These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

Proving That The Higgs Field Theory Is A Fallacy

First post
Author
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2014-06-26 12:51:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
This is a follow up on this previous Threadnaught

Unfortunately I have not seen Akita T posting here in a while, and he/she always made these threads fun. This an extension of my own personal theories being submitted for debate... not peer review. Because peer review is ultimately debate anyway, and I find this forum to be a much better place for the practicing of debate. Always have. If you have never done the peer review thing before then you probably don't know what I mean.

Anyway... you are entering another Eternum thread!!! Dun, dun DUN!




First Some Things You Should Know

Every sci-fi nerd who thinks he has a doctorate in Star Trek style inverse tachyon physics knows that the speed of light in a vacuum remains constant at all times. But to add to that here are a few additional tidbits of information you will need for this discussion.

Arrow All light exerts a radiation pressure on all surfaces. The more reflective the surface the greater the pressure... and no this has nothing to do with charge. Photons are presumed to have a resting/inertial mass and they are presumed to deliver their momentum to matter during reflection and absorption.

Arrow The greater the frequency of light the greater this pressure (provided that absorption and reflection remains constant)

Arrow When anything moves through space reflected light either redshifts or blue shifts.

Arrow Momentum, mass, inertia are all indivisible. This is why in order to explain radiation pressure scientists had to come up with the idea that photons have an "inertial" mass and are not in fact totally without mass at all times. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant because it is a part of their theory of everything.



The Higgs Field

Is supposed to be an invisible and undetectable (in other worlds magical! Smile) field in space. Whenever matter interacts with this field they are given their mass through some unknown (perhaps pony magic?) mechanism. In order to make their theory work they also had to make exceptions for Photons and Gluons which reportedly interact with some other "not ordinary" component of the higgs field used to describe how photons travel at the speed of light. But all other matter does not.

Ok so... the higgs field requires pony magic!





Now An Experiment -- Much Like The Train In The Theory of Relativity


I, Eternum, have set up a laser inside of the box car of a stationary train. I am shining this laser onto mirror A which is being reflected onto mirror B. I am measuring the radiation pressure between both mirrors as the light passes back and forth. It is equivalent to about the weight of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms laying on it's surface under the force of gravity. So long as the train stays stationary and the laser's frequency stays the same... so does the radiation pressure on both mirrors.


But upon the conductor moving the train forward, the frequency of the laser light will shift depending on what direction the train is traveling. This happens because the speed of light in a vacuum is fixed... and the speed of the train is not. If the train travels forward the light is blue shifted on mirror A and red shifted on mirror B. If backwards the light is red shifted on mirror A and blue shifted on mirror B. .

This means that I can control the radiation pressure landing on both mirrors by giving the conductor commands. Keep in mind that the laser is still emitting the exact same amount of photons per unit of time and the laws of conservation of energy/momentum apply as the light bounces between the two mirrors. Nor is the speed of light changing.

Yet... there is a detectable discrepancy between the radiation pressure on mirror A compared to mirror B.



Result

I have changed the inertia being delivered by the photons as they fall onto both mirrors, which is in turn tied to the resting mass of the photons. I have however not changed the photon's velocity because that is impossible. I have not changed the amount of photons in the stream as they are being emitted from the laser and reflected between the two mirrors. The photon count is identical. Only the trains velocity changes. The laws of conservation of energy apply. The speed of light remains the same. No new energy is being delivered to the photons besides the fact that they are shifted blue or red do to velocity change.

So then how is it blue shifted photons deliver more radiation pressure through their resting mass then red shifted ones? If the photon count is the same? Hmmmmm????



This experiment seems to prove that NOT ONLY can the inertia of photons be altered, they do so without a change in velocity and without the need of a Higgs field. The only variable that changes is the relative velocity of the train itself which does not effect the speed of the light being carried within. Care to explain anyone? If you can I will give you a cookie and an exotic dancer in game. Ok... well maybe not a cookie but definitely an exotic dancer on contract. Big smileBig smileBig smile





Screw you Nobel comity...
We do not except pony magic and pseudoevidence as justification for science's highest honors.

