Essay Abstract

A key step towards an understanding of nature is understanding what can be inferred from empirically acquired information. In that context, this essay critically analyzes last years claim that a new boson has been observed with the CMS experiment at the LHC - a claim that was followed up on in 2013 with the announcement that the newly observed particle is indeed a Higgs boson. It is argued that it is neither the case that the new boson has been observed directly, nor that the contended claim can be deduced from the research result. The response of the CMS collaboration to this criticism is presented, and countered with a final argument. The conclusion is then that the claim that the boson has been observed is an overstatement, and thus concerns rhetoric outside the framework of scientific discourse.

Author Bio

Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet has defended an interdisciplinary PhD thesis at the Vrije Universiteit Brussels, which presents a formal axiomatic system that is potentially applicable as a foundational framework for physics under the condition that matter and antimatter repulse each other gravitationally. His main interest is further research in that direction.

Download Essay PDF File

Marcoen,

Thank you for reminding us that much of the accepted information about physical systems is inferred and dependent on specific theoretical models. With respect to the Higgs boson, the evidence suggests an unstable particle with zero spin and mass/energy 125 GeV. But even apart from identifying this as the Higgs boson, do we really know that this is a single fundamental particle? Note that all other fundamental particles of the standard model have spin, and indeed, in my intuitive quantum picture (see "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"), quantized spin is what turns continuous vector fields into discrete "particles". I would suggest that the observed particle should be a composite bound state of two spin-1/2 fermions, similar to a pi-meson.

Another object that is widely believed to have been observed is a black hole. But in fact, what has been observed in the galactic center is a small, high-mass object, which according to standard theory must have collapsed into a point singularity surrounded by an event horizon. But no event horizon has been observed, and the object is not black. I suggest in my essay that a self-consistent treatment based on quantum theory avoids singularities entirely, so that no black holes or event horizons should exist.

Alan

    Marcoen,

    As one of the curmudgeons, I too thank you for reminding us of what's really been seen at LHC. My theory predicted resonances, such as bottomonium, and apparently that's what they've seen. I've read that the di-photon statistics are diminishing, but I'm not sure about this. I was a little surprised that you didn't comment on the requirement that the Higgs be spin zero, for which there is as of yet no evidence.

    Your topic is certainly an example of 'it from bit', if the Higgs enters reality based on the information that you relate.

    Since the LHC apparently is not finding anything else, it's good they found something which could be identified as a Higgs. Otherwise there'd be a whole lot of 'splainin' to do.

    Best,

    Edwin Eugene Klingman

      Marcoen,

      Are you making the general philosophical point that we never observe anything directly, or are you concerned specifically with the observation of the Higgs boson?

      Let me ask a specific question.

      In one experiment particles are produced which decay into two photons. The photons travel away from the beam pipe and dislodge particles in the detector generating small flashes of light that are then detected by photo-multipliers and recorded as data on a computer. After many such events the experimenter performs some analysis on the data and produces a profile of the energy and angular distribution of the photons and find that it is clearly consistent with predictions from the Higgs boson and inconsistent with any other model anyone has predicted.

      In a second experiment a distant star is glowing because ots atoms are hot making them produce photons as they change state. The photons travel across space arrive at an observatory on Earth where they enter a telescope and hit a sensitive CCD detector. There each photon dislodges electrons which produce a tiny current that is amplified and recorded in a computer. After many such events the data is used to build a picture of the star whose colour and luminosity and used to identify its type.

      What if anything has been observed in each case?

        Alan,

        Thanks for commenting on my essay.

        Your post touches on an interesting subject: the distinction between observational and theoretical terms. I know that the logical empiricists advocated to make a sharp distinction between these, but that it later was argued that all of our observations involve an interpretation in theoretical terms. In this respect I'm rather close to the logical empricists*, so that more than one theory can agree with experiment. The choice for accepting a theory in such a situation then becomes dependent on social factors.

        In the present case the Higgs hypothesis agrees with experiment, but then you rightfully ask: how do we "know" it is fundamental? Surely, if one accepts the Standard Model one "believes" the Higgs is fundamental, but that is not the same as "knowing for sure". Al we can do is verify testable predictions of theories, so I guess your question is equivalent to the question: when do we know a theory is the final truth? I would say: absent divine intervention, we may never know.

        Regarding black holes I agree with you. More in general, in my opinion modern physics contains several beliefs that have been accepted on a best explanation basis.

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        * ... although I have no answer to the question what then the language should be for describing observations. Bohr suggested to use the language of classical mechanics, but I don't know. Maybe system theory provides an answer?

        Edwin Eugene,

        Thanks for your comment.

        I do not know if it would have been "not good" if the LHC would have yielded zero results: a negative result can also be important (just look at the Michelson-Morley experiment). But calling it an observation of a Higgs boson when it is merely an observation of decay products of a Higgs boson is not so good ...

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        PS: I purposely left out a discussion about spin.

