Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

November 7, 2014
Associate Professor Mads Toudal Frandsen, University of Southern Denmark Credit: University of Southern Denmark

Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

Many calculations indicate that the particle discovered last year in the CERN particle accelerator was indeed the famous Higgs particle. Physicists agree that the CERN experiments did find a new particle that had never been seen before, but according to an international research team, there is no conclusive evidence that the particle was indeed the Higgs particle.

The research team has scrutinized the existing scientific data from CERN about the newfound particle and published their analysis in the journal Physical Review D. A member of this team is Mads Toudal Frandsen, associate professor at the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy at the University of Southern Denmark.

"The CERN data is generally taken as evidence that the particle is the Higgs particle. It is true that the Higgs particle can explain the data but there can be other explanations, we would also get this data from other ", Mads Toudal Frandsen explains.

The researchers' analysis does not debunk the possibility that CERN has discovered the Higgs particle. That is still possible - but it is equally possible that it is a different kind of particle.

"The current data is not precise enough to determine exactly what the particle is. It could be a number of other known particles", says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

But if it wasn't the Higgs particle, that was found in CERN's particle accelerator, then what was it?

"We believe that it may be a so-called techni-. This particle is in some ways similar to the Higgs particle - hence half of the name", says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

Although the techni-higgs particle and Higgs particle can easily be confused in experiments, they are two very different particles belonging to two very different theories of how the universe was created.

The Higgs particle is the missing piece in the theory called the Standard Model. This theory describes three of the four forces of nature. But it does not explain what dark matter is - the substance that makes up most of the universe. A techni-higgs particle, if it exists, is a completely different thing:

"A techni-higgs particle is not an elementary particle. Instead, it consists of so-called techni-quarks, which we believe are elementary. Techni-quarks may bind together in various ways to form for instance techni-higgs particles, while other combinations may form dark matter. We therefore expect to find several different particles at the LHC, all built by techni-quarks", says Mads Toudal Frandsen.

If techni-quarks exist, there must be a force to bind them together so that they can form particles. None of the four known forces of nature (gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force) are any good at binding techni-quarks together. There must therefore be a yet undiscovered force of nature. This force is called the the technicolor .

What was found last year in CERN's accelerator could thus be either the Higgs particle of the Standard Model or a light techni-higgs particle, composed of two techni-quarks.

Mads Toudal Frandsen believes that more data from CERN will probably be able to determine if it was a Higgs or a techni-higgs particle. If CERN gets an even more powerful accelerator, it will in principle be able to observe techni-quarks directly.

Explore further: Now it is more likely than ever: There must be particles out there smaller than Higgs particle

More information: Technicolor Higgs boson in the light of LHC data. Phys. Rev. D 90, 035012th Alexander Belyaev, Matthew S. Brown, Roshan Foadi, and Mads T. Frandsen. journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.035012 . On Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1309.2097

Related Stories

Evidence found for the Higgs boson direct decay into fermions

June 22, 2014

For the first time, researchers at CERN have found evidence for the direct decay of the Higgs boson into fermions—another strong indication that the particle discovered in 2012 behaves in the way the standard model of particle ...

12 matter particles suffice in nature

December 13, 2012

How many matter particles exist in nature? Particle physicists have been dealing with this question for a long time. The 12 matter particles contained in the standard model of particle physics? Or are there further particles ...

Recommended for you

Studying the quantum vacuum: Traffic jam in empty space

January 18, 2017

An important step towards a completely new experimental access to quantum physics has been made at University of Konstanz. The team of scientists headed by Professor Alfred Leitenstorfer has now shown how to manipulate the ...

Flexible ferroelectrics bring two material worlds together

January 17, 2017

Until recently, "flexible ferroelectrics" could have been thought of as the same type of oxymoronic phrase. However, thanks to a new discovery by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory in collaboration ...

70 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FineStructureConstant
4.7 / 5 (43) Nov 07, 2014
I hear they're looking for the fundamental technicolor force exchange particle, the crayon.

