The Standard Model Imploding?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Post Reply
djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

The Standard Model Imploding?

Post by djolds1 »

'God Particle' May Be a Mirage, Scientists Hint

Published August 23, 2011

| Reuters

CERN

A proton-proton collision at the Large Hadron Collider particle accelerator at CERN laboratory in Geneva that produced more than 100 charged particles.

Scientists chasing a particle they believe may have played a vital role in creation of the universe indicated on Monday they were coming to accept it might not exist after all.

But they stressed that if the so-called Higgs boson turns out to have been a mirage, the way would be open for advances into territory dubbed "new physics" to try to answer one of the great mysteries of the cosmos.

The CERN research center, whose giant Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has been the focus of the search, said it had reported to a conference in Mumbai that possible signs of the Higgs noted last month were now seen as less significant.

A number of scientists from the center went on to make comments that raised the possibility that the mystery particle might not exist.

"Whatever the final verdict on Higgs, we are now living in very exciting times for all involved in the quest for new physics," Guido Tonelli, from one of the two LHC detectors chasing the Higgs, said as the new observations were announced.

CERN's statement said new results, which updated findings that caused excitement at another scientific gathering in Grenoble last month, "show that the elusive Higgs particle, if it exists, is running out of places to hide."

NEW PHYSICS

The centre's research director Sergio Bertolucci told the conference, at the Indian city's Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, that if the Higgs did not exist "its absence will point the way to new physics."

Under what is known as the Standard Model of physics, the boson, which was named after British physicist Peter Higgs, is posited as having been the agent that gave mass and energy to matter just after the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

As a result, flying debris from that primeval explosion could come together as stars, planets and galaxies.

In the subterranean LHC, which began operating at the end of March 2010, CERN engineers and physicists have created billions of miniature versions of the Big Bang by smashing particles together at just a fraction under the speed of light.

The results of those collisions are monitored by hundreds of physicists not just at CERN but in linked laboratories around the world which sift through the vast volumes of information generated by the LHC.

Scientists at the U.S. Fermilab near Chicago have been in a parallel search in their Tevatron collider for nearly 30 years. Last month they said they hoped to establish if the Higgs exists by the end of September, when the Tevatron closes down.

For some scientists, the Higgs remains the simplest explanation of how matter got mass. It remains unclear what could replace it as an explanation. "We know something is missing, we simply don't quite know what this new something might be," wrote CERN blogger Pauline Gagnon.

"There are many models out there; we simply need to be nudged in the right direction," added Gagnon, an experimental physicist.
Vae Victis

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

I deeply hope that the Higgs does not exist.
It could make physics research of the next 20 years quite an interesting field.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

This drives a nail in the coffins for both the Standard Model as well as the EHT.

I think its funny that one of the most foundational theories in physics is being falsified. Its funny because physicists can be some of the most arrogant people around, and one of their pet theories is going by the way side. It also means that they get to do some work (to come up with a new theory to replace it).

Disappointing about the EHT, though.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

kurt9 wrote:This drives a nail in the coffins for both the Standard Model as well as the EHT.

I think its funny that one of the most foundational theories in physics is being falsified. Its funny because physicists can be some of the most arrogant people around, and one of their pet theories is going by the way side. It also means that they get to do some work (to come up with a new theory to replace it).
My fear was that the boyos at Fermilab and CERN would "prove" the Standard Model based on nothing more than groupthink and fear of embarrassment. Then we'd be stuck with a flawed model for centuries - just like the Aristotelian model.

Glad I was wrong.
kurt9 wrote:Disappointing about the EHT, though.
Not at all. Mach Effects, HFGWs, and Mr. Williams' Thermodynamic approach all remain.
Vae Victis

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

My fear was that the boyos at Fermilab and CERN would "prove" the Standard Model based on nothing more than groupthink and fear of embarrassment. Then we'd be stuck with a flawed model for centuries - just like the Aristotelian model.
I think that the real scientists of today (versus the philosophers of the past), especially the quality people working at CERN and Fermi are equally excited about proving something wrong, as they are about proving something right.

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

djolds1 wrote:My fear was that the boyos at Fermilab and CERN would "prove" the Standard Model based on nothing more than groupthink and fear of embarrassment. Then we'd be stuck with a flawed model for centuries - just like the Aristotelian model.

Glad I was wrong.
I thought about that as well.
djolds1 wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Disappointing about the EHT, though.
Not at all. Mach Effects, HFGWs, and Mr. Williams' Thermodynamic approach all remain.
We'll see. Hopefully something will work out. David Brin wants his world government and I want to get completely free of any such thing.

djolds1
Posts: 1296
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:03 am

Post by djolds1 »

Skipjack wrote:
My fear was that the boyos at Fermilab and CERN would "prove" the Standard Model based on nothing more than groupthink and fear of embarrassment. Then we'd be stuck with a flawed model for centuries - just like the Aristotelian model.
I think that the real scientists of today (versus the philosophers of the past), especially the quality people working at CERN and Fermi are equally excited about proving something wrong, as they are about proving something right.
You have a higher opinion of the human species than I. An entire discipline protecting itself from the shame of wasted careers - subconsciously, not overtly (seeing what they wanted to see) - seemed quite plausible. Groupthink and psychological consistency are powerful motivators.
kurt9 wrote:
djolds1 wrote:
kurt9 wrote:Disappointing about the EHT, though.
Not at all. Mach Effects, HFGWs, and Mr. Williams' Thermodynamic approach all remain.
We'll see. Hopefully something will work out. David Brin wants his world government and I want to get completely free of any such thing.
Frontiers are powerful social pressure-relief valves, while they last. But nothing lasts forever.

