Higgs boson find "confirmed"

[PersianPaladin]

Press Association

Scientists believe they have captured the elusive "God particle" that gives matter mass and holds the physical fabric of the universe together.

The historic announcement came in a progress report from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the £2.6 billion "Big Bang" particle accelerator at the centre of the hunt for the Higgs boson.

Professor John Womersley. chief executive of the Science and technology Facilities Council, told reporters at a briefing in London: "They have discovered a particle consistent with the Higgs boson.

"Discovery is the important word. That is confirmed.
"It's a momentous day for science."

Hmmm.....not sure what to make of this "discovery".

[squiz]

I've watched the press releases etc....

Yes they are very confident they have found a particle that fits the bill. It's boson roughly 130 times the mass of a proton. "It's Higgs boson, but which one..." was one comment. They don't know if it's a standard model Higgs or not.

[PersianPaladin]

The state of quantum physics is really in a mess. Anything at the subatomic level (e.g. smaller than neutrons and protons) can be called into question. The overly-complex and fuzzy logic often described really does not seem compatible with the general efficiency with which we see nature behave, in my humble opinion. And there are strange inconsistencies. For example, the proton is made of several "quarks" - with different "flavours" and each quark has a certain amount of "charge". But what gives a quark its electric "charge"? The quark is composed, apparently, of "gluons" which are the exchange particle for the "strong force" within atoms. Gluons carry something known as "color charge" which is analogous to electric charge but apparently very little like it - because apparently it comes in three different types or arrangements - whereas electricity only comes in one. Seriously. This is what they have been claiming. So...what gives "quarks" their charge? Well, they don't give an answer. But as far as I'm concerned - the "colour charge" must be the source of the electric charge that is assumed on quarks. But I also read that the quark electric charge was just a mathematical creation rather than a direct measurement. However, if you have three quarks with a fraction of the total charge of a proton - then they all add up to make the total charge of a proton (i.e. +1). This is what the mainstream says. So, what is really left of the quantum model's credibility?

[tolenio]

Hello,

I know little about the Higgs boson particle, and only enough about EU theory to grasp the basics so I have a question...

In Wikipedia you find this image regarding Higgs boson;



When you look for images of a plasma discharge you find images like this;



Overlay the images and this emerges...



Are we simply looking at scale and harmonics, coincidence or something else? (possibly a standard discharge model?)

Thanks,
Tom

[Michael V]

PersianPaladin,

Quarks:

Color confinement, often simply called confinement, is the physics phenomenon that color charged particles (such as quarks) cannot be isolated singularly, and therefore cannot be directly observed. Quarks, by default, clump together to form groups, or hadrons. The two types of hadrons are the mesons (one quark, one antiquark) and the baryons (three quarks). The constituent quarks in a group cannot be separated from their parent hadron, and this is why quarks can never be studied or observed in any more direct way than at a hadron level.

Supposedly the strong force that binds quarks together does not reduce with distance (so its not a physical theory then).
Also, the fact that quarks have never been observed is taken as proof that the strong force acts in this way and as such, is simultaneously taken as proof of the existence of quarks. This is what is termed an "elegant and beautiful" theory. This line of reasoning may seem familiar:

God must exist, because it says so in the bible, and we know the bible is correct, because it is the word of god.


Quarks do not exist! And if quarks do not exist then whole of Quantum Mechanics can be seen for the theoretical and mathematical nonsense that it is.

The faults of the Standard Model run deep: SR, Electromagnetic waves, Quantum spookiness and the Copenhagen Interpretation are all fundamentally in error.

Michael

[sjw40364]

I for one see no other possibility than particles smaller than the photon, smaller than the proton, smaller than the electron. Not just one particle, but many. Unless electrons are held in orbit around the nucleus with a string tied at each end, there must be something acting between that empty space. I have no doubts they have found a smaller particle, the only question is what the particle is. Is it the Higgs, or another particle their limited vision has never imagined?

[Michael V]

sjw,

I for one see no other possibility than particles smaller than the photon, smaller than the proton, smaller than the electron. Not just one particle, but many. Unless electrons are held in orbit around the nucleus with a string tied at each end, there must be something acting between that empty space.