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

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#2 - 2014-06-26 13:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks

  • There is momentum without mass, at least according to this article: Edit: (sorry, had wrong article linked, I meant this one) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon (see Physical Properties) or even better: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation.
  • And this momentum is dependent on the frequency of the photon, as you said in your second "thing to know", since the energy of a photon depends on its frequency.
  • Emitted light red- or blue-shifts as well, if you move away or towards the emitter. Not only reflected light.

I still need to read past your "things to know" list, but these things already go against the things I know, or believe to know, so can you please explain in more detail or give some sources, so I can read up on these things?

Edit: some minor formatting stuff and added another link
Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#3 - 2014-06-26 15:36:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
According to your theory each photon should have the same momentum, no matter whether the train is moving relative to the mirror or not.

But if you move towards the mirror (and your light gets blue-shifted), it means you'll release each photon a little closer to the mirror than it's predecessor.
Thus more photons will arrive at the mirror within the same time compared to a non-moving train.
Thus more momentum will be transferred to the mirror, thus higher radiation pressure.
Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-06-26 15:47:12 UTC
Now I may be a simple country Hyperchicken, but I thought the frequency of the wave is directly tied to how much energy the particle possesses. As in how much it vibrates as it travels at the speed of light. Why would mass have anything to do with it? Why do you say the trains motion is adding mass to the photons and not energy?

In my mind, the speed of light is constant, the train can't add or take away from the speed of light no matter what direction it travels, so the only thing it can do is add or take away from the energy of the photons, and we see that as redshifts or blueshifts.

Also as Riyria said above, emitted light also redshifts/blueshifts. Otherwise, how could we tell that distant galaxies are redshifted?

Finally, as mind boggling as the concept of the higgs field is, the whole point was to help the standard model explain why particles of the same family can have wildly different masses. I don't think the energy of a train is going to help explain that difference considering it took the LHC running at full power to produce a higgs boson.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2014-06-26 17:15:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
According to your theory each photon should have the same momentum, no matter whether the train is moving relative to the mirror or not.

But if you move towards the mirror (and your light gets blue-shifted), it means you'll release each photon a little closer to the mirror than it's predecessor.
Thus more photons will arrive at the mirror within the same time compared to a non-moving train.
Thus more momentum will be transferred to the mirror, thus higher radiation pressure.



Thank you Kijo Rikki and Riyria Twinpeaks for your two engaging posts. I am at work atm so I'll have to site the sources you asked for when I get home. If I may ask, which part of the list went against what you thought you knew?


Anyway...


Your view of a photon Arrow"you'll release each photon a little closer to the mirror than it's predecessor" is very commonplace. Let me explain and perhaps rephrase a little bit.


Picture if you will a single photon (defined as an elementary particle and/or a single quanta of light) traveling back and forth between two particles of glass. This photon or quanta of energy is presumed to actually exist being that they are observed in particle accelerators and certain types of experiments.






So This Single Photon

Is traveling back and forth between two glass particles right? Those particles of glass are now acting as mirror A and mirror B. This single photon of light can be blue shifted or red shifted. When it is blue shifted it will deliver more energy to Mirror A then it will when it is red shifted and interacting with Mirror B.


Therefore... the actual effect that we see is not coming from there being more or less photons impacting the mirror at any given moment. Since a single photon can be blue shifted or red shifted. (At least not according to the current accepted model of physics of which we are discussing)



Edit:
I'll have to answer Kijo Rikki's question later... back to work I go!

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

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#6 - 2014-06-26 19:16:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Riyria Twinpeaks
So if the mirror moves towards the approaching photon, it gets blue shifted.
As the energy of a photon depends on the wavelength, the blue shifted photon has more energy.
And as the momentum of a photon is higher if its energy is higher, the momentum transferred to the mirror is as well.

