These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Proving That The Higgs Field Theory Is A Fallacy

First post
Author
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2014-06-29 18:59:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
baltec1 wrote:

Also, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching.



Good enough for the laymen my friend. It is a fair enough place to start if you have no real experience with the material. It gives you a good list of things you may wish to find. Through which you can do further research and find your way to actual science papers that are publicly available.



baltec1 wrote:
Of course the standard model is wrong, its incomplete and breaks in parts. However, at the same time it is the best answer we have and at the moment there isn't anything else to replace it.


Again... three times now I think... I invite you to read up on alternative theories to the standard model. Not all other theories have such gaping swiss-cheese-like gaps in them. Therefore... it is not the best possible model that we have right now is it? Blink

Far too many doctorates, egos and research grants are on the line. More or less, these men and women have to either retire or die out leaving room for a new generation of fame seeking physicists to reintroduce already existing models that hold more promise then what we are force fed today.


I remind you that t he presumption that the ~125 GeV Boson is a part of this flawed standard model. No such interaction has ever been observed to suggest that it has any unique properties whatsoever. It has not been observed to interact with matter, alter matter or do anything special beyond float and decay. So the presumption that it is a sign of an all pervading field that gives all matter it's mass (except for things like photons) is likely to be just as flawed as the theory that sprang forth the idea in the first place.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#122 - 2014-06-29 19:25:17 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:

Again... three times now I think... I invite you to read up on alternative theories to the standard model. Not all other theories have such gaping swiss-cheese-like gaps in them. Therefore... it is not the best possible model that we have right now is it? Blink



Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically. There are loads of great theories out there in all kinds of areas that claim to be the answer to some problem but if there is no evidence to back them up they aren't worth anything. The reason why everyone signs up the standard model is because it is the best answer we have that fits the observable data as a whole.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2014-06-29 19:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
baltec1 wrote:
Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically..



Would you mind linking me a scientific paper PDF that has in it scientifically proven observations of the Higgs field effect? If not, can you direct me to a PDF containing scientifically proven observations of the Higgs boson interacting with matter?

No? Hmmm... maybe all that is actually just based on math then...and not observations and testable facts after all. Blink


Edit:
Btw... where is your bio?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#124 - 2014-06-29 19:40:45 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Yes it is because unlike all of those other theories it is based upon observable facts and is proven scientifically..



Would you mind linking me a scientific paper PDF that has in it scientifically proven observations of the Higgs field effect? If not, can you direct me to a PDF containing scientifically proven observations of the Higgs boson interacting with matter?

No? Hmmm... maybe all that is actually just based on math then...and not observations and testable facts after all. Blink


Edit:
Btw... where is your bio?


Maths based upon the entire standard model not just bits. Your problem is that you are cherry picking bits and not looking at the whole. As I said, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching, its stuffed full of cherry picked data and most of it is wrong and near none of it comes from peer reviewed papers.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#125 - 2014-06-29 19:55:03 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Maths based upon the entire standard model not just bits. Your problem is that you are cherry picking bits and not looking at the whole. As I said, Wikipedia and google are terrible for researching, its stuffed full of cherry picked data and most of it is wrong and near none of it comes from peer reviewed papers.



Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.

Do you know what the math of the standard model is? Then how can you make such a statement?



Do I know all of the math of the standard model? No, obviously i don't either. But i do know something that you don't seem to know about the math involved in quantum electrodynamics. It deals with mass, velocity and spin. When you get a certain mass going at a certain velocity that has a certain spin... you can reasonably predict what will come out of that reaction. It is all statistical but you can.

Therefore at 125 GeV we are almost certain to see something baring the properties of the ~125 GeV Boson because that is how it works! It has to be there based upon what we know about inertia, spin and energy interactions.

But when you assign a ludicrous effect to a particle that is in all other respects ordinary and benign you are no longer "following the math". You are using your imagination. Math does not tell us that something exists. It does not predict the existence of gravity it only explains how it works. There is no math that says "look here is the higgs field".


That is as simple as any human being can explain it to you. If you don't believe it then I suggest you do some reading. If you do not want to do some reading... well... then you're just some Joe somewhere cherry picking information because you saw it on the fox news.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#126 - 2014-06-29 19:58:29 UTC
There is strong evidence in support of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. For one, there is strong evidence to support its interaction with matter at or near the level predicted by the Standard Model.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#127 - 2014-06-29 20:10:38 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:



Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.




We just had most of the worlds scientific organisations warn that wikipedia is a terribly misleading place to get info on complex matters and every university generally bans its use.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#128 - 2014-06-29 20:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
baltec1 wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:



Being that I have already stated that wiki is good for the laymen because it can lead you to actual books and science papers, you seem to the one cherry picking information. You also seem to be ignoring large bits of this thread and editing out vital pieces of information.




We just had most of the worlds scientific organisations warn that wikipedia is a terribly misleading place to get info on complex matters and every university generally bans its use.


Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?

Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?

Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.




@ James Amril-Kesh
As for the "higgs proof" link i'm giving it a read. But I doubt a random blog from over a year ago will have new information in it.


And why is goonswarm suddenly fail sabotaging my thread? What?What?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#129 - 2014-06-29 20:30:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
There is strong evidence in support of the discovery of the Higgs Boson. For one, there is strong evidence to support its interaction with matter at or near the level predicted by the Standard Model.



Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13


Now since it is pretty obvious that you just googled your way to something that looked like "strong evidence" and didn't bother to read through the whole thing before posting it... I will recall one of my favorite sci-fi quotes of all time compliments of James T Kirk.