Indeed, the utter impossible absurdity of action-at-a-distance is undeniable proof that such a particle field exists. Although, unfortunately the precise nature of that field is not so readily obvious.

I have no doubts they have found a smaller particle, the only question is what the particle is. Is it the Higgs, or another particle their limited vision has never imagined?

No its no a smaller particle. In common with many of these supposed "fundamental" particles of Quantum Mechanics, this particle is 133 times the mass of a proton. It seems the only way to "reveal" this super-massive particles is to smash electrons and protons together at high speeds. Once these particles are created then after a very very very short amount of time, millionths or billionths or trillionths or less of second, they promptly decay into something else. And what is that something else you may ask, well surprise surprise, into electrons and protons!

Do not be fooled, predicting that the HB is somewhere between 100-200 proton masses and then smashing shit together until a suitably inferred candidate turns up in suitably washed data is not proof of anything. It just demonstrates that the mathematical model is flexible enough to withstand also any experimental outcome.

The premises of the Standard Model are flawed as you will soon see.

Michael

[PersianPaladin]

Wal Thornhill comments:-

I posted the following letter to the editor of the Canberra Times on the eve of an announcement about the "God Particle," the Higgs boson.

Scientists need a 'God particle' ("Scientists eager to hear findings on elusive 'God Particle," Canberra Times, June 30, p10) to save their crackpot universe. No one seems concerned that most of it is comprised of invisible, 'dark' entities. Those who build gravity wave telescopes while not understanding gravity, confuse mass with matter in their equations (they both start with the letter 'm') and time with clocks, tell us that we and all the visible bits of the universe are some kind of impurity in a cosmic treacle of imaginary Higgs bosons. Whatever next? It seems scientists can't lose whatever their findings. They will make up stories to get more funding for ever more expensive experiments. There is no turning back with so much at stake. A philosopher said, “An invalid concept is like a runaway train, but it causes far more damage.” Modern institutionalised science is out of control. At such times the real breakthroughs will come from those whom history dubs 'the eminent outsiders.'

—Wal Thornhill

[tayga]

Supposedly the strong force that binds quarks together does not reduce with distance (so its not a physical theory then).

The Strong Force was invoked to account for the fact a nucleus can hold together when it (supposedly) only contains positive charges. Apart from not diminishing with distance inside hadrons it purportedly DOES diminish with distance between them, although the exponential in the power law governing this is a matter of conjecture.

In other words, the Strong Force is extremely hokey.

IMO, the fundamental error that gave rise to this conjecture is the assumption that neutrons exists inside nuclei. If what we think is a neutron inside the nucleus is actually a proton and an electron, then there is no need to invoke another force to hold the whole thing together.

Carl Johnson, an outsider who simply did a rigorous analysis of the data, concludes that there are no neutrons inside nuclei. I can't find any fault with his argument. If correct, his work also suggests that neutrinos are a fiction.

http://mb-soft.com/public2/nuclei6.html

That is what I call Science!

[hertz]

very interesting overlay tolenio...thanks for that

[PersianPaladin]

The Strong Force was invoked to account for the fact a nucleus can hold together when it (supposedly) only contains positive charges. Apart from not diminishing with distance inside hadrons it purportedly DOES diminish with distance between them, although the exponential in the power law governing this is a matter of conjecture.

Not sure you're aware already - but apparently the neutron has a negatively "charged" core as a result of the movements of "quarks" within it:-
http://physics.aps.org/story/v22/st11/

Positively charged spheres can attract:-

"Contrary to what most people think, two positively-charged metal spheres that get close enough will almost always attract, according to a New Zealand physicist."
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/ ... 502533.htm

Regardless of this. There are still questions that remain unanswered. WHAT gives these "quarks" (i.e. spinning entities with strange movements) inside neutrons and protons their inherent electric "charge". The implication is that "colour charge" (with its strange behaviour) is what is responsible - but then, that opens up an entire can of worms about the nature of "force carriers". If "colour charge" (with gluons being the force-carrier for colour-charge) within quarks is responsible for the electric charge of the whole quark - then does that mean that virtual photons are created by colour-charge interactions? After all, virtual photons are said to be the force-carrier for the static electric force. But obviously, virtual photons and gluons are speculative. The implication of gluons creating photons seems to even contradict the standard model. Maybe that doesn't take place - maybe virtual photons are just whirling around inside the quarks - despite the fact that they possess no "charge", are "massless" and are regarded as "stable".