So for the mirror moving towards the approaching photon, the photon still moves at c, of course, but has higher energy than for a mirror moving in the same direction as the approaching, then red-shifted photon.

I don't see the connection to the higgs field, though. And that's related to the point I don't agree with in your assumptions: that photons have a resting mass. They can have momentum without resting mass.


Edit: Btw, I think I don't understand the settings for your thought experiment. I don't understand why the shifting would be different for each of the two mirrors.
If the train moves towards mirror A which reflects the light towards mirror B, for both mirrors the light should be blue-shifted. And reversed if you move the train in the other direction, away fom A.
Or do the mirrors move relative to each other, too?
Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2014-06-26 20:44:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
Edit: Btw, I think I don't understand the settings for your thought experiment. I don't understand why the shifting would be different for each of the two mirrors.

Or do the mirrors move relative to each other, too?


For the sake of simplicity let us say that the mirrors are 100% reflective. Photons would be bouncing back and forth between them endlessly. As the train travels through space so are the mirrors. The forward mirror is always falling away from any photon that hits it, where as the rear mirror is always falling towards the photon that hits it.

That additional motion added or subtracted to the fixed speed of light is what creates a red or blue shift in light.

Riyria Twinpeaks wrote:
I don't see the connection to the higgs field, though. And that's related to the point I don't agree with in your assumptions: that photons have a resting mass. They can have momentum without resting mass.

This will also serve as an answer to Kijo Rikki's questions.


I think that in a rush I miss-spoke or oversimplified the part about the photon's mass. Oops Allow me to correct this...



More Accurate Version

It is almost certainly impossible to do any experiment that would establish the photon rest mass to be exactly zero. The best we can hope to do is place limits on it. There is a really big problem here, because zero multiplied by infinity is still zero. Where as light definitely has momentum at the speed of light.

In the case of light we are asked by "those who know more than us" to simply ignore this paradox. We are told that it does not matter. I call BS on that... it does matter. It matters very very much. But that is another discussion all together.



With regards to the Mirror experiment, the standard model tells us that all leptons and quarks get their inertia from an imaginary higgs field. So if light falling onto a mirror exhibits a force equal to that of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms it suffices to say that a higgs field interaction of 100,000,000 hydrogen atoms would be required. Right? Is that not where mass is supposed to come from in the first place? And if that force is not coming from the higgs field then how is it there?

Yet... photons said to have no mass and no interaction with this so called higgs field some how exhibit the same equivalent inertia. Hmmmmmm...... Blink



Super Simplified

We are being told that...

Arrow An invisible field that we cannot see or detect
Arrow Is giving all particles in the universe mass
Arrow Through an interaction that we do not understand
Arrow But does not interact with photons... which is why they have (or are supposed to have) zero rest mass

And yet...

Photons seem to have inertia at the speed of light, which is universally associated with mass despite the fact that they do not interact with said Higgs field? On top of that...the Higgs field is not considered a force. It cannot accelerate particles, it doesn't transfer energy. However, it supposedly interacts universally with all particles (except the massless ones), providing their masses.

Does that not sound like pony magic to you? Roll


I am not the only person in the world seeing a huge gaping contradiction in logic here. It is just that the Higgs detractors do not get on the news very much. As it turns out... there is allot of money and ego in particle physics. People do not like to be wrong.

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

Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#8 - 2014-06-26 22:38:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Kijo Rikki
You are making me do research to keep up, I like it.

Here is what I found in regards to my initial assumption:

"wikipedia" wrote:

n empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[14]

E^{2}=p^{2} c^{2} + m^{2} c^{4}.
The energy and momentum of a photon depend only on its frequency (ν) or inversely, its wavelength (λ):

E=\hbar\omega=h\nu=\frac{hc}{\lambda}
\boldsymbol{p}=\hbar\boldsymbol{k},
where k is the wave vector (where the wave number k = |k| = 2π/λ), ω = 2πν is the angular frequency, and ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant.[15]

Since p points in the direction of the photon's propagation, the magnitude of the momentum is

p=\hbar k=\frac{h\nu}{c}=\frac{h}{\lambda}.


