But Kane, a longtime proponent of supersymmetry, makes a more ambitious statement. In a paper posted to the physics preprint site arXiv.org on December 5, he and his collaborators work not from supersymmetry but from an even more radical overhaul of physics: string theory. (String theory is itself an extension of supersymmetry.) Their calculations predict a Higgs mass between 122 and 129 GeV. "If it's in that range it's an incredible success for connecting string theory to the real world," Kane says. He says he is confident that the upcoming LHC announcements, if they pan out as predicted, will constitute evidence for string theory. "I don't think my wife will let us bet our house, but I'll come close," he says.
That Kane and his colleagues released their paper now that the Higgs mass has been—or is about to be—restricted to a particular range, will surely lead some physicists to charge that the new study constitutes not a prediction but a "postdiction." String theory critics have long claimed that the theory has so much flexibility that one can always tweak it to make it predict just about anything.
Moreover, whether string theory can make testable predictions at all has often been the subject of debate. "The trouble is, for all we know, there might be 10,000 other ways of starting with string theory and getting the same Higgs mass, and they may differ in other respects," Lykken cautions.
And when it comes to mass predictions, consistency does not necessarily mean validation, Strassler points out. "If the Higgs turns up at 125 GeV, that would also be consistent with the Standard Model with no supersymmetric particles and no hint of string theory," Strassler says.
For all the excitement, it is still quite possible that any preliminary whiff of the Higgs will later turn out to be a statistical fluke. After all, the CMS and ATLAS detectors cannot directly catch Higgs bosons; those particles would decay into other particles immediately after being created in the LHC's proton collisions. Instead, physicists must analyze the subatomic debris from the decays and reconstruct what happened. Thousands of collisions take place every second, and many of them generate signatures similar to those of the Higgs. "The reason why we don't know whether there's a Higgs yet has mostly to do with the fact that the Higgs boson's decays look like other kinds of physics," Lykken says. "So we need to understand the other kinds of physics enough. It's not just a question of statistics."
Whether next week's announcements pan out, experts say, it is only a matter of time before a final answer is known: Once the experiments have amassed enough data, they either will find the Higgs boson and understand its properties or they will conclusively demonstrate that it does not exist. "It's just a question of when it will happen," Lykken says. "It's not going to be a maybe-yes-maybe-no kind of answer."
*Correction (12/8/11): This sentence was edited after posting. It originally misstated the mass of a proton.
See what we're tweeting about
103 Comments
Add Commenthiggs boson = famous oxymoron
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease explain.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems there's no real need to wait for conclusive evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson - particle physicists have been convinced for years that particle mass must fit within the (revised) standard model!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"After all, the CMS and ATLAS detectors cannot directly catch Higgs bosons, those particles would decay into other particles immediately after being created in the LHC's proton collisions."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quoted material is a run-on sentence. Please do not make them.
I am looking forward to the announcement next week.
Obviously you have no understanding or appreciation of science, for you all your truths are in the myths of a culture that was considered uncivilised even by the standards of its age. Why do you bother visiting a science site?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Both experiments are said to have seen evidence of the long-sought Higgs, pointing to a particle mass of around 125 billion electron volts, or 125 GeV. (One electron volt is roughly the mass of a proton.)"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething here's got to be WAY wrong. If this statement is correct, a single Higgs boson outweighs half a billion atoms uranium-238!
It's truly amazing if you reconstruct the human journey on this topic... among the most fundamental in Nature. Beginning with the Greek Democritus, who first used the term "atom" (which ironically meant "indivisible") was an extremely remarkable insight into the nature of visible matter, pre-science, from the 5th century BCE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently, we are awash is subatomic particles (bosons), but lacking the fundamental particle of mass to put our (current) understanding on firm ground.
These efforts to find the elusive Higgs are exciting to say the very least... assuming you retain some intellectual curiosity about the Cosmos we inhabit, unlike the sadly indoctrinated spammer above "fishing-for-bread-in-the-sand".
The remarkable success of QM aside in providing the scientific framework for the subatomic realm... this is an epic ride into "inner space"! The theorists will have plenty o'grist for their mills... cool.
"These efforts to find the elusive Higgs are exciting to say the very least..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExciting, yes, but not good news for a type 13 planet.
LOL Loavesandfishes... um yeah, god forbids doing particle physics. Be careful that you don't step off the edge of the earth...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for the news, this would be very exciting news indeed if they have found the Higgs Boson. :)
Shouldn't that be Trollsandfishes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you may be confusing Loavesandfishes with Trollsandbridges.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis kind of hype driven Science reporting makes me queazy. When a group of scientists are so excessively convinced they are right, evidence is often the first casualty. That is part of the history of Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this claim is true, then great, we can deal with it and it's implications. But this constant flow of claims, and anti climaxes and rumours and counter rumours does NOTHING for the reputation of Science.
Yes it very well may be the way Science works.... so please don't feel the need to remind me ... but the public does not understand that !
1 atomic mass unit equals 0.93 Gev/c2 so U238 weights 238 x 0.93 = about 221 Gev/c2. About 1.8 Higgs bosons equals 1 atom of U238 in mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, that's the way science works!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:)
massive+boson=oxymoron (as in "airline schedule")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood point... to a point... but "scientists" are "fundamentally" people... so... unless we morph into a more emotionally attentuated species, which is unlikely any time soon... get over the messiness... and in the long-run, science is a process... a dialog... and needs not be worried about a "reputation" to sully.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe scientific method and the resulting, vetted theories either accurately describes and predicts Natural phenomena, and thus is valuable... or it doesn't.
But that is no reason why Science reporters cannot do better. Much better. Their job is not just to report to Scientists. SciAm has a much wider remit imho.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFair points and I agree. See my reply above to bigbopper :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah... i get your journalistic point... but heck, the "buzz" is just part of the social network that underlies everything we humans do... and physicists, despite their intellectually elite status, are scarely immune.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember, many discoveries are product of... serendipity, eh?
And this will effect the price of a Big Mac how?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the math - that's still one hell of a fundamental particle!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, how does this proposed massive boson mediate mass among all much lighter nucleons, for example, much less quarks and electrons?