Here's a meditation on your hope: http://www.johnreilly.info/theskypeople.htm

Edit: http://www.johnreilly.info/04June08.htm
Vae Victis

kurt9
Posts: 588
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:14 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon, USA

Post by kurt9 »

I stand corrected on one part of my comment. It appears that the lack of a definitive Higgs is not in conflict with EHT.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

You have a higher opinion of the human species than I. An entire discipline protecting itself from the shame of wasted careers - subconsciously, not overtly (seeing what they wanted to see) - seemed quite plausible. Groupthink and psychological consistency are powerful motivators.
The scientists that I know love positive and negative results equally. Both are exciting.

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

Because the entire point of CERN was to create the conditions present right after the Big Bang, does this damage Big Bang Theory? I've just recently discovered Eric Lerner's book endorsing plasma cosmology. The nonexistence of the Higgs seems to fit with the other examples he proposes that the Big Bang predicts, and are contradicted by observation.

Henning
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:34 pm

Post by Henning »

EricF wrote:Because the entire point of CERN was to create the conditions present right after the Big Bang, does this damage Big Bang Theory? I've just recently discovered Eric Lerner's book endorsing plasma cosmology. The nonexistence of the Higgs seems to fit with the other examples he proposes that the Big Bang predicts, and are contradicted by observation.
As you are on it: I've read about a "plasma redshift", which generally says the cosmic redshift isn't a result of the Doppler effect, but some kind of friction effect of ultra hot sparse plasma: http://plasmaredshift.org/Abstract.html

If it turns out to be correct, lots of physics from the last decades needs to be rewritten.

Found it here: http://focusfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewthread/920/

Now everyone go ahead and rip it up, maybe starting a new thread.

Edit:
Maybe it's not about friction, but something else. What the heck. Probably one of you'll understand it better...

Giorgio
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

The abstract is quite interesting and makes some pretty bold statements.
I am curious to see how he reaches them math wise.

The full paper is 100 pages long, it will take some time to read it and some more to digest the math and the assumptions he has (probably) made.

Link to the full paper:
http://www.plasmaredshift.org/Plasma_Redshift_Home.html

Thanks for posting it!

EricF
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Pell City, Alabama

Post by EricF »

Thanks, I'll start reading that too. Lerner's book is very impressive. It lead me to searches on topics which I didn't even realize were being debated. Also just read about the Halton Arp story, that's a little disturbing if true. Seems like his story would make a good article for the powerandcontrol blog.

If they can find an alternate way to explain the prime examples for dark matter via gravitational lensing (EM field lensing from intergalatic EM fields/filaments?), they should have BB Theory nearly wrapped up.

Maui
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by Maui »

Giorgio wrote:The abstract is quite interesting and makes some pretty bold statements.
I am curious to see how he reaches them math wise.

The full paper is 100 pages long, it will take some time to read it and some more to digest the math and the assumptions he has (probably) made.

Link to the full paper:
http://www.plasmaredshift.org/Plasma_Redshift_Home.html

Thanks for posting it!
That is bold. I can't do the math. Please let those like me know what you make of it.

Whether or not this is complete crap I will remain skeptical of dark matter/energy and expect it to go down at some point. But a stagnant, infinite universe could take a while to digest...

Aero
Posts: 1200
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 4:36 am
Location: 92111

Post by Aero »

Giorgio wrote:The abstract is quite interesting and makes some pretty bold statements.
I am curious to see how he reaches them math wise.

The full paper is 100 pages long, it will take some time to read it and some more to digest the math and the assumptions he has (probably) made.

Link to the full paper:
http://www.plasmaredshift.org/Plasma_Redshift_Home.html

Thanks for posting it!
I slogged through the above paper. It was not an easy read but the meat is presented in the first five pages of chapter 1. After that, its all interpretation or so it seems to me. Well, maybe not all interpretation because the author does cite (claim) case after case where his theory agrees with observation and the Big Bang cosmology does not. Of course I am not in a position to verify these claims.

The author first introduced Plasma Redshift about 30 years ago so to me, the question arrises, "Why hasn't mainstream science picked up on it?" The answer to that question may be the same as when the same question is asked of Heim Theory. The answer is, "Because their is no low hanging fruit," IMHO. In fairness though, Heim Theory has been given a hard look by competent physicists, and maybe Plasma Redshift has been looked at, too. There is no reason that I would have heard about it unless it were picked up by the popular press.
Aero

Post Reply