Guardian: On 4 July scientists working at CERN plan to announce the latest results from the Large Hadron Collider. In the meantime, the news media are speculating whether they have discovered the Higgs boson, or another, more exotic type of particle. Because the Higgs boson decays almost immediately upon being created, researchers cannot detect it directly. Rather, they look for spikes in the numbers of subatomic particles, such as photons and quarks, into which the Higgs would decay. The discovery of the Higgs “would prove there is an invisible energy field that fills the vacuum throughout the observable universe,” writes Alok Jha for the Guardian. Without that field, “we would not be here.”
Physics Today News Picks
Written and selected by Physics Today staff.
After reading the above announcement, I would like to present the theoretical aspects of an individual investigator: I have shown theoretically that: a) the higgs boson does not exist, b) the physics does not need it and c) the theory of the standard model is a false theory. So I look forward to see, what would be the announcement of CERN. Remember me after the announcement.
The “Standard Model” of particle physics [SU(2) gauge theory] originally predicted that particles have zero mass, which is clearly falsified by observation.
So theoretical particle physicists tacked on the ad hoc “Higgs Mechanism” that involves a somewhat bizarre spontaneous symmetry-breaking that makes the particles have mass. It also involves introducing a new field and particle(s). The putative Higgs is supposed to be a spin=0 scalar particle. All of this is a bit weird and forced in my opinion.
So the question is: Do we have a Ptolemaic situation wherein the “mechanism” can roughly reproduce the observed phenomena, but has nothing to do with how nature actually works?
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
If this grand unified theory appears will it conform to the vision of Ervin Laszlo.
It seems to me that theoretical particle physics is more religion than science.
If theories can avoid any predictions whatsoever (e.g., string/brane theory), or if theories can arbitrarily “adjust” their ersatz “predictions” (e.g., the standard model, especially QCD; supersymmetry; “WIMP” dark matter; etc.), then you do not have testable science. You have pseudoscience.
Albert Einstein showed many times how theories of principle can make definitive predictions that are prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable and unique to the theory being tested. General Relativity is the archetypal example. That is what science aspires to, not fudged “model-building” which can only be viewed as temporary constructs that beg to be replaced by theories of principle.
We need to be less credulous. We need to demand theories of principle that can make and pass definitive predictions.
Robert L. Oldershaw
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
Discrete Scale Relativity
1. It appears that the di-photon decay channel rate is at least a factor of 2 higher than “Standard Model” predictions.
2. It also appears that the WW decay channel is virtually missing in the LHC data, which should not be the case at all!
3. The combination of 1 and 2 was definitely not anticipated
Are new epicycles going to be required to get the “right” answer?
Do theoretical particle physicists want the “Higgs Mechanism” so badly that they have lost scientific objectivity?
Sorry for asking inconvenient questions, but someone must and few seem inclined to do so.
Robert L. Oldershaw
Discrete Scale Relativity
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Fractal Cosmology
Pingback: The OMG Particle: If Greed is the Answer – What is the Question? [Reader Post] | Flopping Aces