I'll see myself out, thanks...
indio007
1.9 / 5 (25) Nov 07, 2014
Well la-di-da, where are all the people that were calling some of us crack pot nutter pseudo scientists?

There are significant problems with the Higgs discovery. Namely the only property that matches Higgs boson is the energy level a particle was found at.
saposjoint
4.8 / 5 (20) Nov 07, 2014
I hear they're looking for the fundamental technicolor force exchange particle, the crayon.

I'll see myself out, thanks...


Hilarious! Thanks!
cognus_amaurosis
1.8 / 5 (21) Nov 07, 2014
So it will be part of the Techni-standard Model? You know, when software has as many bugs in it as the Standard Model has, the entire program is thrown out and rewritten... or maybe it's a feature?
h20dr
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2014
Kinda like spending billions to send man to the moon and then returning to say it might be a moon, but maybe not. Lol. I know, not a great analogy but...
Achille
4.6 / 5 (24) Nov 07, 2014
Until more data is available from the forthcoming experiment and upgraded LHC, the Higgs is the approriate name for this particle. The techni-higgs particle hypothesis rest also on an hypothetical force yet to discover and for which we have still not clue it ever exists.

So, the most probable explanation for the observed particle at LHC is the Higgs.
Nashingun
1.7 / 5 (29) Nov 07, 2014
How could I miss this, the Higgs particle never existed except in the minds of those inside CERN looking at digital graphics they pretend presenting as the Higgs boson only to find that they're not totally sure cos... They don't have any clue on what they're looking and seeking to find. Now how's that for science. lol Nutheads.
Nashingun
1.6 / 5 (26) Nov 07, 2014
It is really hard to make something out of nothing and pretend you found it under the billions of dollars of sponsors expecting for a glorious find. I've watched and waited for years hoping for LHC to prove itself of such prestige and media hype. But now that the news is heard I am at lost thinking what just happened? Took two years to identify the particle and said about 95% sure yet till now the identity of this Higgs particle is still in a big (?) and I seem to not be surprise at the moment after recalling what Einstein said that Particle Physics is a dead end. Mr. Higgs only wanted his name on textbooks, but more likely to fall to one of the most expensive and biggest hoax in the history of science.
Nashingun
1.6 / 5 (21) Nov 07, 2014
The very foundation of Higgs Boson is itself the problem. First of all how sure are you that Big Bang theory happened and how much traces can be found? It's like looking at a 30 feet deep crater of a 500lb bomb dropped by an F-18 Hornet 5,000 feet from the air? Care to trace back and find if you can still gather pieces of the bomb back? More likely 95% of it is gone. And according to CERN Higgs physics tells that the universe must have collapsed after the BANG contrary to our present reality that the universe holds and sustains. So where is actually the problem here? Is is inside CERN or maybe the very root source of this study, the BIG BANG THEORY. Either way its like looking at a dark room with your eyes blind folded with black cloth. Nothing can be found on all sides.
PsycheOne
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 07, 2014
phys.org each day presents stories indicating that previous scientific "knowledge" was in fact false. Generally this occurs after years or decades of certainty on the part of scientists. And each time a new discovery disproves an old one, science lauds it as the new final truth. The fall of the HIggs boson appears to be simply another instance, albeit a nearly instantaneous one, of false certainty.

In fact, we should have learned by now that much of what we think we know, we don't really know. And the problem is, we don't what part of what we know is the part that's wrong.
jimmyd
2.1 / 5 (25) Nov 07, 2014
Par for the course , some physicists are now saying , "there are no black holes " , others , "there was no Big Bang " , they're still searching for Dark Matter , although they have no idea of what it is , where it is and are REALLY unsure if it IS the explanation for the increased velocity of the expansion , and now the purported "Holy Grail " the Higgs Boson , that momentous predicted discovery , may not be at all . Uh -oh , the Theory of Everything is fading again .Time itself is inscrutable, gravity is not fully understood , and we do not fully understand our own star the sun.