"Something here's got to be WAY wrong."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRight - off by one billion - the mass of a proton is appr. 0.938GeV, so it appears the higgs would weigh about the same as one atom of iodine.
Correct mass of proton is 938 Mev/c2, slightly less than 1 Gev/c2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the "force carrier" of the proposed "Higgs field", another field like the electromagnetic, gravitational, weak, and strong fields. Particles which interact with the Higgs field have mass; those without mass do not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnything beyond that and you're DEEP in the thickets of quantum field theory, all of which is only really explicable and understandable at the level of the math itself. It all comes directly out of the math, which is formidable and requires a substantial background in classical and quantum physics to understand. Any non-mathematical explanation is basically BS.
If you don't believe me, read the Wikipedia article on the "Higgs mechanism".
I still don't get it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the Higgs boson is confirmed, eventually the price of a Big Mac will go up. Otherwise, it will eventually go up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, so the author of this article screwed up & left the "giga" out of the proton's mass. What's a factor of a billion between friends? Or people who don't even actually know each other? Maybe our government should use this approach in dealing with the national debt. If you say it's only one-billionth what it really is, it doesn't sound that bad!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut even saying the Higgs is 133x the mass of a proton seems pretty messed up to me. If the Higgs is the particle that gives everything else mass & a proton has mass, then wouldn't there need to be Higgses in a proton? How could the whole (proton) be LESS massive than the sum of its parts (Higgses & other component sub-sub-atomic particles)?
"One electron volt is roughly the mass of a proton." is a typo it's 1Gev
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi am expecting that this is once again "much ado about nothing" (as far as the mythical higg's is concerned). in other words, the higg's has not been found (because it does not exist), but something else interesting has been found. anyway, let's hope that they get it right whatever it is they have found.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"(One electron volt is roughly the mass of a proton.)" A nine orders-of-magnitude mistake... an insignificant error compared to that of recent estimates for the magnitude of the cosmological constant (energy density of the vacuum). :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI confirm that when I spelled out 1 GeV I mistakenly left out "billion". The error is now being corrected. Thanks for spotting it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbigbopper: "any non-mathematical explanation is basically BS". Don't take it personally but I wonder more and more if mathematicians and physicists have not manoeuvred themselves into a deep hole and what we hear is them whistling in the dark. Look at the standard model, now really, it is the opposite of elegance and simplicity. But everybody clings to it for dear life. What happens today in research is not science anymore, it's religion. 'We BELIEVE in the Higgs even if nothing adds up but we're too full of ourselves to admit that we're lost.' The next press conference will again be more of same. It's numbers crunching that has become self-serving BS. Not a shred of creativity anymore anywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find your statement quite arrogant, very ivory-towerish, accurately pointing to one of the main reasons for the whistling in the dark. BELIEF in numbers has killed creative thinking in science. But then, I only believe that.
@jctyler, "Look at the standard model, now really, it is the opposite of elegance and simplicity. But everybody clings to it for dear life." my god is it tedious to listen to people drone on about stuff they know nothing about. No one is "clinging" to the standard model. The standard model persists because the predictions it makes are consistently validated by experiment. I remember going through this same situation with the top quark. Another example of a prediction made by the standard model that was later verified. That is what good theories do. I am sure every particle physicist wants to be the one that proves the "Grand Unifying Theory", whatever it turns out to be. No one writes a best selling science book by saying, "ya, the standard model was right again." The problem is, you can't disgard a theory just because you are bored with it. Now please stop pretending you have a clue what you are talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks very much for that perspective - I have tried to make sense of the wikipedia entry and others. Despite being math disabled, I can also appreciate the view that understanding of the Higgs mechanism springs only from its mathematics and the mathematics of standard theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, it has also be argued that theories that cannot be reasonably described without mathematics are fundamentally flawed in their disconnect with reality.
The Higgs field is often described as one that even now surrounds us all, dynamically imparting mass to particles. However, it occurs to me that the most common particles of mass are thought to have all been produced in the conditions of the initial universe, that generally only particles with insignificant or zero rest mass are emitted in the conditions of the current universe. Other particles now 'produced' are decay products of ancient massive particles.
The fundamental distinction between the conditions of the early and current universe is the energy density of the vacuum or spacetime.
As you said, the Higgs boson "is the "force carrier" of the proposed "Higgs field", another field like the electromagnetic, gravitational, weak, and strong fields. Particles which interact with the Higgs field have mass; those without mass do not." This is all consistent with particle physics, in which the forces of matter are all secondary characteristics of particles.
However, there are many distinctions between mass and gravitation and the forces of matter, including the localization of force amplitude. There is also that directly inverse correspondence between the localized potential energy of mass and the wave state kinetic energy producing the linear spatial propagation of particles through spacetime.
I suggest that mass energy may be the interaction of localized potential energy and the energy density of the external vacuum. Perhaps in the initial universe emitted particles could neither be propagated nor reabsorbed: their emission energy was reconfigured as the localized potential energy of mass.
In that case the particle selection function of the Higgs field is performed simply by the temporally diminishing energy density of the vacuum.
I certainly can't adequately describe this conception in the context of established physics, but I think there is good reason to think that mass is different than the 'other' forces of matter - a fundamental rather than secondary characteristic property of particles and that its expression as gravitation is an interaction with vacuum energy density.
Dear Davide Castelvecchi,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do wish you wouldn't persist in so simplistically describing dark matter as "the unseen mass that keeps galaxies rotating faster than they otherwise would." This is merely the repetition of an outdated myth.
Current research clearly shows that the rotational characteristics of galaxies can be very successfully described without requiring the presence of dark matter or modifying gravity. Please see: Feng & Gallo, (2011), "Modeling the Newtonian dynamics for rotation curve analysis of thin-disk galaxies", http://www.raa-journal.org/raa/index.php/raa/article/view/858
Other references can be provided...
I hope they find the Higgs boson. As for Higgs proving the string theory, it reminds me of Wolfgang Pauli's famous statement:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I don't like your theory. It isn't even wrong!"
