Higgs boson find "confirmed"

[PersianPaladin]

Interesting thoughts MichaelV - regarding the neutron being a fused proton and electron. The neutron does appear to be ever so slightly larger than the proton regardless.

Regarding the property of the "strong force", here's some mainstream spiel from our good ol' friend Wikipedia:-

The contemporary strong force is described by quantum chromodynamics (QCD), a part of the standard model of particle physics. Mathematically, QCD is a non-Abelian gauge theory based on a local (gauge) symmetry group called SU(3).

Quarks and gluons are the only fundamental particles which carry non-vanishing colour charge, and hence participate in strong interactions. The strong force itself acts directly only upon elementary quark and gluon particles.
All quarks and gluons in QCD interact with each other through the strong force. The strength of interaction is parametrized by the strong coupling constant. This strength is modified by the gauge color charge of the particle, a group theoretical property.

The strong force acts between quarks.

The residual effect of the strong force is called the nuclear force. The nuclear force acts between hadrons, such as mesons or the nucleons in atomic nuclei. This "residual strong force", acting indirectly, transmits gluons that form part of the virtual pi and rho mesons, which, in turn, transmit the nuclear force between nucleons.
The residual strong force is thus a minor residuum of the strong force which binds quarks together into protons and neutrons. This same force is much weaker between neutrons and protons, because it is mostly neutralized within them, in the same way that electromagnetic forces between neutral atoms (van der Waals forces) are much weaker than the electromagnetic forces that hold the atoms internally together.[5]

With regard to "forces" which attract and repel; it seems that ultimately there may only be one force in space that governs the behaviour of matter. How matter is arranged and configured in spatial dimensions - certainly seems to govern the strength of whatever repulsive or attractive "forces" are present. Some may call it "electricity" or "gravity" or "weak force" or whatever - depending on the context. But I personally feel that there is probably only one force out there. I may be wrong, of course. I don't pretend to know how this beautiful universe works.

[PersianPaladin]

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.

Two positively charged spheres (if you believe protons are spheres) apparently attract at close distances. Maybe they just fused into a larger one (under certain energetic conditions)? You could be right :XD

[Michael V]

PersianPaladin,

I am not by any means certain that protons are spheres, but that has previously been my assumption. Although I do not completely rule out the possibility, all evidence strongly supports the likelihood that electrons are disc shaped. I am also tending towards protons also being disc shaped rather than spherical. As to the shape of a neutron, I shall ask my 5-year daughter, as her guess is as good as anyone's.

There are two fundamental force effects in the universe: one is gravity the other is charge. However, charge is not what most would suppose it to be and it is most certainly not "electric". The electric effect is a consequence of charge interactions, electric is not a property of matter or aether. Light is definitely particle and not wave and, contrary to my previous assertions, h is not a quantum aether particle signature.

I know the Higgs Boson and quarks do not exist, because I know that Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally flawed.

Michael

[tolenio]

There are two fundamental force effects in the universe: one is gravity the other is charge

Hi,

Why isn't gravity a knock-on effect of "discharge"?

Topomak fusion reactors display gravity anomalies.

New-energy anomalies
[PDF] from newenergytimes.com
H Fox -
EDITORIAL COMMENTS, 1998 - newenergytimes.com

... physics [9]. The more one becomes familiar with the nature of high-density charge clusters, the more prevalent these micro-miniature Tokamaks seem to be. ... 5. Torsion fields (distinctive from the standard electro-magnetic and gravitation fields) have several anomalies. ...

5. Torsion fields (distinctive from the standard electro-magnetic and gravitation fields) have several anomalies. First, such a field is outside of standard scientific acceptance of energy fields. Second, these fields are associated with a variety of anomalous behaviors: traveling faster than light, affecting some organic materials, modulating laser frequency, traveling through barriers to electromagnetic radiation, etc. A paper by this author provides a summary of torsion fields with several references in English and Russian [15].

I am not convinced that gravity is not a knock-on effect of charge and discharge.

I point to our planet again and the gravity anomalies associated with the planet's apparent disharge of plasma;



Why the apparent z-pinch over the Indian Ocean and related high/low gravity in its vincinity? Coincidence?

So how does the equation change if gravity is a function of plasma discharge as related to smaller harmonics of discharge in the above discussion?
Tom

[Michael V]

Tom,

The first and most obvious point is that there is no such thing as "discharge". The sort of planetary scale anomalies that you refer to might well have electromagnetic involvement. Plasma "discharge", however, is not a discharge of any sort, it is simply an electricity event in plasma. Don't get carried away reifying plasma, it is simply an ionised gas, not some mysterious magical answer to every theoretical ill.

Despite my apparent over confidence in gravity as a separate effect, I have not by any means completely abandoned the possibility that it simply another charge effect. The problem with trying to assign the gravitational effect to charge is that charge's mode of operation does not easily coincide with the simple Newtonian gravity effect of falling objects.
Orbits on the other hand are far less clear cut and far more complex than either Kepler or Newton may have imagined. The case for charge being involved perhaps as a primary or even solitary force does carry some plausibility.