"wikipedia" wrote:

Electromagnetic radiation is quantized in particles called photons, the particle aspect of its wave–particle duality. Photons are best explained by quantum mechanics. Although photons are considered to be zero-rest mass particles, they have the properties of energy and momentum, thus exhibit the property of mass as they travel at light speed. The momentum of a photon is given by:

p = h/λ = mc
where p is momentum, h is Planck's constant, λ is wavelength, m is mass, and c is speed of light in vacuum. This expression shows the wave–particle duality.

E = mc2 = pc
is the mass-energy relationship where E is the energy. Then

p = E/c.
The generation of radiation pressure results from the momentum property of photons, specifically, changing the momentum when incident radiation strikes a surface. The surface exerts a force on the photons in changing their momentum by Newton's Second Law. A reactive force is applied to the body by Newton's Third Law.

The orientation of a reflector determines the component of momentum normal to its surface, and also affects the frontal area of the surface facing the energy source. Each factor contributes a cosine function, reducing the pressure on the surface.[5] The pressure experienced by a perfectly reflecting planar surface is then:

P_{reflect} = \frac{2E_f}{c} \cos^2 \alpha ( N·m-2 or Pa )
where P is pressure, Ef is the energy flux (intensity) in W/m2, c is speed of light in vacuum, α is the angle between the surface normal and the incident radiation.[6]


Again, alot of this is over my head but the gist I believe is that the energy is carried in the frequency of the wave, not by its mass times the speed of light. Light gets a different set of rules, much like many things in quantum mechanics. "Those that know better than us" (certainly me) tell us this. Having seen the double slit experiment and hearing explanations of quantum entanglement and quantum tunneling, I am inclined to believe them for now, there is clearly alot general relativity cannot explain about the quantum world.

I guess a question I would pose if photons did have mass would be, so where does that mass come from? When I turn on my lights in my house, as those photons are being created are they stealing the mass from the filament in my lightbulb? What about your laserbeam? A microwave oven? Radio Broadcast Towers?

In regards to your last statement, I feel you judge particle physicists too harshly. There is still so much more physicist at the LHC have to explore including super symmetrical particles (which as to date isn't looking good for the home team) and studying the beginning of the big bang.

I love to watch all things concerning astrophysics, cosmology and particle physics. How The Universe Works, Through the Wormhole, The Universe, and even off brand things like The Great Courses - Mysteries of the Universe with NDT. In all of these shows, I never got a sense that anyone being interviewed or narrating thought that the Higgs was guaranteed to be there. Alot of people "believed" that something like the Higgs would be found. Peter Higgs even said that during an interview

"Through the Wormhole" wrote:

Antony Valentini of Clemson University is a quantum heretic.
He loudly proclaims that physics went off the rails in the 1920s when it embraced the doctrine of quantum uncertainty, which says that nothing is real until we look at it.
Valentini champions the theory that got left behind.
It was created by one of the pillars of early 20th-century physics, Louis de Broglie.
Louis de Broglie's original idea is an electron is both a wave and a particle all the time.
It's not the case that, well, sometimes it's a particle, sometimes it's a wave.
There is a wave guiding a particle at all times.
And de Broglie called this a pilot wave.
In quantum theory, there's something called the probability wave, a purely mathematical object that tells you the chance of finding an electron at any point in space.
Pilot wave theory treats this wave as a real physical object.
So, a simple analog is a bottle.
Someone is on an island, and they want to send a message.
So they write something on a piece of paper, put it in a bottle, close it, and throw it in the ocean.
And water waves simply push the bottle along.
There is a crucial difference between the waves we know and the pilot wave.
According to the theory, pilot waves exist in hidden dimensions of space beyond the three we know.
If true, this means that, contrary to the accepted theory in physics, quantum objects obey the same rules as large objects.
They do not exist in two places at once.
They're part of the real world.
I think that quantum mechanics itself is not even a candidate for the truth about the microscopic world, because it simply doesn't attempt to describe precisely what the microscopic world is.
The mere fact that there are different theories about what the answer might be doesn't mean that there's no answer.
And eventually one of them is found to be the correct one.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#9 - 2014-06-26 22:56:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Kijo Rikki
I actually ran out of space to type there, I had hoped to link Peter Higg's actual response.