To continue getting funding till 2020, they had no choice but to release some 'indicative' data. Now the challenge for my research is to show practically the real gravitational mechanism not only in action but to find a practical application for my discovery.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is an announcement that there will be an announcement. Wow! And "Even before the data are out, theoretical physicists around the world are working out the possible implications." Of an announcement that there will be an announcement. And all these people are commenting excitedly about an announcement that there will be an announcement. I look forward to a 'real' announcement. Next week.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeutrinoes and Higgs both cannot coexist -- either one has to be wrong. It's DCE research and supeluminal speed which has the potential of breaking current scientific barriers, rather than finding a nebulous statistical dual peak for a Higgs, which well could be due to many other anomalies, one that LHC could not decipher is that of the UFOs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, an article in last month's Nature News presented essentially the same discussion with a bit more balance and less extreme anxiety about the subject:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nature.com/news/higgs-hunt-enters-endgame-1.9399
Many here seem to be replying to a mysterious entity called "Loavesandfishes", whose original response has vanished! (Into the aether?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething seems to have happened, apparently the opposite of a famous miracle that Jesus Christ is said to have wrought, namely, the "multiplying of the loaves and the fishes". Here we seem to have the "vanishing of a letter" from Mr/Master/Ms/Mrs/Miss loavesandfishes.
Could this perhaps be the work of some Son of Satan, as opposed to that of the Son of God? Could the Higgs boson also be one of those devilish works, perhaps? Should it be called the "Devil particle" rather than the "God particle"?
If I click on the 'Report Abuse' option listed below your comment and the editorial staff/blog moderators agree that the comment is inappropriate or offensive, they will delete it. However, this comment referring to yours will remain unless someone similarly 'reports' it... A bit confusing, perhaps, but there's no need to evoke mystical conjecture!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRschmidt: 'my god is it tedious to listen to people drone on about stuff they know nothing about'. That's quite a statement. If you want to say that PARTS of the standard model have been proved, sure. But to pretend that the SM as such has been validated because bits of it have been proven is farfetched. Else proving that praying can help, psychologically for example, would be prove of god. There you have all the main bits in your sentence reassembled. This does not prove your statement correct. Same as looking as proven bits of the SM do not prove it correct. The truth is, the SM as a whole is too ugly to be true as a whole, regardless of bits and pieces being right. Same reason why I 'believe' that the Higgs boson does not exist. There's a good reason why there is 'moron' in oxymoron.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo excited, can't wait for the announcement. I have a large hadron just thinking about it :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMadscientist and James Dwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understood that the Higgs boson is not a "part" of other particles, but that mass is created like being in a crowd, the more people in the crowd the more difficult it is to move, so the Higgs field or in the way of talking of the crowd the more Higgsess (I call them Higgsess because Higgs particle is too long) the more difficumlt it is to make speed, so the more "mass" for the particle in the crowd. So in fact mass is not a property of the particle but it is dependent of the amount of Higgsess around the particle, is this a sort of magnetism ?
But what I do not understand is that all particles are said to have a special mass, which means that the density of Higgsess around them is fixed, imagine all particles with a cloud of Higgsess around them, each cloud with its own density that is exactly fixed. This should mean that the overall mass of the universe would be independant of the baryonic particles because you have to add the mass of the clouds of Higgsess.
This is also the reason why I did not "believe" in the Higgs particle. You replace the mass problem from a Higgs particle to the interaction force between the Higgs and the particle itself, so the next question will be what is the origin of the so called exact force of "magnitism" between a particle and a Higgs ?
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
A dark matter Higgs should have a negative or dark charge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately you fail to appreciate how Science functions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA scientific theory by itself is neither right or wrong. This is why string theory, or more correctly M Theory is not thought to be wrong, but it is not accepted by most experimental physicists because it has never in the past made mathematical predictions that are testable by experiment.
The SM is widely accepted because it has made mathematical predictions, that have been verified by experiments going back for over 50 years.
The reason why particle physicists continue to accept the Standard Model, is because nobody else has managed to devise a better mathematical theory that explains the measurable observed properties and behaviour of particles and their energy fields.
The mathematical theory behind the Higgs boson, was to resolve inconsistencies in the Standard Model. And the Higgs boson is the *only* particle mathematically predicted by the Standard Model, that has not yet been observed experimentally. I do not understand your reference to 'bits and pieces being right'? When the only bit and piece yet to be found is the Higgs boson?
Of course if the existence of the Higgs boson cannot be confirmed, then the Standard Model needs to be revised, or discarded and a new mathematical theory needs to be devised, that explains all of the observed properties and behaviours for all the known particles, including if necessary those of dark matter. Another explanation for this new theory to include, is how particle categories such as hadrons experience a force in either gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, or electromagnetic fields. You'll also need to explain why neutrons do not experience a force in an electromagnetic field, and why leptons do not seem to experience a force in a strong nuclear or weak nuclear field. You also need to explain the mechanisms by which the strong and weak nuclear fields work in atomic nuclei. Remember to unify all four fields, and explain why gravity only attracts and has never been observed to repel masses. Don't forget to include a mathematical model to explain why neutrinos barely interact with matter, and account for the Solar neutrino model. Please explain why photons are massless, and by what virtual/intermediate vector boson mechanism gravity works? There's lots more, but I don't have enough space to add much more. I leave the critics of the Standard Model, to research further on the other particles such as intermediate vector bosons, to be included in this "beautiful" and true new theory.
Higgs boson decays into photons or vice versa. It seems like Higgs boson looks like Mexican border,once you get in here you become American, if you get out you become Mexican again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't a particle with an opposite (Coulomb) charge, an antiparticle? Such as an electron's antiparticle is a positron?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr by dark charge are you referring to a negative gravitational charge?
A thought occurs:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI just remembered that the gravitional force is thought to be mediated in the Standard Model by the intermediate vector boson force carrier called gravitons.
I cannot recall if I have seen any mathematical predictions by which gravitons or their decay products' energy signatures are detectable by the LHC hardware and software?
A new mathematical theory would need to address this issue as well.
I wonder if the existence of the Higgs boson is confirmed, if this illuminates on the possible presence of gravitons? If so how?
