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

        Hello Jeroen, Jacek,

        Thanks for taking the time to read and discuss my essay.

        @Jeroen: I agree with you that those who believe in and work within a certain physics paradigm most likely have a perception of the world that is colored by the language of that paradigm. But it is one thing to have a colored world view, and another thing to leave the framework of scientific discourse when conclusions are to be drawn from results. Things like enthousiasm and peer pressure should not be allowed to play a role, since then the border gets blurred between what we wánt to conclude and what we cán conclude. To put it bluntly: in my opinion, with the claim that the Higgs has been observed physics is moving towards junk science.

        @Jacek: you wrote that a new Higgs religion has been born. I think it goes further than that; I think with the Higgs claim the heydays of the "Shut-up-and-calculate!" school of theoretical physics have arrived. You wrote that criticism is not enough, and that we should offer a viable alternative. I agree, Kuhn already in the 1970's suggested that a paradigm will not be rejected if no alternative exists. I did publish an alternative; see my paper in Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 522(10), 699-738 (2010). But it only applies under a condition under which General Relativity and the Standard Model are invalid, so before my alternative can seriously be considered it has to be tested whether or not the condition is valid in the physical world. And if reality doesn't satisfy that condition then my alternative is invalid also.

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        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.

        Philip, I didn't take your posts for criticism (although I have nothing against it). I was just ventilating my thoughts.

        Regards, Marcoen

        • [deleted]

        • Post #27

        In a thread above you clarify what you mean by discovery, implying that higgs wasn't a discovery. Your quote: "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." Let's then apply to this situation with rabbit the same level of logical rigour, which you demand in the essay.

        You see on an object (rabbit?) thin short lines, and when your inbuilt eye-hand coordination program places your hand there, your have a particular sensation, a bit similar to the one, when you place hand on your head (assuming it is not bold). This combination of sensations, we, collectively, happen to call "fur". So, you say a rabbit is furry. But is it really fur?

        Do the same exercise for all other characteristics, and you start wondering whether this approach is "ludicrous" (using a word from your essay), and counter-productive. May be this strict following of meticulous logic, having its own charm, is a sort of logical fallacy itself?

          • [deleted]

          • Post #29

          My gripe with these high end (super expensive) experiments is that there is no real INDEPENDENT experiment(to verify) which is the classically based acceptable system. The possibility of conflict of interest is there no matter.

          Now, if you have an issue with Higgs experiment, wait until you see how we "measure" dark energy , dark matter, universe curvature and ... so on. All models based which lead to chicken and egg dilemma.

            Paul,

            Thanks for your comment.

            I think we must distinguish between substances and properties. If we allow a substance to "be" a property, then it can get weird. I think we are on an erronous path if we would say that, for example, an electron "is" its position.

            I agree with your second point: one cannot measure directly what happens precisely in the microcosmos. As a consequence, we cannot "prove" a theory in fundamental physics: we can only verify its testable predictions.

            And indeed, circular reasoning - assuming what has to be proven - has to be avoided at all times, as it only leads to apparent knowledge. It's an elementary mistake, although it is not always immediately obvious that one has made it. A logical analysis should reveal it, though.

            Best regards,

            Marcoen