Michael

[Lloyd]

Action at a Distance
* I didn't want to derail the Higgs boson topic by discussing "attractive" forces here, so I started a thread on Action at a Distance at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6325, which I invite anyone to join in discussing. There's no such thing as attractive forces, is there?
* I think this thread also should have been made part of the other Higgs Boson thread that was started here recently.

[kell1990]

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

I think you're on the right track. The overlays fit. The only reason they don't fit exactly is because the generator isn't turned up to it's highest potential. Then the rest of the pattern would appear.

The "singulariest's" think they have won this round, and they have: there is really something out there that they said would be there, if we could only push the envelope hard enough. And sure enough, there it is. They pushed the envelope hard enough and there was the particle that they predicted would be there. That is great.


The overlay that you show is what we call in my part of the country "going around your elbow to get to your ear." Meaning, that it isn't necessary to show every single particle in the universe to recognize that it is a confluence of particles, acting together, that make the universe work.

When the explanations begin to explain how it is that "dark matter" and "dark energy" work, then I may be more interested in these prounouncemounts.

[kell1990]

When they can reliably explain "dark matter" and "dark energy" then I will pay more attention to them. Until then, they are just another possible explantation for how the world works.

[kell1990]

I want to follow on to tolenio's posts which show the torus effect in the chamber (and the other efffects that go
with it). This effect is scalar; that is, it happens on many scales, from the infinitisimal to the microscopic to the general to the planetary to the galactic to the cosmic.

When all is said and done, plasma physics will be the way that the universe is understood. It will have a large component of the electric universe in it because the EU deals with charges, and plasma is about charged particles moving through the universe.

It's is about the only way that the thing can work.

[tolenio]

Hello,

If the Higgs boson search is all about "charge" and it exhibits a torus profile, why investigate the micro and ignore a steady state torus effect like the Jovian moon Io?

It appears to me the universe is scalar and CERN is simply making the work more difficult with the micro end of the spectrum.

Tomp

[sjw40364]

Two positively charged spheres (if you believe protons are spheres) apparently attract at close distances. Maybe they just fused into a larger one (under certain energetic conditions)? You could be right :XD

Personally I believe protons are spheres, spheres with their attendant satellite particles, just like the solar system, just like the galaxy. The universe is a composite of particles spinning around other particles, generating an electric current and its attendant magnetic fields. Two particles moving in close proximity create current, which creates magnetic fields, which causes spiraling of said particles. Why would I believe the atom behaves any differently than the universe does, are they not all based upon the same physics? The difference between a galaxy in an aligned state and an atom is simply a matter of size. A globular cluster is a non-aligned galaxy, spirals etc are aligned galaxies carrying current. Same with atoms, when aligned they take on spiral or solar system form and emit energy along the axis of rotation, in galactic terms Birkland Currents. Plasma events are scalable, what applies on the macro scale applies on the micro scale and vice verse. We need to stop thinking of atoms as unique and different. Atoms are the universe scaled down.

[seasmith]

~
So Higgs walks into a church

[Siggy_G]

(...)



[plasma discharge image]

[overlay image]

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

Although it's an interesting question, I don't think the scenarios are related. First of all, the collisional direction of the protons would, if so, represent the column of the discharge i.e. 90 degrees rotated from the overlay image. The plasma discharge is rather electromagnetic harmonics that emerges as a result of a column of alligned electric currents being pinched by their associated magnetic forces. The surrounding torus is in turn a secondary result of field alligned currents (of ambient particles) following the induced magnetic field.

The referenced proton collision image, related to the Higgs hunt, is a simulated scenario based on two protons colliding close to 'c', and simulated sub particles fragmenting like a mechanical front-to-front crash. A recent video shows this configuration better in 3D: YouTube - simulated LHC collision event

Regarding the Higgs, here we have a CMS Spokesperson talking about the observation of a new particle, that quite clearly shows that 1) it still isn't for sure the Higgs boson 2) this just marks the start of a long new period of searching/funding 3) we're all forced to take a dive into spacetime fabric nonsense.

YouTube - CMS Spokesperson talks about the observation of a new particle

At least he presents the news in a more descriptive and reserved manner than mainstream news channels.

[Siggy_G]

I was wondering how the various sub particles are physically detected. This video illustrates that there's definitelly an amazing amount of engineering related to these experiments. Hopefully it serves a long term purpose and insight that can be used in other fields.

YouTube - CERN Atlas Detector (first segment with narration)

YouTube - CERN Atlas Detector (full 3d overview, with music)

One could still ask if each of these fragments and paths actually represent unique sub particles. I seem to remember Thornhill using the analogy of understanding the inner workings of trains by smashing them together.

[tolenio]

Hi,

Now I am confused...

What constitutes the magnetic field?

Are there "sub particles" involved in its field?

Does a mag field consist of bosons?