Sorry I come across as arrogant. If it makes you feel any better, rest assured I am by no means an expert on the subject. I did study it once but have forgotten almost all of it. The point of my post was simply that any explanation of how the Higgs boson works is basically going to be BS unless it's based directly in the math. The simplest (and I use that word with great trepidation) math-based explanation I have come across is the relevant chapter in Griffiths' "Introduction to Elementary Particles". I remember being very impressed with how logical and cool it all was, but I've forgotten it all now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing you should keep in mind about the Standard Model is that it has explained and predicted an enormous range of things. It has been an extremely successful scientific theory, one of the most successful ever. The detection of the Higgs boson would be a great triumph for the theory, confirmation of the only prediction made by it which has not yet been confirmed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it possible an article-writer make an article about my latest vixra papers, wherein I calculated a new Higgs mass of 2.5 (TeV/c^2)^2. This value is based on the equivalence with a dark matter mass squared. This prediction is implemented in the new cosmological model of the Double Torus Universe, wherein Higgs-mass, dark matter-mass and the neutrinos-faster-than-light phenomenon are related. I theoretically succeeded in calculating the time-gain of neutrinos used in the CERN-Gran Sasso experiment within the statistical and systematical margings. An additional analysis showed that the new Higgs mass is based on a duo-state of neutrino-energy (this explaines its squared value in the Tetra-range) and might be detectable earlier in time than conventionally is expected for the Higgsmass in the range of 115-140 GeV/c^2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDan Visser, Almere, the Netherlands (independent cosmologist). Reference for the vixrapapers see also my website: www.darkfieldnavigator.com
The proton contains two up quarks and a down quark, but no Higgs boson. A proton, like a quark, is a fermion, i.e., it obeys Fermi statistics. Other fermions include electrons and neutrinos. A boson, in contrast, obeys Einstein-Bose statistics. Force-carrying particles like photons and the W and Z bosons (and the graviton, if it exists) are bosons. You can think of fermions as being what forces act on, via bosons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are other examples of extremely massive elementary particles in relationship to the proton. For example, the heaviest quark, the top quark, has a mass of about 173 Gev/c2, equivalent to the mass of over 180 protons.
It's the very high masses of these particles which makes them so hard to discover. You have to have a very high-energy collision to make so much mass, thus a very high-energy accelerator.
By the way, no one knows why each particle has the mass it does. Physicists dream of an "ultimate theory" in which particle masses, like all the other empirically determined constants in physics, are predicted by the theory itself.
I can't help myself. If you must criticize a sentence, please be sure you have copied it correctly. The sentence was:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"After all, the CMS and ATLAS detectors cannot directly catch Higgs bosons; those particles would decay into other particles immediately after being created in the LHC's proton collisions."
The punctuation is such that it is not a run on sentence...
Was terribly disappointed that the rotary in front of the CERN visitor's center didn't have cars going around in both directions ;^}
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, but I really don't care to speculate about gravitons, as they seem to me to be a construct required by particle physicists attempting to integrate gravitation with the standard model, in which all forces are properties of matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs stated by wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton#Criticism
"Theories containing gravitons suffer from severe problems. For example, attempts to extend the Standard Model with gravitons have run into serious theoretical difficulties at high energies... because of infinities arising due to quantum effects..."
Again, I;m attempting to suggest that mass and gravity are fundamentally distinct from the forces of matter described by the standard model, that they are not characteristic properties of matter but interactions between the localized potential energy of mass and external kinetic energy density of the vacuum or spacetime. This external field of kinetic energy imparts acceleration to material objects that is directed to local sources of potential energy.
As such, the gravitational force is not mediated by particles but rather the locally contracted kinetic energy of spacetime. Again, I am attempting to suggest an alternative conception of mass and gravitation that are not consistent with particle physics precepts.
As pointed out elsewhere, in this conception the specific mass allocated particular particles would be primarily determined generally by the universal conditions of vacuum energy density at the moment of initial particle emission, or specifically by local conditions if vacuum energy density at the moment of emission.
Certainly I'm not capable of formulating a complete theory of quantum mass and gravitation: I'm just attempting to suggest an alternative general conception that doesn't function like other material forces because it is fundamentally different. These differences should explain why standard particle force approaches have been unsuccessful.
Or it's a sentence in which a comma was mistakenly inserted rather than a colon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(At last, something I know enough about to respond to!)
--Bob G.
Perhaps that is why I also only replied to the suggestion of improper grammar...I can read the rest and get a faint idea about what the Higgs boson is, but I can in no way comment on it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, when I read the comment about the sentence I was back on terra firma. When I read the sentence,it had a semicolon. Perhaps it was corrected between the time RichAlex posted his comment and the time I posted mine...
UNPUBLISHED FINDINGS
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- James Ph. Kotsybar
They granulate the universe
to pulp
crashing particles only newly found.
They figure their trajectories
and gulp,
“So much data upon which to expound!”
Their energies
unbound by quantum course,
they separate the world we think we know.
They rip particles into force
by force.
Unification’s where they say they’ll go.
When, at last,
they prove life is illusion,
where do you think they’ll publish the result?
They may just ascend beyond confusion
and leave us in the lurch of the occult,
for once that testimony’s imparted,
expostulation
just seems false-hearted.
QUANTUM MELODY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this-- James Ph. Kotsybar
Below subatomic,
the particles slip
through Heisenberg’s uncertainty nets.
They cannot even be called articles;
they’re just mathematical epithets.
Though we may say they have up or down spins
(we may even find them charming or strange),
like angels that dance on the heads of pins,
it takes metaphysics to find their range.
They have no shape we can define,
except as bleary fields of energy.
Until we measure them,
there’s no place where they’re kept;
their locus is totally vibratile.
They pluck at space like an instrument string,
at this scale.
Quark! The hadron angels sing!
Durgadas Datta published a paper in year 2002 in ASTRONOMY.COM which has revived the ideas of ETHER. THE PAPER IS--MISJUDGEMENTS BY NEWTON. The idea of five GOD PARTICLES --FOUR FOR FOUR FORCES AND ONE FOR MASS CREATION is the backbone of ether and we call now dark energy but DURGADAS described as gravitoethertons produced by annihilation of matter universe and outside antimatter universe on opposite entropy path at common boundary and injected into our universe as cosmic fabric of ether in non isotropic form .So come out from EINSTEIN AND NEWTON and read the theory of DURGADAS DATTA-- BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER UNIVERSE ON OPPOSITE ENTROPY PATH.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'As such, the gravitational force is not mediated by particles but rather the locally contracted kinetic energy of spacetime.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReally? And you have repeatable experimental proof of this?