"James Amril-Kesh, I am laughing at the inferior intellect"Big smileBig smileBig smilePPLolLol




On A Side Note:


This is actually very interesting because we may have discovers a new fundamental law of nature here. Or perhaps not nature but the nature of eve and these forums. People like you pollute GD with mountains of thread derailing garbage all of the time and since there is no way to really prove or disprove what you are saying you get away with it.

But add into that dynamic something from the real world... and we get to see just how little you actually know don't we?

I might call this "Eternum's first law of forum interactions" Cool

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#130 - 2014-06-29 20:31:51 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:


Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?

Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?

Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.



In the last thread you hadn't even read anything from the scientific organisations that were running the experiments. In this thread you have said that the entire scientific community is only using the standard theory because they don't want to damage their grant money or their egos. Not exactly a good example you are setting here for researching this subject.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#131 - 2014-06-29 20:34:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
baltec1 wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:


Hit one of the links I threw up. There is a list of various names pertaining to various alternative models of the universe. Names the laymen would not have even known to google. Upon seeing them you can find scientific papers in PDF format and do appropriate research?

Are you daft or just being a really, really fail troll right now?

Since you cherry picked most of what i said in the last three posts I made, I'll just presume the latter of the to.



In the last thread you hadn't even read anything from the scientific organisations that were running the experiments. In this thread you have said that the entire scientific community is only using the standard theory because they don't want to damage their grant money or their egos. Not exactly a good example you are setting here for researching this subject.



Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere? What?

You are like a merry go round for every cliche personal attack in debate tactics. How about we talk about science now?

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#132 - 2014-06-29 20:50:24 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:



Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere? What?

You are like a merry go round for every cliche personal attack in debate tactics. How about we talk about science now?


You linked your own thread, go have a look. Linking a bunch of radical theories is all fine and well but there is a reason why the standard modelis used by everyone. If the evidence backed those other theories we would be using them. There isn't some massive world wide conspiracy by scientists looking to protect grant money or their egos, they use it because thats what the evidence point to. Questioning what we believe is good for science but its not good when you hold up theories when there is no evidence backing them up.
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2014-06-29 20:56:21 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:



Not really a valid response to what I said... but we can entertain it if you like. Link me because I do not really recall what you are referring to. I said that I do not read scientific papers somewhere? What?

You are like a merry go round for every cliche personal attack in debate tactics. How about we talk about science now?


You linked your own thread, go have a look. Linking a bunch of radical theories is all fine and well but there is a reason why the standard modelis used by everyone. If the evidence backed those other theories we would be using them. There isn't some massive world wide conspiracy by scientists looking to protect grant money or their egos, they use it because thats what the evidence point to. Questioning what we believe is good for science but its not good when you hold up theories when there is no evidence backing them up.


No link then and no bio from you? Well ok then....


I feel all points have been made and I have poked fun at the two of you enough. Feel free to crap of the rest of the thread. Anyone with even a modest intellect could read this and see what you are trying to do at this point.


Thank you everyone who actually participated in the debate. I hope there will be more in the future. \0/ Cool

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#134 - 2014-06-29 21:09:43 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:


No link then and no bio from you? Well ok then....


I feel all points have been made and I have poked fun at the two of you enough. Feel free to crap of the rest of the thread. Anyone with even a modest intellect could read this and see what you are trying to do at this point.


Thank you everyone who actually participated in the debate. I hope there will be more in the future. \0/ Cool


You want me to point you to a good source of scientific papers?

Go to the Royal Society. Their archive holds every scientific peer reviewed paper from 1660.
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#135 - 2014-06-29 21:41:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]

Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13

[...]


Actually, as I understand that link you provided here, they say basically "we have no proof that it's the higgs, but we have evidence speaking strongly against all other alternatives that remain possible based on what we know".

Edit: As such, "Evidence against Higgs Impostors" seems to mean "evidence against the possibility of the found particle being an impostor".
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#136 - 2014-06-29 21:48:02 UTC
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]

Well your link is a blog that is very out of date. They actually know more about the ~125 GeV Boson now then they did when it was published on the date 2/27/13. Now I could give you a comparatively intelligent explanation on why and how I disagree, but since you are only here to troll me I will instead point out that on the very same page that you linked19 posts down there is this Associated Production Evidence against Higgs Impostors and Anomalous Couplings dated 3/1/13

[...]


Actually, as I understand that link you provided here, they say basically "we have no proof that it's the higgs, but we have evidence speaking strongly against all other alternatives that remain possible based on what we know".

Edit: As such, "Evidence against Higgs Impostors" seems to mean "evidence against the possibility of the found particle being an impostor".


Riyria Twinpeaks, you are correct but this entire thread is not about "actual higgs vs higgs imposters" it is whether or not there is any reason to think (through testing and observation) that the ~125 GeV Boson does anything at all besides decay.

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#137 - 2014-06-29 21:57:58 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
[...]
Riyria Twinpeaks, you are correct but this entire thread is not about "actual higgs vs higgs imposters" it is whether or not there is any reason to think (through testing and observation) that the ~125 GeV Boson does anything at all besides decay.


I thought the discovery of the higgs boson is so important because it was predicted by the higgs field theory.
Then, no matter whether you see it doing anything or not, the existence of the particle itself, if it can be confirmed to be the right one, is a strong indicator that there is merit to that theory, right?

Anyway, I'm tired now. xD
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#138 - 2014-06-29 22:28:27 UTC
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:

I thought the discovery of the higgs boson is so important because it was predicted by the higgs field theory.


Where as I have been postulating that quantum electrodynamics (aka raw particle chemistry) practically guarantees that a ~125 GeV type Boson must exist. There could be any number of them, none of which have anything to do with a field.


Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
Anyway, I'm tired now. xD


Goodnight!
God knows how many pages of crap will be burring this post when you return!

[center]The EVE Gateway Blog[/center] [center]One Of EVE Online's Ultimate Resources[/center]