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

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.

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?

with all the experimental data on the Higgs boson, which exist since its discovery, his essay seems unrealistic

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.

Your argument is a form of Popper's argument that empirical observation can never prove a theory. If you have a theory T that implies X then you have if T --- > X and the most empiricism can do logically is fail to find X so the modus tolens ~X --- > ~T. A theory may be falsified, never it is proven. We can with modal logic have X --- > ◊T, where ◊ means possibly or probably. The 5-σ statistics interprets ◊ as highly probable.

In the end it is true we measure quantum numbers, and particles are identified by their quantum numbers. One could then say we never measured a single particle of any type. However, I think this is taking the matter into overly positivist directions. I think that FAPP particles are detected, and that this holds for the Higgs particle as well.

Marcoen

"If we allow a substance to "be" a property, then it can get weird"

Indeed, but that depends on the 'property'. I certainly would not be advocating spatial position as being included in this. It is just a thought. I do not know. What I do know is that when we refer to any reality, what we really are considering is a specific physically existent state of something (which involves a number thereof, and a range of types of something), which is one of a sequence (if we could differentiate it-but that is a practical problem). How this works in practice, in terms of 'substance' 'property' and cause of change, needs to be identified. I just think that in trying to do that with a 'particle' mind-set might miss the point/misinterpret what information is gained. Whereas focussing on physically existent state, which is what is manifest, is more likely to lead to the discovery of what is ultimately 'there' (ie substance) and therefore how it exists and what causes change, indeed, what changes.

No, we can prove it. Hypothesis, so long as it is effectively virtual sensing, ie not belief, is acceptable. Indeed, even in many cases where something was sensed directly, valid adjustments have to be made in order to compensate for known physical influences in order to extrapolate what really occurred (albeit at a higher level than what actually occurred). My point was to be wary of any assertion about ultimate physically existent states which is based on supposed actual observation/measurement, because there is no way in which we can differentiate reality, for real, to the level at which it occurs. Which if not understood from the outset, leaves substantial opportunity for flawed presumptions to be proven in a self-fulfilling cycle.

Paul

Lawrence

"A theory may be falsified, never it is proven"

Leaving aside the semantics that a theory is proven, and it is hypothesis that has yet to be so judged. This statement depends on the reference 'to all possibilities', when it is a statement of the obvious. However, that is irrelevant, because physical existence does not encompass all possibilities, it is all that is potentially knowable to us, which is determined by a physical process. So there is a closed system, ie one possibility. The relationship between this and what 'really' occurs is unknowable. And science investigates the knowable, not beliefs. It may be extremely complex and vast, ie possibly impossible to ever know all of it accurately and comprehensively, but that is now revealed as a practical, not metaphysical, issue, which is important.

So this statement then takes on a new, and useable, meaning. That is, something can be proven, because there is a valid limit. The point is that the attainment of that will only be known by default. We are compiling knowledge. As at any time, assuming valid presumptions and due process, then a proven theory is really 'the best approximation given knowledge available at this time'. For somewhat obvious reasons we do not bother to explicitly state this caveat. However, given the limit, after sufficient time and investigation, if nothing arises to the contrary, then we can deem that theory to be the 'equivalent of physical existence'. We can never somehow 'directly access' physical existence, we can only have knowledge thereof, and a limited form at that.

Leaving aside definitions as to what constitutes 'observation', and the validity of the argument in the particular case, the big point in this essay is that it is 'properties of' which are manifest, and therefore detectable, which implies substance (eg particle) of some form(s). That is, when considering physical existence, it is the physically existent state of whatever that is being investigated directly. Detection can involve direct sensing, purely conceptualisation (virtual sensing), or a combination. It makes no difference if (big if) the start point is valid and the proper rules are adhered to. My point was that there is no way in which what ultimately constitutes a discrete state of these 'properties' can be differentiated experimentally, the vanishingly small duration and degree of alteration involved precludes this. But I would take issue with Marcoen's assertion about observation in the general sense, because assuming we do not take the word literally, then inference from validated direct observation, ie virtual observation, is valid. The real issue then is what was the start point and the model of physical existence into which any given result was plugged.

Paul

I still think the lack of realism of their arguments. The Higgs boson, yes, that has been observed indirectly by the results of the decays, which you yourself acknowledge. Therefore it is an observation indirectly confirms that besides all the qualities of Higgs boson predicted in a theoretical, zero spin, etc.

Nor, so far, gravitational waves have been observed, but, who have observed the consequences of the existence of the same: binary systems with very high rotational speeds, neutron stars, pulsars. All these systems involve a loss of nergy, which calculated; fully coincide with the equations of Einstein's general relativity.

Furthermore, the existence of the Higgs boson, involving, for example the two following results:

For results that follow from my research (essay this year, and other items): sixty particles are "essential".

1)

[math]\frac{m_{h}}{m_{e}}=246924

[/math]

[math]\exp(60/\ln(m_{h}/m_{e}))-(\Omega_{\Lambda}+\Omega_{b})^{-1}-[(8^{2}+1^{2}+\Omega_{b})\pi^{2}]^{-1}=\ln(O(gM))

[/math]

Where:

[math]\Omega_{\Lambda}=\ln2\:;\:\Omega_{b}=240-\exp(5+\Omega_{\Lambda}^{2})

[/math]

And:

[math]\ln(O(gM))

[/math]

Is the logarithm of the order of the group M, or monster group

2) One of the particles responsible for dark matter (possibly there are three), the less massive:

[math]\sqrt{240-\ln^{2}(m_{h}/m_{e})}+2\Omega_{c}=\ln(m_{D1}/m_{e})

[/math]

[math]\ln(m_{D1}/m_{e})\rightarrow9.11GeV

[/math]

Regards.