James Clark Maxwell, who was admired by Einstein for applying partial differential calculus to model natural phenomena, 'supposes that the magnetic energy of the field is kinetic energy, the electric energy potential.' [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_electromagnetic_theory]
Maxwell published his now famous theory of electromagnetism, which was the first unified field theory, between 1861 and 1862. Albert Einstein was inspired by Maxwell's work, to pursue the concept of an ultimate unified field theory, in which all forces of nature, including gravity are unified in one set of mathematical equations. Einstein pursued this idea until he died in 1955.
Subsequent generations of theoretical physicists, have in turn been inspired by Maxwell and Einstein. The fruit of their mathematical labours, has produced mathematical predictions testable by experiments, first on the unification of the electromagnetic force with the weak nuclear force, and then the unification of the strong nuclear force with the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces.
Returning to Maxwell's supposition that 'the magnetic energy of the field is kinetic energy, the electric energy potential.', theoretical physicists have successfully applied the mathematics of gage field theory to the Standard Model to explain the electromagnetic force interaction through the mediation of intermediate vector photons referenced as virtual photons. The strong and weak nuclear forces are also explainable as interacting through intermediate vector photon mediation.
Of course attempting to include the concept of a mathematically modeled intermediate vector boson, referred to as the graviton into the Standard Model will produce problems because as you have mentioned gravity is fundamentally different due to two observed properties of the gravitational force:
1. Acts over a much greater range compared with the other three forces;
2. Unlike the other three forces, gravity only attracts objects to each other, never has there been an observed instance of gravity repelling any objects.
The wikipedia entry on the criticisms against the existence of gravitons, mentions the concept of the vacuum energy field. The vacuum energy density theory is itself based on the Standard Model of particle physics, and the theory is itself in crisis. See: http://arxiv.org/abs/arxiv:0901.3381
The only thing good for you at a McDonalds is the Exit door.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if the Higgs boson actually exists, what do we do with it?
More mind-boggling to me than the Higgs is the notion "It's impossible to be excited enough."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding the argument "that theories that cannot be reasonably described without mathematics are fundamentally flawed in their disconnect with reality": Is mathematics connected with reality?
To quote or paraphrase Eddington or Haldane: "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine."
'Again, I;m attempting to suggest that mass and gravity are fundamentally distinct from the forces of matter described by the standard model, that they are not characteristic properties of matter ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, I am attempting to suggest an alternative conception of mass and gravitation that are not consistent with particle physics precepts.
...
I'm just attempting to suggest an alternative general conception that doesn't function like other material forces because it is fundamentally different. These differences should explain why standard particle force approaches have been unsuccessful.'
If the existence of the Higgs boson is not only announced by the ATLAS and CMS teams on Tuesday December 13, but is also confirmed by subsequent repeatable experiments, then you'd need to modify your alternative general conception, to include the Higgs boson.
If the Higgs boson existence remains unconfirmed, this may mean the mass of the Higgs boson is larger as postulated by Mr/Dr(?) Dan Visser [See post #53]. The mathematical theory he is working on, has also allowed him to calculate 'the time-gain of neutrinos used in the CERN-Gran Sasso experiment within the statistical and systematical margings.'
Yes mathematics is connected with reality, I am sure if I tried to go to McDonalds and asked for a Big Mac meal, and with zero dollars, I wouldn't get a real lunch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo paraphrase Dr. Hawking, you can't get a free lunch in this Universe.
I forgot to add: and if I tried to pay with zero dollars and zero cents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Higgs Boson ("God's particle") has been predicted by relativity theory which was refuted by CERN in the OPERA experiment (superluminal neutrinos).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not believe this Higgs nonsense
The CERN director general Rolf-Dieter Heuer never implied that the OPERA detector results, refute the possible existence of the Higgs boson.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee: http://blogs.voanews.com/science-world/2011/10/21/faster-than-the-speed-of-light-and-the-search-for-higgs-boson/
Another report on the OPERA detection of the superluminal neutrinos, and no mention of the Higgs boson in this context?
See: http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/neutrinos-still-faster-than-light-in-latest-version-of-experiment/
As I stated, and you repeated, I'm not attempting to produce a complete theory of quantum mass and gravitation, merely to suggest an alternative approach to the Higgs mechanism, which seems to require that a field of supermassive particle continuously and dynamically mediate mass to other particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou replied: "Really? And you have repeatable experimental proof of this?" Clever retort!
As I understand, there is no physical attractive force - as Newton well know. He merely described the effects of gravitation between two objects of mass as an effective net attraction. As I understand, general relativity describes the effects of gravitation for each object of mass as a contraction of external dimensional space-time coordinates. It also does not describe any physical mediator that imparts the acceleration of objects within a gravitational field - only the effects on mathematical coordinates describing the localized dimensions of spacetime. As I understand, there must be some physical mechanism that contracts the effective dimensional coordinates describing localized spacetime and effectively accelerates objects within.
With all due respect to Dan Visser and other more knowledgeable physicists and mathematicians, Ptolemy quite successfully used mathematics to predict the motions of the Sun and other planets in their orbits around the Earth. Unfortunately, successfully predictive scientific models do not definitively prove the physical reality of their fundamental premises.
I suggest you read last month's more balanced discussion of this article's subject posted in Nature News:
http://www.nature.com/news/higgs-hunt-enters-endgame-1.9399
As for the OPERA experiments, keep in mind that the actual physical path taken by neutrinos propagated between CERN and Gran Sasso cannot be definitively determined: therefore their precise propagation distance cannot be precisely determined! Without being able to confirm the precise distance traversed no precise speed can be determined!!!!
