What are your thoughts on the likelyhood that the LHC will generate a Higgs Boson?

[JoeRoccoCassara]

After the repeated failures of the first Hadron Collider and those before it to generate a single Higgs Boson, I don't think we need the failure of a larger Collider to clarify that the Higgs Field does not exist. Unless the sciencist to a specific size knowing how large it would have to be to generate a Higgs Boson, which I doubt.

 

I think that the sub-atomic equivalent of gravity, that fourth (or maybe fifth?) sub-atomic force of nature, I.E. Strong Force, Weak Force and Electromagnetism (I might be missing one), which is needed to validate the Standard Model might be beyond current man's capabilities to find or perhaps even to understand.

 

And even that wouldn't solve the theory of everything, as there is still M-Theory, Parallel Universes/Dimension/Membranes, I.E. the Multiverse and it's conception. There might even be something bigger than the Multiverse, like an Omniverse, or a Multi-Omniverse. The theory of everything is way even our children's grasp.

[Southtown]

M-theory is untestable. The scientific method would have to be altered, and indeed is already being strained.

 

ResearchChannel - The Trouble with Physics

 

But how can one prove that everything is unknowable?

[freeztar]

They've spent millions of dollars so far, and nothing.

 

Sad to see this:

 

Large Hadron Collider on collision course with high expectations - Related Stories - UN Wire

[InfiniteNow]

Delete my account you are all a bunch of circle jerking self sucking jerks. That goes double for the ******* pryotex and triple for cavediver. None of you would make a pimple on the *** of a real scientist

 

Spoken like a person who has devoted their life to the teachings of their loving religion. My... How the mind rots when Jesus or Allah or other invisible friends become involved in peoples lives.

[UncleAl]

No Higgs. No Higgs detected not because the LHC is defective; no Higgs detected because there is no Higgs. The Standard Model arrives massless because it can be falsified. Physics can be defective for having weak founding postulates. No prior observation in any venue at any scale would be contradicted by a pertinent new observation.

 

Euclid postulated one non-coincident line parallel to a given line. One is a good number, but so are zero and infinity. Thurston proved there are *eight* primary 3-space geomtries. Newton tacitly assumed lightspeed was infinite and Planck's constant was zero. General Relativity has c = c, G = G, and h = zero. Quantum field theory has c = c, G = zero, h=h. All physics assumes isotropic vacuum. If G = G, almost all physics assumes the Equivalence Principle (every local massed body vacuum free falls identically). Neither assumption need be true. Both are testable on a lab bench. Nobody has ever looked.

 

UNDER SATAN'S LEFT FOOT

Uncle Al being colorful about discovering empirical truth

[Pyrotex]

No Higgs. No Higgs detected not because the LHC is defective; no Higgs detected because there is no Higgs. The Standard Model arrives massless because it can be falsified. ... Uncle Al being colorful about discovering empirical truth

Wow. :eek_big:

 

I downloaded your essay on an experimental test for chirality.

I understood about 73.6%, which is pretty good considering your dense writing style.

Had I not a background in physics, I couldn't have done a fifth as well.

 

Good luck! :eek_big: I hope somebody does that experiment soon!!!!! I'll be looking for it.

[freeztar]

Neither assumption need be true. Both are testable on a lab bench. Nobody has ever looked.

 

I'm quite sure a well defined experiment wouldn't be overlooked by the people at the lab benches. But, I'm not too sure about that.

 

Isn't the whole point to (well, imho, the biggest aim) figure out G at a quantum level? And throw away the assumption of G = zero? And if G>0 then will that prove Higgs?

 

I haven't looked at your article that Pyrotex refers to, so forgive me if my questions are answered there. Seeing that Pyrotex understood about 73.6% of what you wrote, I'm guessing I might hit around 18.6% of his metric. We'll see...

 

Thanks for the empirical truth candy, Al.

 

EDIT: I see now that it is the same entry you posted before. :friday:

Symmetry does need to be tested. I hope the LHC will produce some results. We'll see..

[Turtle]

I'm quite sure a well defined experiment wouldn't be overlooked by the people at the lab benches. But, I'm not too sure about that.

 

Isn't the whole point to (well, imho, the biggest aim) figure out G at a quantum level? And throw away the assumption of G = zero? And if G>0 then will that prove Higgs?

 

I haven't looked at your article that Pyrotex refers to, so forgive me if my questions are answered there. Seeing that Pyrotex understood about 73.6% of what you wrote, I'm guessing I might hit around 18.6% of his metric. We'll see...

 

Thanks for the empirical truth candy, Al.

 

EDIT: I see now that it is the same entry you posted before. :)

Symmetry does need to be tested. I hope the LHC will produce some results. We'll see..

 

some clarification is in order. al is not referring to LHC experiments un-looked-at, he is referring to his own original as-yet-unperformed experiment concerning GR described among other places, in this thread. . :friday: >> Calorimetric test of General Relativity this is a falsifiable claim. no one yet has done the experiment; someone sometime oughta.

[UncleAl]

The Higgs mechanism and boson justify possibly defective theory. Standard Model extensions and supersymmetry (SUSY) are disasters. Supersymmetry's partners refuse to appear, protons do not decay. Supergravity (SUGRA), lattice and loop quantum gravity, and above all string and M-theories predict nothing. NOTHING.

 

Euclid lasted from before 200 BC to 1830. 2050 years is a good run! Euclid was woefully incomplete. Newton was almost perfect (except Mercury's calculated orbit) in the 1600s when electricity and magnetism were only observed. Maxwell's equations in 1860 ended Newton. 200 years is a good run!