But ahhh yes ! the ONE thing all the Theoretical Physicists , Mathematicians , Cosmologists , along with their leaders Hawking , Bohr , et al , agree upon , and are absolutely, positively sure of is , there is no God .
PS3
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 07, 2014
Translation- fund me some moar!
big_hairy_jimbo
4.7 / 5 (19) Nov 07, 2014
Remember people, science is about the Truth.
Unlike religion, you are aloud to question science as much as you like, and in fact it is welcomed. That is all that is happening in this story. Someone is looking at alternatives, so we don't miss something. Be glad that this kind of thing happens. Ohh and remember we are mere Apes trying to work out how the Universe works. I think we are doing a bloody good job!!!

Finally, this person is suggesting their are TWO entities that fit the data. They are trying to rule out one of them, just to make sure!!!
jimmyd
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 07, 2014
Yeah , I know what you mean big_hairy_jimbo , that's why scientists and their enthusiasts [ of which I'm one ] should follow their own rule . If you care to call hypotheses and theories truth , that's fine with me , as I realize that the "truths" of science inasmuch as Theoretical Physics and Cosmology , and all major questions related to Why or How the Universe got here , and Where it's going are , will change month to month . The Origin of the Universe beyond three Planck time segments after the Big Bang will remain a mystery . As to whether we're doing a "bloody good job " ? That 's a matter of perspective when one considers what has been spent and what will be spent , as opposed to science that actually has ameliorated the condition of mankind . The Higgs Boson which was allegedly going to help solve the Theory of Everything , after the hoopla and sensationalism has passed and other minds review the data ,the other "entity" is by no means settled science either .
tritace
Nov 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mikep608
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2014
And all of the people who wanted to argue with me for disagreeing that there is such a thing as a hggs particle..now nature conveniently invented the techni higgs particle(????????)

HERE'S MY WEBPAGE LINK. I LIKE TO REINTERPRET EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SO WE CAN HAVE MORE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE US IN PROGRESS

https://www.faceb...timeline
jdavis417
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2014
Remember people, science is about the Truth.
Unlike religion, you are aloud to question science as much as you like, and in fact it is welcomed. That is all that is happening in this story. Someone is looking at alternatives, so we don't miss something. Be glad that this kind of thing happens. Ohh and remember we are mere Apes trying to work out how the Universe works. I think we are doing a bloody good job!!!

Finally, this person is suggesting their are TWO entities that fit the data. They are trying to rule out one of them, just to make sure!!!

I've heard a lot better jokes than this one, Jimbo, but comedy is sometimes better when it's spoken aloud (if it's allowed).
Urgelt
4.5 / 5 (24) Nov 07, 2014
This article may be news to cranks - and boy, howdy, but we have our fair share of cranks and then some, unless one very busy crank is posting under a dozen pseudonyms, which just might happen - but it's not news to physicists.

In fact, if you carefully parse what theoretical physicists have been saying, you'll realize that they have been careful in choosing their words. The particle discovered by CERN is 'Higgs-like,' meaning it fits into the correct mass range and fell out in the right collision-decay pattern to be explained by theory for the Higgs bosun. Even so, cautionary notes have been sounded all long.

It's only in the media that absolute certainties have been trumpeted.

Cranks *could* know that. But they don't. Every time they get a glimpse of science wrestling with uncertainties - which is what science is for - they yell "See? They're wrong! Now go to my website where I'll TELL YOU THE TRUTH!"

If we had a mental health system worth a damn... ah, well.
Axel Grease
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2014
None of the four known forces of nature (gravity, the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force) are any good at binding techni-quarks together.

Could Time be a 5th Force?
zangetsu
1.7 / 5 (17) Nov 08, 2014
i told you all that was NOT the higgs they found, and you all laughed at me.

where is your god now ?
AmritSorli
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2014
Higgs field = gravitational field = quantum vacuum.

