James,

It is true that assumptions are unproven. But we must distinguish between assumptions and conclusions.

The claim that the Higgs boson has been observed is a conclusion, not an assumption. Big difference.

Best regards,

Marcoen

Hello Marсoen,

Great actual «An Essay Concerning Human Misunderstanding ...» Reserch in the spirit of Descartes: «subjects all doubt». Gregory Gutner in the article "The ontology of mathematical discourse" said: "The event, which consists in grasping the structure, means understanding." Obviously, we must "grab" a structure to understand the foundation of the world.

Poet Alexander Vvedenisky said in 1930:

"Не разглядеть нам мир подробно,

Ничтожно все и дробно,

Печаль меня от этого всего берет».

Of course, physicists can break up the matter further, but when will we see the world as a whole?

Best regards,

Vladimir

    The machine malfunctioned...

    "Не разглядеть нам мир подробно,

    Ничтожно все и дробно,

    Печаль меня от этого всего берет».

    Hi Marcoen,

    I am shocked with your short article!

    We will change our impressions/opinions later. (I am very hope)

    Now I am going to rate your work as a ,,Shocking,, !!!

    George

      Dear Vladimir,

      Spasibo bol'shoe - Many thanks for your kind words and for the interesting poem of Vvedenisky.

      By observation we see only aspects of the physical world. So if we want a clear and distinct idea of the physical world as a whole we need another source of knowledge. A discussion about that is included in my PhD thesis.

      Best regards,

      Marcoen

      Dear Marcoen,

      I have read your blog almost complete than I have read any blog in this contest. And I have download of your essay to read. I must say you seem to have sound logical ground, than I expected. But first I'll read your essay.

      It happens that I have a view of the "Higgs phenomenon" that you may want to see in What a Wavefunction is and I will most appreciate your critical comment.

      Rate me if you like or don't, but I will be back here to rate you highly. For your audacity and for your clarity of thought in handling the objections. But do spare me a little of your precious time.

      Regards,

      Chidi

        Hello Chidi,

        Thanks for the kind words.

        I have scheduled some time this week to read other essays. I will then also read and rate yours.

        Best regards,

        Marcoen

        Hi Marcoen,

        I simply loved your closing statement, "...the bottom line here is that the recent claim that the Higgs boson has already been observed is untenable." I have also come to the same conclusion as expressed in my peer-reviewed paper: Assumed Higgs Boson Discovery Proved Einstein Right

        Anyway, I found your essay inspiring and most worthy of merit and I hope you make it to the finals.

        Best wishes,

        Manuel

          Manuel,

          Thanks for the kind words.

          If I can find the time I will have a look at your paper, but I cannot make any promises right now.

          Best regards,

          Marcoen

          Hello Marcoen

          Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech

          (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-lecture.html)

          said: "It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the relationship. And example of this is the Schrodinger equation and the Heisenberg formulation of quantum mechanics. I don't know why that is - it remains a mystery, but it was something I learned from experience. There is always another way to say the same thing that doesn't look at all like the way you said it before. I don't know what the reason for this is. I think it is somehow a representation of the simplicity of nature."

          I too believe in the simplicity of nature, and I am glad that Richard Feynman, a Nobel-winning famous physicist, also believe in the same thing I do, but I had come to my belief long before I knew about that particular statement.

          The belief that "Nature is simple" is however being expressed differently in my essay "Analogical Engine" linked to http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1865 .

          Specifically though, I said "Planck constant is the Mother of All Dualities" and I put it schematically as: wave-particle ~ quantum-classical ~ gene-protein ~ analogy- reasoning ~ linear-nonlinear ~ connected-notconnected ~ computable-notcomputable ~ mind-body ~ Bit-It ~ variation-selection ~ freedom-determinism ... and so on.

          Taken two at a time, it can be read as "what quantum is to classical" is similar to (~) "what wave is to particle." You can choose any two from among the multitudes that can be found in our discourses.

          I could have put Schrodinger wave ontology-Heisenberg particle ontology duality in the list had it comes to my mind!

          Since "Nature is Analogical", we are free to probe nature in so many different ways. And each of us surely must have touched some corners of it.

          Good luck and good cheers!

          Than Tin

            That Tin,

            Thanks for posting a comment.

            I just don't see how the comment pertains to my essay.

            Marcoen

            Dear Marcoen,

            I owe you one for insisting on proper "scientific method". Here, a scoring.

            All the best,

            Chidi

            Hi Marcoen,

            Based on a recommendation of a common friend, I have just read your intriguing and provocative Essay. I think that the issue that the CMS collaboration anonymously agrees with you (This is the message of your footnote 1) confirms that the way in which sometimes scientists release overstated claims (see also previous claims by the OPERA Collaboration on the neutrinos faster than light) is based on a sort of "politics of making science spectacular". This is not necessarily a wrong issue, as it permits to popularize science and, in turn, to have a better attention and more financial funds from governments. On the other hand, it is also a good think that scientists like you recall people to stay grounded. In any case, I had lots of fun in reading your Essay. Thus, I am going to give you an high score.

            Cheers,

            Ch.

              Christian,

              Thanks for the kind words and for rating my essay.

              As to the popularization of science: of course I'm not against publications intended to draw the attention of the general public to recent findings. But even these popular articles would have to be written without overstating the conclusions. Else you get the situation that scientists boast about the level of professionalization in their research institutes and distantiate themselves from amateurs, yet in their popular papers they descend to the level of the crackpot, who claims that unicorns exist because he has seen an imprint of a hoof in the woods. That would be hypocrisy.

              Best regards,

              Marcoen

              Dear Marcoen,

              I completely agree with your point of view.

              Cheers,

              Ch.

              Marcoen,

              It seems our conversation was in the window of what vanished. Did you happen to read my response to your observation of not knowing how to change the current situation in physics, if not, would you like me to restate it?

                John,

                I haven't had the chance to read your reply. I would be glad if you could repost it.

                Marcoen