theory, and our easiest path of approach to it is to keep within the confines of the classical theory." - Paul Dirac 1938

,...
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (46) Sep 25, 2012
,...

And, it is well known that Bohr himself also attempted to save a wave formulation in his BKS theory (Bohr-Kramers-Slater).

Schrodinger brought on the probability interpretation himself when he demonstrated the equivalence of matrix mechanics and his wave equation. In fact Born's interpretation was anticipated by many with Schrodingers result.
Noumenon
4.6 / 5 (46) Sep 25, 2012
What [happened] in 1927 was that the rabble shouted down the [intelligentsia] and hijacked physics away from the search for reality, into the hallucinating world of metaphysics


The exact opposite occurred. It was the intelligentsia who desired for the role of science, intuitive comprehensibility.

Einstein - "The Lord is subtle but not malicious,... God does not play dice"

Bohr - "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."

Einstein made the meta-physical presumption here, that Reality 'should be' deterministic, and thus conform itself within a conceptual structure dependent upon mind,... while Bohr instructed Einstein not to make such presumptions as they were untenable and not based on observations at the microscopic scale.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2012
I will return, maybe tomorrow or latest Monday, to answer your utterly stupid superstitious arguments above. I first have to attend to other matters which are more important than to argue with retards!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
It was an a-priori assumption, that the mind which evolved to function on the macroscopic scale, .. etc.


It has always been the PRIME purpose of physics to model what we measure, no matter at what scale, in terms of mechanisms that relate to out macroscopic world. Right up to Maxwell it worked very well indeed: We cannot see the undulations of light-waves with our "macro-equipped" minds but we can conclude that since the SAME differential equations model light, which are also known to model wave-motion in our macro-world, moving light, which falls outside the "äbility" of our "macro-minds", must also be wave-motion.

Suddenly the Copenhagenists declared this approach, which has served physics so well, a SIN. Why? Because they wanted to reconcile two concepts, which are impossible on the macro-scale, and thus declared that Voodoo makes it possible on the atomic scale. What is sad is that this Voodoo approach is not required: Waves are sufficient on their own.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
Not true. Paul Dirac was never intuitively "satisfied",...
Thank you for the quote: It restored a bit of my lost respect for Dirac!

"If we accept Maxwell's theory, the field in the immediate neighborhood of the electron has an infinite mass. [...]
This is of course the fallacy: The mass of an electron does not relate to an electric-field around an electron's charge but to the EM-energy WITHIN an electron-wave.
...more reasonable to suppose that the electron is too simple a thing for the question of the laws governing its structure to arise, and thus quantum mechanics should not be needed for the solution of the difficulty. Some new physical idea is now required,


When I try and publish the "new physical idea", Dirac predicted is required, it is censored by the Orwellian swine, since this "new idea" indicates that the Standard Model might be BS. "They" are not going to allow such a heresy after having wasted billions on the Higgs!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
And, it is well known that Bohr himself also attempted to save a wave formulation in his BKS theory (Bohr-Kramers-Slater).
BKS was and still is a stupid approach.

Schrodinger brought on the probability interpretation himself when he demonstrated the equivalence of matrix mechanics and his wave equation. In fact Born's interpretation was anticipated by many with Schrodingers result.


Bollox! It is known that when a wave encounters conditions so that it has to change shape and size (e.g. light mmoving through a lens) you can model this in terma of matrices: This DOES not mean that the light-wave is a "probability distribution".

Heisenberg used matrices, as one must when the waves change shape and size during "quantum-jumps".

Schroedinger's equation gives the stationary waves around the nucleus which change shape and size when absorbing and emitting photon-waves. This behaviour does not require that the wave's intensity must be a "probability distribution".

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
The exact opposite occurred. It was the intelligentsia who desired for the role of science, intuitive comprehensibility.
This assumption has worked very well after it has been applied in physics from Galileo onwards. So what is wrong with expecting that it should remain valid?

Einstein made the meta-physical presumption here, that Reality 'should be' deterministic, and thus conform itself within a conceptual structure dependent upon mind,..
This is what physics has been all about after Galileo and Newton appeared on the scene.
while Bohr instructed Einstein not to make such presumptions as they were untenable and not based on observations at the microscopic scale.

This is what physics has all been about BEFORE Galileo and Newton appeared on the scene. The superstition that there are certain issues that God does not want us to understand. Bohr took us back to superstition and the age of unreason.