Mass and gravity have both origin in variable energy density of quantum vacuum
www.fopi.info
jsdarkdestruction
4.7 / 5 (13) Nov 08, 2014
I find it funny how this speculative (but still Interesting) article is enough to make the cranks go "told you so, higgs isn't real" and act like it somehow vindicates their bias against the higgs but all the evidence for the higgs falls on deaf ears around them.
wasp171
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2014
You can find more disagreement about this "find"here:
http://www.amazon...0FOU0CXG
The book is a merciless critique of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and of the theoretical model on which the world's most expensive experiment is based. Unzicker, a German physicist and award-winning science writer, argues that the greatest physicists such as Einstein, Dirac or Schrödinger would have considered the 'discovery' of the Higgs particle ridiculous. According to the author, the standard model has grown unbelievably complicated and doesn't solve any of the great riddles of physics. Moreover, with their increasingly intricate techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results, while their convictions are based on group-think and parroting. Altogether, the data analysis cannot be overseen by anybody.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
There are significant problems with the Higgs discovery. Namely the only property that matches Higgs boson is the energy level a particle was found at.

Please backup your statement.
tritace
Nov 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
I am critical of the SM because 1) SU2 symmetry is cosmetics. 2) Conjecture: U1 symmetry is unphysical. 3) Mass should not emerge from vacuum. Motivation: 1) SU2 it only hides the 100% spin polarisation of beta decay. 2) Electromagnetic gauge invariance is unphysical. See Eur. Phys. J. D, vol. 8, p 9-12 (2000) (http://arxiv.org/.../0106078 - no charge ;-) ). 3) No SU2 means that m^2 psi^2 can be restored.
So give me a VALID reason to question the Higgs discovery.
Tachyon8491
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2014
Ah... the king wears techniclothes... the fact that their technicality is in the eye of the beholder just proves how well we can see.
billpress11
1 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
Maybe the origin of mass is as simple as angular momentum at the most fundamental level.

http://www.scribd...-Physics
swordsman
1 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2014
Come one, come all. Now you see it, now you don't.
antigoracle
3.3 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2014
Could Time be a 5th Force?

Hmm... and imagine if you could save it in a bottle.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (5) Nov 08, 2014
In my opinion this work does not discredit the interpretation of LHC's data as a SM Higgs particle. It just argues there may be alternatives.
As far as Unzicker is concerned, his criticism is not without foundation as far as I can judge from his lecture on youtube. However his criticism does not disprove CERNs data and the interpretation thereof.
PS3
2.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2014
I find it funny how this speculative (but still Interesting) article is enough to make the cranks go "told you so, higgs isn't real" and act like it somehow vindicates their bias against the higgs but all the evidence for the higgs falls on deaf ears around them.

The only funny part is your need to name call. Oh, how civilized these know it all people are.
tritace
Nov 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
other "entity" is by no means settled science
Sure it is. The entity youre talking about wrote a book full of things we know didnt happen and people we know didnt exist. Not just a few of them, or some of them, but most ALL of them.

No creation. No first people. No global flood. No 2M jews in goshen. No exodus or genocidal joshuan rampage through egyptian-occupied lands. No mt sinai. No great davidic/solomonic kingdoms.

And no godman who wasnt a direct copy of perhaps a dozen previous godmen.

No, immaculate, omniscient, omnipotent gods do not write such books. Only devious but brilliant and power-hungry human beings write such books.

So if there is indeed a creator god out there somewhere, it is certainly not YOUR god. And there is no evidence that this deist god would want us to believe in him with the reward of either eternal heaven or hell depending on our degree of commitment.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he would care what we do at all.
Nattering Nabob
5 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2014
"Although the techni-higgs particle and Higgs particle can easily be confused in experiments, they are two very different particles belonging to two very different theories of how the universe was created."

This is the first article I've seen that explained this clearly. Popular science journalism is in very bad shape. The first three articles I read on this topic were apparently written by people whose first language is not English. It looks like there are an increasing number of flaky sites crowdsourcing their writing, and doing search engine optimization in order to get visibility. Bad science writing is just pouring gasoline on the anti-intellectual fire that (judging by the comments here) is blazing out of control.
tritace
Nov 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
justindadswell
2 / 5 (4) Nov 08, 2014
I agree the Einstein-Higg's Boson is flawed.
But I am supremely not convinced that this theory is right either.
Can someone explain what propels time forward in the techni theory? Maybe I am missing something, but it certainly seems like this theory doesn't tell us how everything got here. It just tries and explains what is happening now.
I understand the idea of how symmetry was broken in this theory, what I don't understand is the force that caused that to happen. What force started it all?

