Official Confirmation - No Higgs Boson Discovered

[Giffyguy]

Will TBP report on this?
The LHC has officially reported that their over-hyped blip disappeared, and they can confirm that the Higgs boson was not seen in the results of their tests.

There are many reports on this, here's an example:
http://www.popsci.com/large-hadron-collider-just-disappointed-lot-physicists

[Zyxzevn]

Thanks for the information.
Another experimental result that can not be repeated by science.

The general cause is:
1. Bad use of statistics.
2. Theory on theory on theory, with no direct experimental evidence for each step.
3. Dependency on a "prediction" instead of a good insight.
4. Experiments are done at one site only, by one group of scientists.
5. Hype, funding, Nobel prize, etc.

Many problems are similar to the gravity waves, gravity bending of space/time,
the Oort cloud, Dark matter, Dark energy, black holes, and the Big Bang.

1 ->
The problem with statistics is that they first filter the results, and do not properly
compensate the statistics for the usage of these filters. That is why they get insanely high
confidence values, while in reality they are still random or correlated disturbances.

2->
Theories are nice, but without direct experimental evidence any theory is weak.
The Higgs Boson is based on the theory that particles are responsible for space.
We do not even understand how that is possible, or how that works.
And at the same time, from quantum physics it seems that particles do not even exist
(only fields exist or whatever).
Theories become more complex each level without direct experimental evidence.

3->
Many scientists state that a good theory can make "predictions". This is completely false,
because anyone can make accurate predictions. A successful prediction only hints that a
theory might be true, and should need more investigations.
More important a theory should be falsifiable, with tests that are easy to understand.
Also a theory should not have any big "surprises". Something that is happening a lot
in our science currently.
Some scientists think that adding more theories to correct for surprises is allowed.
But in fact each surprise (and additional theory) is a good reason to reconsider the basis
theory that everything was build on.

4->
Experiments that are done at the same site or with the same group of scientists tend to be
different from other sites or with other scientists. That is usually because the experiments
require certain conditions that are not on every other site, and because the scientists have
different ways of doing and of interpreting the results.
Scientists can have confirmation biases and cognitive dissonance.
In my observations, the cognitive dissonance is huge. And this makes it hard to discuss certain subjects
and problems.

5->
The higgs boson inventor got a Nobel prize. Will it be retracted?
The influence of Hype etc, is clear. Scientific projects need hype to attract funds. And to
acquire a high status (or even to get a Phd) scientists need to produce a new "successful" theory
based on old theories.
This means that it is also very hard to work on theories that break old theories. In many cases
the scientific community will not regard you as a real scientist if you do so.

[The Great Dog]

Unfortunately, the article was not about the Higgs boson.

[Zyxzevn]

Unfortunately, the article was not about the Higgs boson.

Ooops

Now I see it is the 750GeV signal, instead of the Higgs signal.

Ars Technica has a similar article CERN confirms: Hints of hypothetical particle have disappeared

"The hint comes from what's called bump hunting. Predict the number of two-photon signals you should see at a given energy based on known Standard Model processes, then look for energies that show more of a signal than you'd expect—a "bump" in the otherwise smooth match between prediction and experiment."

"So what can we conclude? At the moment, not much. Signals like this do appear and then vanish as more data comes in—Kado presented some examples of this in his summary of ATLAS' data. But it is showing up in both detectors, and sometimes these results do get stronger with more data. Physicist Matt Strassler even commented that the bump "looks amusingly similar to the first hint of a Higgs bump from four years ago!"

One more article:
The LHC “nightmare scenario” has come true.

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

This article might not have been about the Higgs Boson, but after all this time I still haven't heard a word about which of the various proposed HB models that "detection" supported.

[willendure]

Will TBP report on this?
The LHC has officially reported that their over-hyped blip disappeared, and they can confirm that the Higgs boson was not seen in the results of their tests.

There are many reports on this, here's an example:
http://www.popsci.com/large-hadron-collider-just-disappointed-lot-physicists

The bump that disappeared was not the Higgs, but the diphoton @ 750 GeV.

I am not sure, but I think there were hints of this at the time of the Higgs 'discovery'? I remember reading that the Higgs discovery was not totally clean, because there were twice as many photon decays observed as predicted? Is this the same thing as the diphoton bump? I think what may now have happened is that an inconsistency in the Higgs result has now essentially been ruled out - making the case for the Higgs even more watertight, not less so.

I would be interested to hear some clarification on this. Perhaps we might not get any, as the inconvenient photon decays were sort of swept under the carpet so as not to spoil the big Higgs party.

[willendure]

From what I have read so far, this 'diphoton bump' is nothing to do with the x2 excess rate of photon decay observed along with the Higgs result. That still stands as an anomaly that is being conveniently ignored.

[Michael Mozina]

Official Confirmation: All LHC results to date are 100 percent consistent with EU/PC theory, and 100 percent at odds with "cold dark matter" theory, and LCDM cosmology theory.

[nick c]

Dogbert's Particle Accelerator

[Grey Cloud]

Dogbert's Particle Accelerator

Brilliant.
Thanks.

[SirWilhelm]

"and everyone's favorite particle accelerator keeps on smashing." no matter how much of our money they have to spend.

[kell1990]

"and everyone's favorite particle accelerator keeps on smashing." no matter how much of our money they have to spend.

Ya know, I don't really care how much money the government spends on research. History has shown that this returns dividends many times that invested.

But in the case of the cosmological research, if we could get just half of what one aircraft carrier costs, AND IF SOME OF IT WERE SPENT ON RESEARCH INTO THE ELECTRICAL ASPECTS OF THE COSMOS, then I would be one happy camper.

It has become abundantly clear that the electric universe/plasma cosmos is the future for research into how our world works and how the universe is composed. We should pursue it to the maximum extent possible.

[Cargo]

One can only dream... Imagine if the Leaders had the merrit to take just 50% of MIC money and put into a sensible space electric research.

But this would uncork the Electric genie and all Energy Control might be destroyed. We can only hope.