Beyond the GPS & standard geodesy routines' determination of the distance between CERN & Gran Sasso locations, please refer to: Wolfgang Kundt, (2011). "Speed of the CERN Neutrinos released on 22.9.2011 - Was stated superluminality due to neglecting General Relativity?",
http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3888v1
neilruedd: the way _you_ put it I agree. I wrote a bit too hastily and the Higgs aspect does not lessen the SM's value per se.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbigbopper: I wasn't saying you were arrogant, merely that your statement could be seen as such. As replies go, neilruedd's reaction to my reply expresses far better what I wanted to say. Merely that my point of view is still that the SM is too ugly to hold up in the long term but however flawed it may one day be considered it will have advanced science substantially. And the search for the Higgs definitely spawned a lot of positive work. If I may put it this way, the Higgs quest is like looking for Eldorado and finding California instead. In other words, no energy wasted, it's been worth the effort even if the result is not what one was initially looking for. So even if the SM will still be with us for a while I would already say today that Elhiggserado does not exist because I keep believing that "massive boson" is a typo and that the next press conference will be the usual spin exercise to defend a massive budget. To me the shame is really why this budget needs desperate defending at all when you consider the benefits, especially compared to what governments pump into massively fraudulous banks which do not advance anything at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisneilrued: 'if the existence of the Higgs boson is confirmed' Hawkings will have to shell out 100 bucks. I believe (= have no proof) that the Higgs is a dead-end and that research has been looking the wrong way. I believe this because to me 'massive boson' seems a contradiction in itself. I would probably feel more comfortable looking for a 'Higgs fermion' even if that too does not really convince me. So I keep wondering if Nature does not have a more elegant, more efficient solution and that we are simply too blinded by numbers to see it? How about a radically new approach, let's say based on the assumption that true bosons are never massive? What then?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo know which elementary particle types exist, a small game suffices. The game takes the presumption that all massive elementary particle types can be identified by an ordered pair of sign flavors of a quaternionic probability amplitude distribution (QPAD). A quaternion offers two sign selections; a conjugation that changes the sign of three imaginary base vectors and a reflection that changes the sign of a single base vector. The sign selection stays constant throughout the whole QPAD. For a QPAD this means that four different sign flavors exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe coordinates that are used as parameters of the QPAD also form a QPAD for which the value equals the parameter. This QPAD is taken as a reference for comparing sign flavors. Two sign selections have an isotropic sign status. The others are anisotropic. The conjugation and the reflection each cause a switch of the handedness of the quaternion product. Now look at the quaternionic format of the equation of free motion of elementary particles.
∇ψˣ = m ψʸ
∇ is the quaternionic nabla operator.
ψˣ acts as the wave function of the particle.
m is the coupling factor
ψʸ is the coupled QPAD sign flavor.
both ψˣ and ψʸ are sign flavors of the same base QPAD.
The ordered pair {ψˣ,ψʸ} represents a category of elementary particle types.
When ψʸ is isotropic (zero or all three base vectors are switched), then the particle is a fermion, otherwise it is a boson.
When the coupling takes place between two fields with different handedness then the corresponding particle is charged. The charge depends on the number and direction of the base vectors that differ. The count for each difference is ±⅓e.
The game is: find the particle types: electron, neutrino, up quark, down quark, W bosons, Z boson.
For antiparticles you must conjugate all participating fields and the nabla operator. Photons and gluons have zero coupling factor.
The solutions is explained in: http://www.crypts-of-physics.eu/Quaternionic_continuity_equation_for_charges.pdf
However, you can discover it yourself. It is fairly easy.
The most intriguing fact is that the coupling factor m can be computed from the fields {ψˣ,ψʸ}. So, no Higgs is involved there!
Sorry, some character did not show up properly. See the proper text on http://www.crypts-of-physics.eu/To_know_which_elementary_particle_types_exist.pdf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you, neilrud, for the link to Heuer's comment to the press. Well, the Standard model is based on special relativity, and if SR is refuted, then the Higgs boson will lose its base it is built on. So what I have said
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisis: no Higgs boson, if standard model and SR are wrong and they are wrong if neutrinos are faster than light.
The Higgs Boson doesn't seem to register in my poor, lowly brain nor can it (my brain) wrap around it(Higgs Boson). I'm looking forward to the announcement of the conclusive discovery of its existence though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, without quibbling I'd offer this: Is it merely possible that the coming announcement is merely the fulfilling of the requirement of "publishing"? Especially after the Billions of Euros spent?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, all this Higgs stuff is needed to make the Standard Model work. Perhaps, maybe, it's not the Higgs that is the problem. Maybe the Standard Model really doesn't work.
It seems arrogant that we would assume that we are about to know everything.
I could be wrong, I'm not a physicist. Nor do I play one on TV.
Several comments:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. We already have examples of massive bosons in the form of the W and Z. I'm not sure what your quibble with "massive boson" is.
2. I doubt many physicists will argue with you that the Standard Model is not the last word in physics, since it does not incorporate gravity. But it remains one of the most successful physical theories ever developed, and I would be very surprised indeed if its prediction of the Higgs boson is not confirmed.
Great post and exciting times! I've just finished reading the book about the Higgs Boson (www.popsciencebooks.com/physics-2/massive-the-missing-particle-that-sparked-the-greatest-hunt-in-science) and am very curious to know if they have really found this particle!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is quite well posible to derive the whole SM without SUSY or Higgs. Just try the QPAD game that is treated above (75 & 76) and/or follow the link.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow you are thinking like a scientist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the point of the CERN experiments, to find out if there really is a Higgs boson, and not to claim prematurely if there really is one or there isn't one until the final result is in. Until then there's no point hastily arguing from semantics, that there isn't one.
If the follow-up experiments prove there isn't one then an alternative interpretation for the mathematical result obtained by Dr Higgs.
Here is an interesting link on how theorical physics and experimental physics interact, from the University of Edinburgh:
http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/peter-higgs/history.shtml#higgsmechanism
The second paragraph under the title "A Brief History of the Higgs Mechanism" starts: "In 1962, Goldstone's theorem had shown that spontaneous breaking of symmetry in a relativistic field theory results in massless spin-zero bosons, which are excluded experimentally."
The SM allowed for Dr Goldstone's mathematical prediction of massless spin-zero bosons, but their existence was not confirmed by experiments, thus the SM was modified and the theory of the Higgs mechanism was included to be subjected to further experimental work.