http://youtu.be/ImBwsQyEXds?t=41m11s

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Something Random
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#10 - 2014-06-26 23:14:57 UTC
Im a proven numpty however i have always had one thought here

Other than a guy on the internet challenging the greatest minds universities have to offer.....

Mine is of course simple.

Light is apparently a constant, light is apparently a wave.
Presumably the speed of light is taking into account this, wave.
So something - oh the photon - is always travelling faster than 'light' as its a wave and doesnt traverse a straight course ?

Not sure - need to be numptied more. I like learning.

"caught on fire a little bit, just a little."

"Delinquents, check, weirdos, check, hippies, check, pillheads, check, freaks, check, potheads, check .....gangs all here!"

I love Science, it gives me a Hadron.

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2014-06-26 23:20:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Whoohoo! An intelligent debate... You have no idea how hard it is to get one of these \0/



You are correct. The assumption is that the energy of light is being carried in the energy of the wave. The problem is that this does not actually work even by elementary school mathematical standards. An object with 0 mass can deliver 0 force onto an object no matter how fast it is traveling.


But we live in a world where it is ok for the people at Cern, the people featured in How The Universe Works, Through the Wormhole, The Universe, and the off brand things like The Great Courses - Mysteries of the Universe... are allowed to invent as many dimensions, virtual fields, branes, strings, dark matter, dark energy and what I have been referring to as pony magic necessary in order to explain away the obvious discrepancies in their theories of everything.

In most classes on quantum mechanics, or forums covering this material, the discussions revolve around properties of sub atomic particles that are counter intuitive and not conceptually understandable. Subatomic particles can jump from one point to another without passing through the space in between. Two entangled photons can communicate faster than the speed of light over larger distances. Many such ideas that cannot be understandable when analyzed through current conceptual models of particles and forces.

There is enough evidence in particle mechanics and astrophysics to reasonably conclude that the current calculations it uses are either incomplete, contain at least one error or are in fact totally wrong. When a calculation falls apart and results in impossible answers like infinity, or if they require fields like the Higgs field that fly in the face of all known observable phenomena in order to make it all work... it is a tell tale sign that something is wrong.


I mean... listen to CERN's description of the Higgs field and see for yourself.
I actually pulled this from their website

Quote:
The Higgs field is not considered a force. It cannot accelerate particles, it doesn't transfer energy. However, it interacts universally with all particles (except the massless ones), providing their masses.


You tell me... what field in the universe can interact with matter but not exert a force? Is that not a ridiculous contradiction when you think about it? It interacts with all matter, but it cannot accelerate a particle or transfer energy? What field of any shape, composition or form in our entire existence does not transfer energy?

What business do string theorists have calling for 11 dimensions in order to make their equations work when we have no evidence suggesting that others even exist? Not 1, or 2 or 3... they need 11 in order to make it all work. This is a tell tale sign that their math is wrong, or at the very least flawed.



Scientists need to understand quantum mechanics in terms that violate the normal observable laws of the universe is a clear indication that they are using the wrong model. But instead of fixing that model at a fundamental level... they do stupid stuff like 11 dimensions and fields that violate all know physical laws. It is not coincidence that we have not discovered them yet... it is because they are not really there. They are figments of imaginary processes.