        Phillip,

        Thank you for reading and discussing my essay.

        The essay specifically concerns the claimed observation of the Higgs.

        You wrote "In one experiment particles are produced which decay into two photons." But then you are already assuming what has to be proven. If you observe only the photons, then you can't claim to have observed the particle they originated from.

        My point is that there a difference between "discovery" and "explanation". Discovery is when I go into woods, catch a rabbit, show it, and say: it is furry, has four legs, two long ears, weighs 2.45 kg, etc. Explanation is when I say: look, I have found these imprints of paws and all my carrots are gone, so there must be rabbits around. From this point of view, the Higgs boson is the best explanation for the results, but it hasn't been discovered (= observed).

        As to your specific question: in both cases only photons have been observed. But I think we must make a distinction between investigating how (macroscopic) physical phenomena can be explained with assumed/accepted laws of physics, and investigating what the fundamental laws of physics themselves are. These are two different ball games: one is pure physics, the other is, at least for a large part, speculative philosophy (as meant by Whitehead).

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        Marcoen, thank you for your answer.

        To clarify further, can you tell me what results could be accomplished in order to observe or discover the Higgs boson?

        Philip,

        We then get to the general philosophical point that you mentioned in your first post: I think existential statements in fundamental particle physics cannot be proven by experiments, since we can only measure properties of microsystems. So concretely, it is not possible to observe a Higgs boson by any experiment in a particle accelerator.

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        • [deleted]

        • Post #10

        Marcoen,

        As usual a very well written essay. As the saying goes: what a fool believes, he sees. As long as science is conducted by humans, science will suffer from human emotions. The search of proof for a theory or model that many support is too often tainted by enthousiasm and peer pressure. One rather gives his point of view the benefit of doubt than to pursue causes of abnormalities, which ultimately can proof one has wasted a lot of time and money and leads to confrontation with those in charge.

        Kind regards,

        Jeroen

          It was difficult for me to grasp the point of this essay. After all, physicists have for years been describing exactly how and why supernovas occur, in spite of the fact that no astronomical observation of any real supernova has ever been made. It is physically impossible for any star to collide with any other star for in order to do so, a star would have to move faster than the light it had already emitted in the opposite direction to that of the light that already been emitted. See, light cannot penetrate light. All real stars must move at the one real default "speed" of light eternally. They never collide, just as thousands of real blind bats never collide as they exit a cave in the evening because they travel in one real direction at the same real speed.

          The author's concern that a man made particle might not have actually been seen to be identical to Higgs' concept of a man made particle seems a bit picayune. Light devouring black holes have never been seen. Big Bangs have never been heard. CERN collided particles of energy unnaturally and unrealistically. So far, CERN has succeeded in producing unnatural, unrealistic unique particles.

            Hi Marcoen, excellent job, thank you,

            I decided to continue the post started by Philip and developed by Jeroen in order to not repeat the arguments. First of all I have to admit that I agree with you in 100%. However in the result our fate is to become curmudgeonly. And it does not matter that the same as Higgs we could question as well quarks etc. They have just given elegant explanation to another experiments results. Very important is what Jeroen added above - peer pressure, emotions, grants...

            I would say the new Higgs religion has been born. Similar to that worshipping Dark Matter and Dark Energy gods. Scientists do not know what they are and claim they are impossible to observe (so call them Dark) but they offer possibility to save General Relativity outside Solar System distance scale. Higgs boson in turn gives salvation to Standard Model.

            Even if we are right our pure criticism is not enough. We shall remember that QM and GR give predictions confirmed in many experiments and are really very useful even though not finished and staying in contradiction. We shall give a constructive and consistent proposal how to get out of that troubles. And the proposal has to be falsifiable.

            In my opinion the religions described above have the same roots - the human being's perception. Saying perception I mean not only limitations of our equipment (detectors) including our brains, our culture, language and habits. I mean much more. In the case of gravity we (however not everyone) agree that gravitation is not a force field but a manifestation of spacetime GEOMETRY. But for our PERCEPTION it is still a FORCE. We could try to apply the same equivalence for another forces and also for particles, DM, DE etc...

            We should start from a recipe how to become uninfluenced by our perception.

            I have proposed a real experiment based on a thought experiment and having two possible outcomes: one of them contradicting QM Standard Model and the other falsifying my concept. The details you could find in references to my essay.

            The real experiment is easy and cheap to carry out and could easily become an exercise for students but probably no one will try because academics are strong believers in QM. The believer would not like to challenge his / her god.

            Of course if we do not agree with Einstein equivalence than we shall try something else. I do not have any other concept. Ladies and Gentlemen the floor is yours...

            Marcoen

            "the first point is that it is not possible, not even in principle, to observe..."

            The essence of this statement is correct in that:

            -what determines physical existence at any given time is the physically existent state of whatever comprises it, which is a function of 'properties'. Indeed, it might be that the 'properties' are actually what is being referred to as the particle, or it may be that there is an inert substance (or variety of types thereof ) which 'carries' these properties, and therefore constitutes the elementary particle(s) types. The differentiation of whatever is the ultimate substance(s) from what determines what is manifest (ie existent) at any given time is critical.