Please note under the title "A Brief History of the Higgs Mechanism", the fourth paragraph, mentions that a Higgs boson has been discovered experimentally, applying Raman scattering. I was admittedly confused by this statement, until I found the following physics paper:
vixra.org/pdf/1108.0031v2.pdf written after an August 2011 CERN LHC ATLAS experiment; the ATLAS results suggest the Higgs boson is not a simple single particle, but a "part of a 3-state Higgs-Tquark system". This explains the statement from:
http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/peter-higgs/history.shtml#higgsmechanism
The recent CERN LHC experiment referenced in the article, seems to be an attempt to confirm the August results. This is why the experimental method is so important, it allows for science to be self-correcting, to double or even triple check results so they are repeatable and consistent, to statistically eliminate other causes, such as a familiar previously known particle, or if the experimenters have stumbled upon a new different kind of particle.
This is why it's best to wait and see what the official CERN announcement is going to be on December 13, until then it's no use speculating openly.
In my third paragraph:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the follow-up experiments prove there isn't one then an alternative interpretation for the mathematical result obtained by Dr Higgs."
I left out: "... Dr Higgs", needs to be determined, or discarded, and an alternative theory needs to be included, perhaps as described by HansVanLeunen or Dan Vissen. The new theory does need to include an explanation to substitute for the Higgs mechanism in Superconductors, and to explain the LHC ATLAS results. The new theory should also make other predictions, such as Dark Matter (to prove if it really exists or doesn't) for experimental verification, so it doesn't fall into the trap in which M(string)-theory finds itself in.
I agree Thim, if the Higgs boson is not confirmed to exist, then SM is not necessarily wrong, it means the interpretation of Dr Higgs was wrong, or a reformulation of the theory is required, or if the theory is discarded, the new theory needs to include the influence of the Higgs mechanism on superconductors, please see the fourth paragraph:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/peter-higgs/history.shtml#higgsmechanism
An explanation needs to also be included for the August 2011 LHC ATLAS results:
vixra.org/pdf/1108.0031v2.pdf
On August 2011, the LHC ATLAS detector found that it looks like the Higgs boson not only may exist, but that it may not be a simple single particle, but may be "part of a 3-state Higgs-Tquark system"; see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvixra.org/pdf/1108.0031v2.pdf
The recent CERN ATLAS and CMS experiments, seem to be an attempt to confirm or refute the existence of the 3 mass states of the Higgs boson (one state has been proposed to explain the oscillation of the superconductive gap, to interpret an unexpected result from the Raman scattering effect of an experiment on a NbSe2 superconductor), see:
http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/peter-higgs/history.shtml#higgsmechanism
You stated: "As I understand, there is no physical attractive force - as Newton well know."
Really? I was under the mistaken impression that it was Newton who first advanced the idea of an attractive force, that holds the planets in their orbits, that also holds the Moon in orbit around the Earth, and it was he who called this attractive force Gravity. He even had to invent a little mathematical theory now called differential calculus, to help him mathematically model how gravity keeps the planets in their orbits around the Sun.
The above may be read from Newton's Mathematica Principia
See: http://www.archive.org/details/newtonspmathema00newtrich
on pdf page 74, Newton's own Preface to his book states:
"Our design not respecting arts, but
philosophy, and our subject not manual but natural powers, we consider
chiefly those things which relate to gravity, levity, elastic force, the resist
ance of fluids, and the like forces, whether attractive or impulsive..."
Newton clearly associates gravity as a force, a natural power, which in modern terms refers to a physical attractive force.
Sure Ptolemy mathematically proved that the Sun and other planets went around the Earth, but another theorical physicist, used mathematics to offer the now widely accepted idea that the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, and an experimental physicist proved Ptomely wrong; these were respectively Copernicus and Galileo.
The subject of superluminal neutrinos are still under investigation by the CERM team, it's too early to comment on this topic, and this forum is not appropriate for this subject matter.
Developing a non-mathematical idea is not recommended in physics, but even a non-mathematical idea is required to provide predictions and submit to rigorous proof by experiment.
soon to be expected, it is widely known, that the sun shines down through the dark rift. maya predicted, to the tune of a 'polsun phenomena', CERN will have their accelerator, in full swing, around 21 dec 2012.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisshines down through the galactic centre.
earth is the centre of the galaxy?????????????
get ready for polsun phenomena.
Sub Atomic Particles, or Cosmic SAP. If a light phenomena is due to occur at a particular point, region, zone on earth,then it would be desirable to trick, or manifest, the phenomena somewhere else. Electromagnetic Energy in the form of The 27 klm, Hadron Collider, 27 is a unique number ''research the number 27.Smoke and Mirrors first , discovery of The God Particle 'will' occur during 'Polsun Phenomena'.It may even 'Crack Pottery'.Mathematical Physics is desperately trying to obtain a Holistic Fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo try and 'see' it.A Holistic Theory of Energy and Matter, in 5 dimensions.No longer a theory, now fact.
Super Human anyone.
Two scientist were talking to God. The scientist said,"We can create man." "Oh, how are you going to do that?", ask God. The scientist said, "Take a little dust..... ....". "Whoa, hold on. Get your own dust.", said God. The scientist have been looking for the God particle ever since. Maybe their have found it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<This is why the experimental method is so important, it allows for science to be self-correcting>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I was groping in the dark and get nowhere with my experimenting I'd sit down after a while and wonder if maybe I should not reconsider (= self-correct) the basis of my experimenting. I could for example start wondering why bosons have to be considered force carriers. Does that really describe their function? Is there something I might overlook? What are the bosons, what might they be doing else besides 'carrying'? You've got a few thousand brillant minds looking for a massive force carrier. Can we really exclude expressions/words altering perception? A stopped clock is correct twice a day. Is this perception correct? Sure but it's also not working.
<until then it's no use speculating openly.>
Isn't the Higgs a speculation in itself? Let me rephrase that: can numbers also be in the eye of the beholder?
I'm all for a loose workgroup brainstorming what other wild and freaky possibilities there could be. Numbers strictly forbidden. Go nuts, see what happens.
the above was in reply to neilrued - don't know why it doesn't show as reply, sorry
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdoes that mean , the higgs bosun, is smaller than cosmic sap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhat is smaller, higgs or polsun,s. ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Is it going to help humanity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it going to help, us with global warming.
Is it going to aid in health of living organisms.
Is it going to help with The Financial Crisis,s which will only get worse. [soon we wont need money].
