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

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.

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.

Marcoen

You may or may not have noticed from other exchanges that I do not agree with the underlying presumptions of QM, because they contradict the logic of physical existence as knowable to us. Which had that been understood properly in the first place, rather than the misunderstanding which has lead to it being characterised as 'classical'/'old hat philosophy', it would have been realised that this addresses the 'bottom line' of existence, ie what QM attempts to do. But on the correct basis, whereas QM in differentiating itself from the 'old world order' invokes a false presumption about physical existence.

However....and as per your last sentence, this does not detract from the fact that things are being discovered. It is really a matter of understanding how such fit together in accord with physical existence.

What I am concerned about is that you are confusing fundamentally different lines of argument, ie:

-invalid because there is a fault in the presumptions, due process, etc

-'invalid' because it is not completely proven yet

-'invalid' because of the inaccuracy of the English language

Now, the Higgs boson is surely, according to the theory, a "property of a microsystem". And when people say they have "observed" it, I doubt if they really meant that literally. And every statement always, theoretically, carries a vanishingly small probability that it could encompass a fault, even after millions of years of proven validity. But all this is semantics/splitting hairs. The real issue revolves around is what is being identified really what it is being identified as, in other words is the model flawed but self-fulfilling, or does it really correspond to physical existence.

Paul

Marcoen

"Could you explain what you mean by "there is no way in which we can differentiate reality to the level at which it occurs".

The physical existence knowable to us (science is concerned with know, not belief, and know is the function of a physical process, not philosophy) involves physical occurrence and difference (ie there is alteration). Therefore physical existence is existential sequence, as that is the only way to encompass both. That is, there is a sequence of definitive, discrete physically existent states, which means only one (ie a reality) occurs at a time.

We know this because we know things change. But that is where our conception of what is happening goes wrong. We conceive of physical existence in terms of 'things', which then change in some way or other, but that is incorrect. Because we are conceptualising physical existence by virtue of superficial physical attributes, ie at a higher level than what occurs. Following the logic of existence/difference what ultimately occurs at any time is the physically existent state of something. This involves a vanishingly small duration and degree of alteration, which is only calculatable mathematically. Although I am never keen on making such assertions, there really can be no doubt that we cannot actually (ie in experimentation, etc, differentiate this). Or at least anybody who says they have needs to be treated with a substantial degree of scepticism. [Incidentally I do not think this is Planck either, because that is associated with light, remember we receive a light representation of what is actually occurring]. Put simply, chair, dog, etc are not entities which persist in existence in the same format, or with change, which is a contradiction. The superficial physical attributes by which we identify it persist. Chair, etc, is a singular physically existent state a any given time.

Now, if you have followed that you are probably thinking that this covers the ground of QM. Which of course it does, and properly, because there is only one form of physical existence, and existence does not involve any form of indefiniteness, which is what QM presumes. Just precisely how something can exist, but in an indefinite way, needs to be explained! And of course one of the rationalisations of this contradiction is then the role of observation, the problem with that being that what occurred happened before it was observed! The point here is that the logical outcome of physical existence has been misconceived, so it has become tainted as 'classical'/two-dimensional, and overtaken by the 'relative/indefinite' model, which is incorrect. That is, had the former been understood properly, then the latter would never have gained traction. But either way, the 'bottom line' of physical existence is not actually identifiable for real, only conceptually, which is acceptable so long as that is based on a valid model of physical existence.

Paul