Anybody else confused?

[PersianPaladin]

Hello,

I know little about the Higgs boson particle, and only enough about EU theory to grasp the basics so I have a question...

In Wikipedia you find this image regarding Higgs boson;



When you look for images of a plasma discharge you find images like this;



Overlay the images and this emerges...



Are we simply looking at scale and harmonics, coincidence or something else? (possibly a standard discharge model?)

Thanks,
Tom

Hmm....I do agree with your approach in looking for patterns in an intuitive way. Albeit, I am not sure if Anthony Perratt would agree with the comparison - given that the source is not a full match or even reflective of the same plasma environment. However, there are dynamics that we can see - even when the mainstream theorizes it at the quantum level.

Again, with regard to "colour charge":-

(Brief summary of the concept here):-
http://www.particleadventure.org/color.html


"Protons and neutrons are each composed of three quarks. Protons are made up of two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark while neutrons are made up of two 'down' quarks and one 'up' quark.
"Quarks carry fractional electrical charges. An 'up' quark has a charge of +2/3 and a 'down' quark has a charge of -1/3. Is this consistent with what we know about protons and neutrons? Remember that protons carry an electrical charge of +1 while neutrons carry no electrical charge.
We said earlier that a proton has two 'up' quarks and one 'down' quark, so it has a total charge of (+2/3) + (+2/3) + (-1/3) = +1. We also said that a neutron has two 'down' quarks and one 'up' quark, so it has a total charge of (-1/3) + (-1/3) + (+ 2/3) = 0.
Happily, both the proton and the neutron 'end up' with the charge they should have."
http://education.jlab.org/qa/quark_05.html


“In order to make their calculations work, the quarks had to be assigned fractional electrical charges of 2/3 and -1/3. “
http://particleadventure.org/quarknaming.html

“The reasons for quark confinement are somewhat complicated; no analytic proof exists that quantum chromodynamics should be confining, but intuitively, confinement is due to the force-carrying gluons having color charge. As any two electrically-charged particles separate, the electric fields between them diminish quickly, allowing (for example) electrons to become unbound from atomic nuclei. However, as two quarks separate, the gluon fields form narrow tubes (or strings) of color charge, which tend to bring the quarks together as though they were some kind of rubber band. This is quite different in behavior from electrical charge. Because of this behavior, the color force experienced by the quarks in the direction to hold them together, remains constant, regardless of their distance from each other,[3][4] at around 10,000 Newtons.
When two quarks become separated, as happens in particle accelerator collisions, at some point it is more energetically favorable for a new quark–antiquark pair to spontaneously appear, than to allow the tube to extend further. As a result of this, when quarks are produced in particle accelerators, instead of seeing the individual quarks in detectors, scientists see "jets" of many color-neutral particles (mesons and baryons), clustered together. This process is called hadronization, fragmentation, or string breaking, and is one of the least understood processes in particle physics.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement

“In quantum chromodynamics, (or in the more general case of quantum gauge theories), if a connection which is colour confining occurs, it is possible for stringlike degrees of freedom called QCD strings or QCD flux tubes to form. These stringlike excitations are responsible for the confinement of color charges since they are always attached to at least one string which exhibits tension. Their existence can be predicted from the dual spin network/spin foam models (this duality is exact over a lattice). “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_string


Flux tubes - that apparently rotate...
http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/tp/fileadm ... xtubes.pdf


Now....where have we seen rotating flux tubes before in space plasma? Hmm.....