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

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2014-06-26 23:33:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Kijo Rikki wrote:
I actually ran out of space to type there, I had hoped to link Peter Higg's actual response.

http://youtu.be/ImBwsQyEXds?t=41m11s


I totally agree with him.


Quantum electrodynamics is something we understand pretty well. We have some idea of what mass and velocity will do to particles at this point. We can make predictions of what we can expect to find when we smash things together at certain energy levels. Thus, we can expect to find a particle with Higgs-like properties because it was based on quantum electrodynamic understanding.

This is like Buckminsterfullerene, a geodesic dome of carbon atoms that has unique properties in chemistry. They were predicted to exist before they were generated in a lab. We could predict that carbon atoms and their bonds could result in such a combination.

This is the same thing that allowed Higgs to predict the existence of a particle with certain properties existing at a certain energy level. It should be there...based upon what we know.


BUT....

When push comes to shove... the particle that they found doesn't do anything interesting as far as we can tell. It is very bland, average and boring besides the fact that it has 0 spin--but it is not the only particle that has 0 spin. There is absolutely no reason to think that it has any exotic qualities at all. The properties they are pertaining to the "Higgs Particle" is as absurd as those who won the Nobel prize for manufacturing Buckminsterfullerene suggesting that a dome of Carbon atoms could defy newtons law of gravity. Or something to that effect.

It is fantastic that we can predict the existence of a particle through interactions of mass and energy. It is terrible that science can apply an interaction to such an idea that has never been observed and cannot be validated through experimentation... and then award science's highest honor for it.


I do not think I am being to hard on the people at CERN. They have a tremendous emotional involvement and billions of dollars in grants are on the line. None of which is the least bit relevant to the true and pure search of science.

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

Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#13 - 2014-06-26 23:34:52 UTC
Something Random wrote:
Im a proven numpty however i have always had one thought here

Other than a guy on the internet challenging the greatest minds universities have to offer.....

Mine is of course simple.

Light is apparently a constant, light is apparently a wave.
Presumably the speed of light is taking into account this, wave.
So something - oh the photon - is always travelling faster than 'light' as its a wave and doesnt traverse a straight course ?

Not sure - need to be numptied more. I like learning.


That is an interesting thought, just as I am at rest at my computer, the rotation and forward momentum of the Earth combined with the motion of the Sun, Galaxy and Expansion of the Universe means I am moving much faster. Conversely, the added motion of a wave to the speed of light is an interesting proposition but I believe this is partially (if not fully) why we have redshifted and blueshifted light.

The doppler effect is more or less for sound waves or similar things. Light is constant in a vacuum for all obververs, no matter their motion in a frame of reference. Therefore , the photons cannot actually exceed the speed of light, so they must slow down to a certain percentage of C to make the frequency of their wave + their forward motion = c. I'm not sure if that is correct but it's been explained that anyone on a train travelling at the speed of light who tries to move forward will slow down in time so that they never break light speed.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#14 - 2014-06-26 23:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kijo Rikki
Eternum Praetorian wrote:
Whoohoo! An intelligent debate... You have no idea how hard it is to get one of these \0/


Glad to be here, while I never went to college, lately I've found this field of science extremely fascinating, at least when its brought to me in a digestible form for my simple mind to take in.

Quote:

But we live in a world where it is ok for the people at Cern, the people featured in How The Universe Works, Through the Wormhole, The Universe, and the off brand things like The Great Courses - Mysteries of the Universe... are allowed to invent as many dimensions, virtual fields, branes, strings, dark matter, dark energy and what I have been referring to as pony magic necessary in order to explain away the obvious discrepancies in their theories of everything.
...

There is enough evidence in particle mechanics and astrophysics to reasonably conclude that the current calculations it uses are either incomplete, contain at least one error or are in fact totally wrong. When a calculation falls apart and results in impossible answers like infinity, or if they require fields like the Higgs field that fly in the face of all known observable phenomena in order to make it all work... it is a tell tale sign that something is wrong.


