An Essay Concerning Human Misunderstanding: Why It Cannot Be Inferred From Empirically Acquired Information That The Higgs Boson Has Been Observed by Marcoen J.T.F. Cabbolet

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?

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.

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

Thanks again for the clarifications. Note that I am only asking questions to understand your point better. I am not making any criticism.

I cannot find your paper on the Internet. Could you please, give me a link or send via e-mail: jsafuta@tlen.pl

Thank you

Thanks Marcoen

best wishes for your score.