 

No physicist need test what is obviously, necessarily true. However, there is no reason for space group P3(1)21 quartz with all right-handed spirals of atoms to obey the Equivalence Principle versus space group P3(2)21 quartz with all left-handed spirals of atoms. No reason at all in theory or in observation. A left-footed spacetime can be detected by a pair of shoes but not by a pair of socks (all prior observations). Photons are massless and do not configure. The tests employ configured mass.

 

LHC failures are quite a coincidence, for the Higgs is safe as long as nobody looks. Uncle Al would like Hypography denizens to visit the essay site, open the link to his essay, and vote it a big fat, hmmm, 10 (red background at the top). Physics needs an affordable quick kick in the butt. Somebody should look. UNDER SATAN'S LEFT FOOT

 

Bottom line: No Higgs. The Higgs is a product of defective theory. (If the Higgs is detected, Uncle Al will apologize.)

[freeztar]

The Higgs mechanism and boson justify possibly defective theory. Standard Model extensions and supersymmetry (SUSY) are disasters. Supersymmetry's partners refuse to appear, protons do not decay. Supergravity (SUGRA), lattice and loop quantum gravity, and above all string and M-theories predict nothing. NOTHING.

 

Euclid lasted from before 200 BC to 1830. 2050 years is a good run! Euclid was woefully incomplete. Newton was almost perfect (except Mercury's calculated orbit) in the 1600s when electricity and magnetism were only observed. Maxwell's equations in 1860 ended Newton. 200 years is a good run!

 

No physicist need test what is obviously, necessarily true. However, there is no reason for space group P3(1)21 quartz with all right-handed spirals of atoms to obey the Equivalence Principle versus space group P3(2)21 quartz with all left-handed spirals of atoms. No reason at all in theory or in observation. A left-footed spacetime can be detected by a pair of shoes but not by a pair of socks (all prior observations). Photons are massless and do not onfigure. The tests employ configured mass.

 

LHC failures are quite a coincidence, for the Higgs is safe as long as nobody looks. Uncle Al would like Hypography denizens to visit the essay site, open the link to his essay, and vote it a big fat, hmmm, 10 (red background at the top). Physics needs an affordable quick kick in the butt. Somebody should look. UNDER SATAN'S LEFT FOOT

 

Bottom line: No Higgs. The Higgs is a product of defective theory. (If the Higgs is detected, Uncle Al will apologize.)

 

I will have to brush up on both chirality and spin. Otherwise, any argument I make could be one of ignorance.

 

Higgs is quite a gamble, eh?

[Little Bang]

I think Unc has it right, no Higgs

[Pyrotex]

...Newton tacitly assumed lightspeed was infinite and Planck's constant was zero. General Relativity has c = c, G = G, and h = zero. Quantum field theory has c = c, G = zero, h=h. All physics assumes isotropic vacuum. If G = G, almost all physics assumes the Equivalence Principle (every local massed body vacuum free falls identically). Neither assumption need be true. ...

Speaking of which, I just remembered a thought that occurred to me many years ago.

 

When we do physics experiments at "normal" temperatures -- say from liquid Oxygen on up to the melting point of iron -- we get certain consistent results. And we derive certain consistent conclusions about the behavior of magnetic and electrical fields, the atom, the electron, and so forth.

 

Then we do those experiments at a few Kelvins above absolute zero. And everything changes. Different results, different physics. And we have to redefine the behavior of everything. We coin new words, like superconductive.

 

So far, all our experiments (with only a handful of exceptions) have been performed in a rather significant gravitational gradient. Even out between Mars and Uranus, there was always the Sun's gravitational gradient. Getting smaller and smaller, but never really close to zero.

 

What would happen if we "did physics" in a region of space where the gravitational gradient was close to "absolute zero"? :evil: Would we discover something new? Would we have to coin new words?

[UncleAl]

The Standard Model arrives massless. Everything within it travels at lightspeed. Observation suggests this is not true. 14 fundamental masses must be inserted by hand, like tuning slides on an audio mixing console. Anything can be made to come out, constants The Higgs is curve-fitting. It may be true! I think the univverse is clever rather than complex - better theory is required at the starting line.

 

Rigorously derived theory can be empirically defective if a starting postulate - an obvious but unprovable assumption - has an exception. My personal opinion is that the Standard Model is defective, not that the Higgs is elusive - no Higgs! To criticize is to volunteer. I therefore offer two classes of straightforward experiments that test an obvious but unprovable assumption in physics. We can present this with a smile and a wink, UNDER SATAN'S LEFT FOOT but the intent is intensely serious. If there can be a detectable fundamental error in physical theory - Higgs's absence in specific, defective symmetry in general - you must look, then act.

 

Not to look is cowardice. Not to act thereafter is villainy.

[Little Bang]

I think in pyro's hypothetical situation we would find newton's laws to be variable like f=ma. I agree with UncleAl, the standard model is flawed. It assumes there is a particle for everything and yet wants to treat them as a wave and a particle.

[Pyrotex]

When scientists finally achieved the ultimate electron microscope, they zeroed in on a single proton being held captive in a laser cage at only 1 nanoKelvin. The image came into focus. It was obviously a particle, though it appeared somewhat fuzzy. It had two tiny eyes, a wide grin and two arms. One arm was outstretched, its anterior end oscillating.

 

Obviously, the particle was waving. This explained everything.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Pyrotex,

 

What would happen if we "did physics" in a region of space where the gravitational gradient was close to "absolute zero"? :hihi: Would we discover something new? Would we have to coin new words?

 

Now that would be interesting, absolute vacuum experiments where proximity to mass is at its minimum. At least c would be a real undistorted (only distortable by proximity to mass) constant. One thing we might discover is that any interstellar positioning/location/navigation system could use these undistorted areas, or at least 'clearways' to these areas to mitigate the impact of mass on light and all other relative anomalies.

 

Did they discover anything useful when they grew crystals away from the influence of earths gravity?