            -the vanishingly small degree of alteration and duration involved, which differentiates one physically existent state from another, precludes any form of 'observation'. It can only be detected conceptually, which is acceptable as proof provided valid presumptions and due process was involved. The point being that any experiment which purports to dealing with the elementary level of physical existence has to be treated with scepticism. This is not to say that what is identified is invalid, but it is highly likely not to involve the ultimate state of physical existence but a sequence of such states, albeit a 'short' sequence.

            So as you indicate, though I would not comment on the specific case you refer to, there is a high risk that starting presumptions become self-fulfilling and, apparently, proven.

            Paul

              Philip

              Leaving aside the specific context, the general point being made here is not philosophy, but a fact. There is no way that any form of sensing can be so refined that it is capable of differentiating one physically existent state from another. The degree of alteration is too small, we are reliant on the caability of light (in sight) to discern it and convey it, sensory systems and technology is inadequate. Put another way, there is a simple IKEA wastebasket to my left. With the most advanced technology available and a million years to analyse the results, I bet a singular physically existent state of that entity would still not be defined accurately and comprehensively.

              We are kidding ourselves. But, obviously, so long as we do understand the limitations, and deploy proper hypothess, then progress can be made. But as always, it makes sense to understand the true nature of what is being considered first. That is, do not turn up to woodworking classes with a toothpick and a lawnmower, as these may be tools, but in the context of the nature of wood, they are useless.

              Paul

              Marcoen, You raise a very important point, namely the overconfident language science, in general, has adopted. I presume this brazen language is necessary for science to obtain funding; politicians do not like uncertainty.

              Other examples are "We create the conditions at the time of big bang" as if we know; we were there and recorded the conditions. As a inquisitive youngster, 50 years ago, I learned about black holes. The language used then always put a word of caution into the statements, i.e. we believe that black holes may exist and are in the centre of galaxies. This caution was at some time was over turned into the positive and arrogant language, black holes do exist - full stop. Other examples of assumptions that exist in the scientific mind as fact are gravity waves , dark matter and dark energy - the first inferred by theory alone the later two by theory and observation. For how many years are they searching for gravity waves? 20 years or more - never mind the billions spent.

              The real question one should ask, if science has the courage to admit to the general public that they may have been wrong once new and better theories are discovered that no longer support the many assumptions.

              Thank you for a thought provoking essay - short and sweat.

                • [deleted]

                • Post #16

                Dear Marcoen,

                The recent Large Hadron Collider (LHC) results, showing special values between 121-130 GeV for the predicted signal of the massive Standard Model (SM) Higgs, could be interpreted as the result of one or more different composite particle decay- and collision processes and not as the result of Higgs decay. In a recent Vixra paper I present alternative transformations after the LHC collision of (Non- SM) Proton particles interpreted as Quark- Gluon cloud collisions, into the observed production and decay results such as, gg into Di-Photons, ZZ into 4 Lepton or WW into LvLv .

                See:

                http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0065v2.pdf

                Best regards,

                Leo Vuyk

                Philip,

                One additional point.

                You mention that the experimental result is consistent with predictions from the Higgs boson and inconsistent with any other model anyone has predicted. That is indeed the correct conclusion: the CMS collaboration has confirmed a prediction of the Standard Model. As I wrote in the essay: they have found the Standard Model to be correct. That should have been the stated conclusion.

                While that is an achievement in itself given the difficulty of the experiment, the fact that ONLY the Standard Model gave the correct prediction still doesn't justify the claim that the Higgs boson has been observed. Eliminating induction is not valid in this context.

                Regards,

                Marcoen

                • [deleted]

                • Post #18

                Hi Marcoen,

                perhaps also see my last year essay to Fqxi:

                The Bouncing CP symmetrical Multiverse, based on a massless but

                energetic oscillating (non SM Higgs) Vacuum Particle System.

                http://www.fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Vuyk_13121461.pdf_The_bounc_1.pdf

                Hello Leo,

                Thanks for your message.

                The central point of my paper is that the claim that the Higgs boson has been observed is an overstatement. That automatically implies that I hold the opinion that it is too early exclude that there may be other explanations for the observations. I cannot judge here and now whether or not your suggestion is a viable alternative. Such requires a full investigation.

                Best regards,

                Marcoen

                Joe,

                Thanks for discussing my essay.

                I agree with you that the physics literature is riddled with overstatements.

                My point is that the conclusion that the Higgs boson has been observed is an overstatement; the conclusion should have been that the Standard Model has been found to be correct (which is equivalent to saying that predictions of the Standard Model have been confirmed). The point is then not trivial or picayune: the first conclusion (observation) implies experimental confirmation of the existence of the Higgs boson, while the second does not.

                Best regards,

                Marcoen