Is it going to help the homeless, starving , humans, on this planet, let alone die of thirst, for information of higgs bosun.
Is CERN changing the course in history.Changing the [prophecy] {revelation].
The changing of course of a coming expected phenomena.
Seek permission of the Arcturian Sheild Protectorate,AND Galactic Federation.
They move as one.
Only the chosen one, knows. !
You're right about Newton and Ptolemy. I'm glad you corrected him. He keeps posting and insisting his wrong ideas. He lacks understanding of basic physics but believes the theories must be wrong just because he doesn't understand them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Holistic Theory of Energy and Matter in Five Dimensions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHolistic being visuall, to see it is too beleive it.
We are about to see it , about one year from now.!
Allow me to come in from a tangent and start from the bottom floor: the Higgs is usually defined as a hypothetically massive particle, in other words, that this particle is massive, meaning that it has substantial mass. Is this correct?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisneilrued: the reason why I asked rethorically was because, whereas before the talk was always about the massive Higgs boson, it's now become 'the Higgs boson, an as-yet-unknown kind of matter thought to generate mass in other particles' which makes a subtle but elementary difference. And I just think that I know where that comes from. And unless I am very much mistaken, it does not come from Michigan, at least not initially, unless that was an extraordinary coïncidence. The initial concept comes from 'elementary' biology if anyone cares to know and not to credit the author seems so typical of contemporary physics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Maya would perform Ceremonies, when the Cosmic Sap, became available. They called it ITZ, this would depend on its availability, and how often it became available , knowledge of a region,zone or point of constant or limited, availability.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was drunk, mixed in soups, etc, it is very probable that the maya, new of a DIMENSION, stargate, magnetic cable, call it what you want.The maya beleive that we as humans will not go past this time, without some kind of swing or change in Our Consciousness, Reality.The end of an Ancient Calender, such as this ,is sure to be full of surprises, for us all , and CERN. The steps of an ancient temple, light up , to the top of its summit, 21 dec 2012.The serpent completes it cycle.Polsun Phenomena is due, we are in Prematerialization Stages.
2012 would mark due Materialisation, 'but' may be CERN have another plan for the Phenomena, appearing, some where else.Magnetism is everything.You can move mountains with them. Holistic Theory of Energy and Matter, in Five Dimensions.Back to Earth Alpha.
has the higgs boson been proved where it is by is where it isn't?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe. Newton's belief in a physical force that gravitationally attracted objects, I am disappointed to have to concede that Newton evidently did believe in such an attractive gravitational force. In that case, only Einstein mathematically describes the effects of gravitation without relying on an otherwise unphysical, undetected, attractive force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point stands regarding Ptolemy's mathematically correct proof that the Sun and other planets all orbited the Earth. His equations correctly predicted their apparent motions through the sky, establishing the belief in an Earth-centric cosmology until it was disputed by Copernicus fully 1,500 years later!
The critical point here is that even correctly predictive mathematical formula do not prove the physical existence of any attractive gravitational force, dark matter, the acceleration of universal expansion, superluminal neutrinos or the Higgs boson.
You stated:
"The subject of superluminal neutrinos are still under investigation by the CERM [sic] team, it's too early to comment on this topic, and this forum is not appropriate for this subject matter."
Interesting contradiction, since you yourself devote at least one comment to the OPERA experiment...
You stated:
"Developing a non-mathematical idea is not recommended in physics, but even a non-mathematical idea is required to provide predictions and submit to rigorous proof by experiment."
The expression of ideas do not require mathematical proofs, predictions or rigorous experimental results. I think you're confusing the casual suggestion of ideas in the comments sections of articles with the formal submission of new theories to established scientific journals. Comments made in this forum are not subject to such specific, rigorous requirements.
Thanks again for your correction to my misconception of Newton's grasp of reality.
We know that the Sun, (SOL) is the centre of Our Solar System, 'but' isnt Earth The Centre of Our Galaxy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTherefor when the Sun Shines down through the dark rift, or the Galactic Centre .It ''will'' shine on Earth at its Centre or Naval at that point, region, zone.
These are the Stages,,, of a ''Polsun Phenomena'', 1]Deformation,2] Prematerialization, 3]Materialization [light cable], it is not understood, of Dematerialization.
''CERN'' are waiting for the End of An Ancient Calender, which prophesised,the appearance of a Light Cable.
Inside the Polsun Field lies the Sub Atomic Particles [SAP], It is noted at the very centre point, of ''Earth Alpha'', time does not pass,The Galactic Centre. The Egyptians through the Pharoahs stated , that 'if' one were too stand at The Centre, of THIS LIGHT PHENOMENA, super human status, is acheived.
To be on Earth at This Time is a 1 in 365 000,000 chance.
To Understand Physics in a Holistic Sense, is to see it.
Be prepared for some information , that may' very well debunk, all mathematical, theory, and dont forget, because Mathematical Physics is only Theory, when it is seen with ones eyes.It then becomes Fact or Legend, and there are plenty of Lengends. Stelar Bar. The number 27.
WALTER LAST ;wrote; Energy and Matter in Five Dimensions a Holistic Theory. A Glossary of The Quantum Field, describes it beautifully. I would state that ' Walter Last' is more accurate, rather correct,in describing The Dimensions. It will be seen, that his descriptions will be seen as LEGENDARY FACT. No crack pottery here.!Lets just wait and see, get ready. The holistic fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one has any thought and knowledge, we can already see, Earth,s Energy System, [weather phenomena]showing increase in velocity, and presence, at the North and South "Magnetic" Poles. It can also be said Earth,s Energy System shows signs of Dramatic Climatic Change on Earth,s PLANETARY INCREASE SITES.'One' just has to know where they are. As a reminder; Planet 'Mars' has 'Planetary Increase Sites','but' doesnt show much change in its climate, due to its non, existant magnetic velocity. Theory also suggests, that all the planets, 'well' some of them, were joined via a common cable or string, and attached at two points, [planetary increase sites].Scientists would understand that the Earth was born, and set free from its entanglement, hence the umbilical chord, or steller was cut.It will also be stated at the point of these chords being cut, broken, possibly burnt, Anti matter formed at the point of the severing.......................Scar Tissue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this