Most if not all of the speakers for the shows I watch have pointed out the flaws in the standard model and especially in string theory. String Theory was only ever seriously spoken about on Through the Wormhole, and that show is more about exploring the fringes of Science and asking controversial and spiritual questions. The epidose of TTW after the Higgs Discovery announced was jam pakced with "well now we found it, now here's a ton of other problems that pop up even with the Higgs" and vaguely, those problems can be solved by finding an additional 4 higgs bosons, an y and z boson, unparticles.... basically, even with the Higgs there are still unexplained problems. And they know it.

Also RE: Dark Matter / Dark Energy, those are simply place holder terms and dark is simply a term meaning scientists don't know what it is yet. It's not really magic, it's there, we just don't understand it yet.


Quote:

Scientists need to understand quantum mechanics in terms that violate the normal observable laws of the universe is a clear indication that they are using the wrong model. But instead of fixing that model at a fundamental level... they do stupid stuff like 11 dimensions and fields that violate all know physical laws. It is not coincidence that we have not discovered them yet... it is because they are not really there. They are figments of imaginary processes.


http://xkcd.com/171/

Laurence Krauss showed that comic during his presentation of A Universe From Nothing. NDT said "There's not a shred of evidence to support it, nor does it make any predictions from which we can test (paraphrasing).

Michio Kaku said quite bluntly, "It's the only game in town". I think most physicist and scientific public speakers are quite honest about the state of String Theory.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#15 - 2014-06-27 00:10:04 UTC
Eternum Praetorian wrote:


I do not think I am being to hard on the people at CERN. They have a tremendous emotional involvement and billions of dollars in grants are on the line. None of which is the least bit relevant to the true and pure search of science.


Do they not have other experiments to keep them busy? Have they exhausted the search for super symmetrical particles, or their study of how the universe began? Do you honestly believe that Higgs or No Higgs, pursuing the truth one way or another was not in the interest of pure science? We need to know one way or the other.

Personally I believe the grants will come, in different forms for different research. The people who run countries are smart enough to know that understanding leads to technology and technology can lead to wealth and power.

A little thought experiment for myself, when the Higgs was discovered, I wondered what technology might arise from knowing it is there. If we know it is there, perhaps in the future we can figure out how to interact with it and manipulate it. Two technologies immediately came to mind, warp drives and gravity bombs.....guess which one I assumed would be made first, and by whom?

Anyway I think the only person who should have been emotionally involved is Peter Higgs himself, everyone else should have been happy to find the truth one way or the other and I just can't accept that the only reason they "found the higgs" is for their pride and grant money.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2014-06-27 00:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Eternum Praetorian
Kijo Rikki wrote:
A little thought experiment for myself, when the Higgs was discovered, I wondered what technology might arise from knowing it is there. If we know it is there, perhaps in the future we can figure out how to interact with it and manipulate it.


Probably not much considering that it takes 1 trillion (10^12) proton collisions just to see one. Blink

The kicker is... we know that it is there now and we can interact with it now. It is a positively charged particle that we can play with like anything else--much like a proton. Being that it has no perceivable unique qualities whatsoever, like it does not pass through matter and magnetic fields like neutrinos. Nor does it behave like light. It is just kind of there... benign.



Link - You Mean This Guy Big smile


IMO he is one of the epitome's of today's "fame oriented" physics. That is why you are seeing him on TV so much in the first place. As stated, show boat science has allot of money and ego involved. Time traveling wormholes have no relevance to me outside of the next great Star Trek episode.

This guy is starting to say stuff like "it is the biggest game in town" because he has too... the more time passes the more the standard model begins to reveal it's limitations. People have realized that the standard model in it's current state cannot lead to grand unification. They just do not grasp how deep the rabbit hole really goes. How far off it might actually be from describing the universe as a whole.