[PersianPaladin]

PersianPaladin,

Quarks:

Color confinement, often simply called confinement, is the physics phenomenon that color charged particles (such as quarks) cannot be isolated singularly, and therefore cannot be directly observed. Quarks, by default, clump together to form groups, or hadrons. The two types of hadrons are the mesons (one quark, one antiquark) and the baryons (three quarks). The constituent quarks in a group cannot be separated from their parent hadron, and this is why quarks can never be studied or observed in any more direct way than at a hadron level.

Supposedly the strong force that binds quarks together does not reduce with distance (so its not a physical theory then).
Also, the fact that quarks have never been observed is taken as proof that the strong force acts in this way and as such, is simultaneously taken as proof of the existence of quarks. This is what is termed an "elegant and beautiful" theory. This line of reasoning may seem familiar:

God must exist, because it says so in the bible, and we know the bible is correct, because it is the word of god.


Quarks do not exist! And if quarks do not exist then whole of Quantum Mechanics can be seen for the theoretical and mathematical nonsense that it is.

The faults of the Standard Model run deep: SR, Electromagnetic waves, Quantum spookiness and the Copenhagen Interpretation are all fundamentally in error.

Michael

Well, they say that no single quark has been said to be observed isolated from another. They always come in pairs or more, e.g. when a quark is separated far enough from another, the flux-tube connects with an "anti-quark". So something "quark-like" does seem to exist (albeit I do share your skepticism too!). We should really question some of the observed conclusions.

Yes, it's fun stuff!

[Michael V]

tayga,

Atomic masses point strongly to the existence of neutrons. Also, neutrons do appear to exist and remain stable for up to 14 minutes outside a nucleus. Of course they do then decay into a proton and an electron (beta). A neutron is an electron and a proton fused together. Whether that makes it charge-less or neutrally charged it unclear. Also, nuclei do, or can be made to, spit out neutrons. What is extremely clear is that charge IS NOT ELECTRIC. There is no such property of matter or aether as "electric charge". It is a kinetic phenomenon. Electromagnetic theory is as useless as Quantum Mechanics in regard to physical reality and nuclear physics in particular. This much is all but certain.

Despite the above, it is plausible enough to imagine that the nucleus consists of electrons and protons and that the neutron is created by a fusion process under certain circumstances when a proton and electron are ejected from the nucleus. I will read that link more thoroughly, but what is absolutely certain is that the concept of "binding energy" is pure brain poo.

The most likely explanation for the strong force is that it is the gravitational effect of protons and neutrons, tempered by the extremely close range kinetic effect of proton charge. The neutrons act to shield the protons from each other giving gravity the opportunity to hold the nucleus together.

Quarks are of course pure invention. They exist only as a consequence of a mathematician saying "what if we imagine a particle existed with this long list of strange unconfirmable properties? could we then make the maths work?"

I agree that neutrinos are also fictitious. It appears (and I am only media level informed here) that some events do occur coincident with "neutrino production". However, this in no way demonstrates the existence of a discrete neutrino particle. Far more likely is some sort of aethereal/photonic event or simply coincidence.

Michael

[sjw40364]

It seems the only way to "reveal" this super-massive particles is to smash electrons and protons together at high speeds. Once these particles are created then after a very very very short amount of time, millionths or billionths or trillionths or less of second, they promptly decay into something else. And what is that something else you may ask, well surprise surprise, into electrons and protons!

Do not be fooled, predicting that the HB is somewhere between 100-200 proton masses and then smashing shit together until a suitably inferred candidate turns up in suitably washed data is not proof of anything. It just demonstrates that the mathematical model is flexible enough to withstand also any experimental outcome.

The premises of the Standard Model are flawed as you will soon see.

Michael

Yah Michael V, I misread that, but doesn't change the particle field. On the Higgs I quite agree with you. They are smashing protons together at near c which creates a more massive particle, not a smaller, more ... fundamental ... particle shall we say. Two balls of mud smashed together usually make a larger mud-ball which you can then separate into two mud-balls again. We will deduce that this new mud-ball is the cause of it all. Even though we can not yet tell you what keeps these two mud-balls together and apart and spinning around each other until we smash them together, but this new mud-ball is the cause for sure.