I guess I feel like this theory has a defined parameter, something you can'y do in an infinite universe. If there are defined parameters, what's beyond that? Why didn't the universe just jump straight to the solution? It seems to be missing the mechanisms for perpetual motion that we see in our universe.
Doesn't this theory also cancel out the force that binds atoms.
Parts of the techni physics might be right- including this, but parts of string theory are right as well.
tritace
Nov 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
I agree the Einstein-Higg's Boson is flawed.

With whom do you agree and on what grounds?
katesisco
1 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2014
Well, Miles Mathis explains the discovery as it truly is.

My self, as a non scientist but a spectator, believe that our Sol is a magnetar, proceeding from 100% equitorial emissions to nearly 95% polar emissions currently. Sol did not spark life once but hundreds of thousands of times. The ever decreasing energy level hence the ever changing footprint of Sol has led us to discoveries that once were and never will be again.
Since every reversal we have less organized energy available that means our super colliders will have to be more super every 10 years or so? Hence we are now chasing solar energy at the whip tip of our magnetosphere.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
justindadswell
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2014
@tritace that's exactly my point.
A vacuum, where did the vacuum come from?

In a SUSY multi-verse the vacuum is created as the universe expands and collapses at the same time. Perpetual motion is maintained via the multi-verse and one universe gives rise to infinite others and the machine keeps going.

So where did the vacuum come from in techni? What fundamental force causes differences in waves?

It's great they noticed that Higgs is both there and isn't. Something that a SUSY-string field multi-verse also explains, but a SUSY-string field universe also explains a lot more. A lot of the things that techni just straight doesn't explain.

IMHO SUSY or even M -string theory do a better job then techni. But I think we need to look at all theories, each contains part. Techni is right on some levels, but I think the physicists in the field need to broaden their approach.
(I do believe in a lattuce/matrix universe. So techni does have that.)
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
DingleBerry
1 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2014
Techni-quarks can not function like quarks in the three-dimensional atomic realm. Technicolor force particles mentioned in the article are actually dark energy. See the comments in a Physorg.com article dated Mar 21, 2014 titled "Now it is more likely than ever: There must be particles out there smaller than Higgs particle"

Link: http://phys.org/n...cle.html
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2014
they have a memory and intelligence of tropical fish.

That is quite an undefined statement if you do not specify an upper limit to the memory and intelligence a tropical fish can have. Are you even an expert on fish intelligence? I doubt it.
The only information is one of anonymous arrogance.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2014
So, I know little about particle physics, does this mean that the Standard Model may not be correct, or that it's likely now correct?
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
justindadswell
1 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2014
They need an article that explains the difference between current popular theories.
Contained SUSY.
Parallel universe SUSY,
Multiverse SUSY (this includes 0D, 1D, and 2D and the mirror).
String field with non-localized distortions.
String field with non-localized distortions and an energy loaf/bubble multiverse.
String field with localized distortions.
String theory.
Techni.
SUSY-string field multiverse.
Einstein gravity sink multiverse.

and maybe even a few more that fall between.
Closest to my belief is SUSY-string field multiverse with each universe being something similar to a Wilczek time crystal, a few physicists in the field are looking closely at 2D and 1D - but in my view they are ignoring the reverse force present in a 1D Einstein gravity sink. But as Krauss put, the mirror doesn't matter. I suppose I agree with him. On that view, then techni isn't such a bad theory for localized behavior. But that goes back to I think we need a broader approach.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 09, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2014
But if they would admit the existence of another Higgs bosons, which are IMO already well recognizable in data, then Mr. Higgs and other old chaps couldn't get their Nobel prize
@ZEPHIR
epic, epic fail
you didn't even do ANY homework!
https://en.wikipe...gs_boson
has alternative models (other higgs) published with it