Kijo Rikki wrote:
Do they not have other experiments to keep them busy? Have they exhausted the search for super symmetrical particles, or their study of how the universe began? Do you honestly believe that Higgs or No Higgs, pursuing the truth one way or another was not in the interest of pure science? We need to know one way or the other.


Did you know that CERN was originally built for nuclear weapon's research and not pure scientific interest? It was about the Atom bomb and the fear of adversaries having it in a post second world war world.

Did you also know that in order to get the data they have they have to throw away massive volumes of data? Labeling it as "already awarded the nobel prize for this so we do not have to analyze it?"


Higgs or no Higgs... truth or no truth... the single most important thing is adhering to the scientific method. That very same thing that you and I learned in elementary school. You cannot award the Nobel prize for an interaction that has never been seen and has never been tested. Hell... they could not even wait for CERN to finish it's upgrades in a year to further study this so called particle. They just slapped a label on it with no regard for the pure art of scientific endeavour. That... is not the search for truth my friend. That is bad science.

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

Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#17 - 2014-06-27 01:03:15 UTC
I get that Michio Kaku is a show boat scientist, but you must understand making science flashy is just a means of getting people who would otherwise pay no attention to science to take an interest. The general public is largely ignorant of even the most basic concepts to come out of physics and cosmology in recent years. I've met people who will argue with me that the Sun and the stars are two entirely different things. Having a public so largely ignorant is dangerous, especially when corporate, political, or religious interests so frequently take advantage of that ignorance.

I did not knoe those things about CERN. Blink

Quote:

Higgs or no Higgs... truth or no truth... the single most important thing is adhering to the scientific method. That very same thing that you and I learned in elementary school. You cannot award the Nobel prize for an interaction that has never been seen and has never been tested. Hell... they could not even wait for CERN to finish it's upgrades in a year to further study this so called particle. They just slapped a label on it with no regard for the pure art of scientific endeavour. That... is not the search for truth my friend. That is bad science.


Now this I will agree with 100%. I was not aware they had already awarded the Nobel Prize. Of course more testing and examination of the data should be done, and I would hope you are being facetious when you say the data was just filed away after the fact. I was under the impression that there is so much data they have to use algorithms and programs to try sifting through hundreds of petabytes of data just to find what they are looking for.

I won't necessarily lay the blame on the people at CERN, though. If I recall correctly, they gave a Nobel Prize to a certain president just for being elected and nothing else. Seems ot me the voting committee is just so eager to hand those awards out before the news of random occurences like the first black president or the discovery of a particle dies down.

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Eternum Praetorian
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2014-06-27 01:22:43 UTC
I can get on board with most of what you said there.


Kijo Rikki, do you realize that at this point we are coming to and understanding between each other's opposing views and meeting each other on a common middle ground? Could this be a first in the history of the EVE Forums Big smileBig smileBig smileBig smile

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

Kijo Rikki
Perkone
Caldari State
#19 - 2014-06-27 01:30:11 UTC
It's possible. The universe is old and big and rare things happen all the time! Big smile

Now if only such a rare event would happen in something like politics....

You make a valid point, good Sir or Madam. 

Riyria Twinpeaks
Perkone
Caldari State
#20 - 2014-06-27 05:08:19 UTC
Just woke up, and before I'll read all of these certainly interesting posts (at work, probably ;P), I want to respond to your (the OP's) attitude that we live "in a world where those physicists are allowed to come up with all sorts of weird things to explain away the obvious discrepancies of their theories" (paraphrased).

If their "weird things" explain the experimental results, and can predict more experimental results, and there aren't experimental results they can't explain, then that's the best theory we have so far. Their "weird things" improved the theory to be able to explain what's actually happening.

So, while I enjoy a debate like this, I don't really understand why you seem to occasionally fall into a rant about the apparent arbitrariness of complicated explanations, when those explanations work with our current experimental data, as far as I know.
123Next pageLast page