and if you go to CERN (the place who FOUND the particle) you will see
This particle is consistent with the Higgs boson but it will take further work to determine whether or not it is the Higgs boson predicted by the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, as proposed within the Standard Model, is the simplest manifestation of the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. Other types of Higgs bosons are predicted by other theories that go beyond the Standard Model.
http://home.web.c...gs-boson

this is one reason you are considered a crackpot & Stupid
simple search proves you wrong with empirical evidence
moron
Rosser
5 / 5 (1) Nov 09, 2014
I agree with the folks that hold that the simplest explanation of a thing is usually the correct one. In this case, the alternatives are just too far out in left field. In order for them to work, we would have to create a whole lot of other particles, physics, and observations that don't now exist. I don't buy it.
ogg_ogg
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 10, 2014
As the Captain said the LHC teams made NO claim about definitively finding the Higgs particle. They claimed they found a particle (or evidence of one, actually) CONSISTENT with the predictions for a Higgs particle. I also note some real idiots claim that science proves this or is about the truth of that. Well, science can refute some ideas, but can never "prove" anything. All conclusions of science are contingent on the evidence and our interpretation of it. As for theTruth, if you want that then find some superstition to kneel to. Science is about what I call asymptotic truth, in the best case we can approach "the Truth" closer and closer (asymptotically), assuming that we ignore the "false leads" we will chase from time to time. Finally, someone asked whether Standard Model "may not be correct" We have known for decades that the Standard Model is NOT "correct"; it can't describe Nature at all scales. Just the best we now have. Its missing Dark energy, matter, and gravity...
ogg_ogg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
Note that gravity, dark energy and dark matter make up MOST of the Universe. So, the standard model is (as far as we now know) unable to explain most of the Universe. And that's just talking about the "known unknowns". Add to that the "unknown unknowns" and the Standard Model is just barely a start. For instance, most physicists (at least those having an opinion on the subject) believe there are particles to be discovered at enegies far beyond that we will ever see in the LHC, or in any other man made accelerator. The current "particle zoo" may very well be just the ones that wash up on the beach (of low energy), the ones in the ocean (of energies in the TeV to the (past the) Planck Scale (~1E+19GeV)) are where there be monsters.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2014
But for to have such a model working, we do need a quantum field, which is able to generate the mass from nothing.

First we should question gauge invariance a physical principle. If it is not we do not need such a field. At least electromagnetism, considered the archetypical gauge theory, does not require gauge invariance. It fares better without. Read Eur. Phys. J. D, vol. 8, p 9-12 (2000) (http://arxiv.org/.../0106078).
EnricM
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
hoax...


I have identified a new psychiatric condition: Hoaxaphilia.
Of course: The whole universe is just a big hoax set up by climate scientist to impose taxes on the hardworking US citizen and take their guns away.

Praise Allah!
theoctapus
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2014
It never ceases to amaze me how many un-scientific minds spend their time with a scientific website. If you want the Truth find a religion, that simple. Bare in mind that science is more about not-knowing than knowing and this is not a problem but a merit. Knowing everything is boring. Besides, scientists never claim that they know something for sure, they always express a belief with a degree of certainty. So they're being more honest than the self-proclaimed bearers of truth.
Selena
Nov 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ZaireLea
not rated yet Nov 10, 2014
Kinda like spending billions to send man to the moon and then returning to say it might be a moon, but maybe not. Lol. I know, not a great analogy but...


Wow, I think it's great!
antigoracle
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2014
Kinda like spending billions to send man to the moon and then returning to say it might be a moon, but maybe not. Lol. I know, not a great analogy but...

You are absolutely right about that not being a great analogy. We have benefited ten times over from the science and technology gained in going to the moon, which of course no one would have guessed at that time.
imido
Nov 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryanharden37
not rated yet Dec 17, 2014
Can anyone say "techni-convoluted"?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.