The Slippery Higgs Boson and Statists

Statist researchers, who have sucked down billions of tax dollars in research funding, have recently declared that they found the notorious “Higgs Boson” that supposedly proves the standard model of physics.

Or did they?

From the NYT:

…He and others said that it was too soon to know for sure, however, whether the new particle is the one predicted by the Standard Model…

So far, the physicists admit, they know little about their new boson. The CERN results are mostly based on measurements of two or three of the dozen different ways, or “channels,” by which a Higgs boson could be produced and then decay.

There are hints, but only hints so far, that some of the channels are overproducing the boson while others might be underproducing it, clues that maybe there is more at work here than the Standard Model would predict.

From Reuters:

What scientists do not yet know from the latest findings is whether the particle they have discovered is the Higgs boson as exactly described by the Standard Model. It could be a variant of the Higgs idea or an entirely new subatomic particle that could force a rethink on the fundamental structure of matter.

The AP tells us a little more about what they are actually seeing in the data:

Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, say that they have compiled vast amounts of data that show the footprint and shadow of the particle, even though it has never actually been glimpsed…”You see the footprints and the shadow of the object, but you don’t actually see it.”

Why all the hedging of bets if they have a “5 sigma signal” (99.9767% probability)?  The articles throw in some tidbits of truth along with a mountain of propaganda.  The truth is quite simple – the physicists have no idea what they are looking at.  Contrary to the propaganda, the results show deviations that are not consistent with the standard model’s theory of how the Higgs should behave.

Stephen Smith provides us a more detailed overview of the standard model:

In 1964, Peter Higgs speculated that space is permeated by a “field,” similar to an electromagnetic field. When particles travel through space, they encounter this field, acquiring “mass.” The concept can be illustrated by particles moving through a viscous fluid: the greater interaction of particles with the field, the greater their mass. The existence of the Higgs field is an essential component of his hypothesis.

As previously mentioned, quantum theory requires that fields be associated with carrier particles, so the expectation is that there must be a particle carrying the Higgs field: the Higgs boson. For the last few years, LHC’s focus has been to “find” the Higgs boson and determine if this mass origin hypothesis is correct.

The Higgs is the standard model’s answer to the aether concept.  The aether concept is, like the Higgs, a field which gives particles their form.  Simple logic declares that such a field must exist.  Think of the aether like an ocean.  In order to have a wave, you must have a medium for the wave to pass through, and you must have a medium which gives the wave its form.  A sound wave cannot form or travel without air, and likewise, logic dictates that light cannot act as a wave unless it has a medium for the light wave to propagate through.  Presently physicists reject this notion that light requires a medium of propagation.

The aether concept throws up a lot of roadblocks to the religion of the standard model.  For starters, an aether precludes a “dixitque Deus fiat lux et facta est lux” (“And said God let there be light, and there was light”) Big Bang type of universe creation.   An aether would demand all physics be conducted using closed form classical physics, which would also preclude such things as black holes and dark matter.

From a CERN press release:

All the matter that we can see, however, appears to be no more than about 4% of the total. A more exotic version of the Higgs particle could be a bridge to understanding the 96% of the universe that remains obscure.

You see, because the standard model does not explain the universe accurately, physicists are forced to dream up novel forms of matter and energy in order to make the standard model fit with what they observe in the lab and out in space.  If dark matter does not exist, then the standard model is off in its predictions by an astounding amount.  Dark matter is not something that the standard model predicted would be there from the start.  Dark matter simply something physicists dreamed up, ex post facto, to make their equations balance.  Without it, the entire model collapses on its face.  Physicists simply assume that dark matter must exist, because assuming otherwise means the entire standard model is a colossal failure.

While most physicists think that the aether concept has been completely debunked, they could not be more wrong.  While it is true that a litany of experiments have demonstrated results which disprove the aether, those results are interpreted with some faulty assumptions.

For example, in the Michelson-Morely experiment, physicists interpreted the null result to mean that the aether doesn’t exist.  But what they failed to consider is that the interferometer really undergoes a contraction in the direction of motion.  Physicist Gabriel LaFreniere explains how the results could have been misinterpreted here, if one assumes that the interferometer itself were distorted by the movement through the aether.

So back to the main point of the article.  The statist researchers know that money is getting tighter and tighter, so they need big propaganda coups to keep the cash hose pointed their way.  They have repeatedly wasted hundreds of millions of dollars trying to prove their phony theories, and they are realizing that when the budget squeeze comes, they will be first on the chopping block if they don’t come up with some major propaganda.

A few points of note:

• The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying, nor has the much more sensitive Xenon 100 experiment.  This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

• A recent study of Quasars shows them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Article on the subject here.

• The cepheid mass discrepancy problem has no solution in the standard model of stars. Recent findings by the ESO confirm that the standard model of stellar evolution is wrong.

• Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team highlights problems created by the effects of “contact potential difference” induced error on the gyros.  The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all.

comment on the findings by an astrophysicist:

Of the 4 gyroscopes (centering on the frame-dragging effect) 3 of them (#1,#2, and #3) show errors that admit values compatible with predictions closer to 0 mas/yr than to the -39 mas/yr prediction. One of them (#2) is compatible with a null result. Gyroscope #4 is compatible with -60.6 mas/yr . And these are the numbers achieved after more than 5 years of fitting the raw results to something tolerable.

A 2008 NASA review of the GPB project gave it a failing grade and made the point that:

“the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity ‘is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) scepticism in the scientific community’.”

The geodetic effect can be explained within a steady state Lorentz relativity.  The failure of the experiment to definitively confirm the Lense-Thirring effect calls General Relativity into question.

In short, don’t believe anything a statist scientist tells you.  Like any good fraudster, they are simply spinning great yarns in order to pick your pocket book.  Fundamental breakthroughs in science lead to fundamentally life altering improvements in technological advancement.  Don’t hold your breath waiting for these physicists to bring some kind of improvement to your life with this discovery.   Since it’s nothing more than a sham, nothing functional will result from it.

 

For the flamers:

Libertarianism, Disagreeing With The Mainstream and Self-Worth

  • Your mom

    The ignorance here is astounding.

  • Jesus Christ

    Idiocy. Only you could find a conspiracy in a scientific discovery.

  • Holy fuck, you are a quack.

  • Informed.

    If you’re stupid enough to believe this drivel, then you’re a lost lost soul.

  • sam-micheal

    this is one of the most brilliant and on-target articles i’ve ever read .. these ‘discoveries’ are propaganda aimed at creating the next-generation of resource-wasting machines.. ^^ when will we ever learn physicists are the new Priests of Mysteries and those who regurgitate their bile are nothing more than internet-thugs volunteering/hired to harass the rest of us into submissive silence.. sorry, the lost are conventional physicists and those that believe them..

    • former libertarian

      Not sure if trolling or libertarded……

  • Whatisthis

    Yes, because there is so much money in science, /s.

  • Bubba

    Get off of the statist internet then. The protocols you’re using to post this drivel were also developed at CERN.

    • Jake

      Stop taking many life-saving medications, stop using the Internet, stop living most of modern life – you’ll find it was produced by evil liberal “statists”!

      OMG this article is so ridiculous it’s hilarious!

  • Jaker

    Stupid libertarian. “Statist researches” – OMG. You really are a retard. Funny how “statist” research somehow manages to be the best.

  • LOL-LIBTARDS

    Holy shit this is retarded. Libertarians REALLY are conspiracy theorists.

  • Kris

    “What scientists do not yet know from the latest findings is whether the
    particle they have discovered is the Higgs boson as exactly described by
    the Standard Model”

    This is because the Higgs was predicted mathematically. What actually exists may differ in many ways from what is described in the model. Fortunately, we can fix those discrepancies by observing the actual particle and updating our models accordingly.

    ” Why all the hedging of bets if they have a “5 sigma signal” (99.9767% probability)? ”

    Because scientists are always ready to accept that they were wrong, you twit.

    “You see, because the standard model does not explain the universe accurately, physicists are forced to dream up novel forms of matter and energy in order to make the standard model fit with what they observe in the lab and out in space”

    Yes. Scientists have to amend their model in order to fit with what they observe, When your model predicts incorrectly, you *change the fucking model*

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      And how many times have physicists “changed their fucking models” to meet observation? Hundreds? Perhaps thousands?

      The proof of a theory’s validity comes from its predictive powers. If a theory fails to accurately predict, then obviously it is wrong. If a theory fails to predict over and over again, most likely the fundamental assumptions that the theory is predicated on are also wrong.

      You gloss over the fact that the articles I link to say quite clearly that the observations are not matching expected behavior, and that the observations could very well be something entirely separate from the Higgs. (ie. they don’t know what they are looking at yet).

      • dagger-x

        Haha you’re so stupid lol

      • J

        You realize changing models in physics is the equivalent of changing lines of code in a program to get rid of bugs, right? The models can change all they want, the fundamentals always remain the same.

        You also seem to not know what a theory is. If a theory is consistently proven untrue and cannot accurately predict any real outcome, it’s not a theory. At all. A scientific theory is very different from the general definition of a theory.

        And glossing over your articles is a given since that’s exactly how the scientific process works. They observed some unexpected things so they will reserve final judgements until the tests are repeated over and over to eliminate false positives and extraneous factors. By using it as some sort of proof, you’re literally doing it wrong.

    • Matthew Alexander

      “This is because the Higgs was predicted mathematically. What actually exists may differ in many ways from what is described in the model. Fortunately, we can fix those discrepancies by observing the actual particle and updating our models accordingly.”

      And thus died falsifiability.

  • jason404

    Piss off to Mogadishu then, you ridiculous moron.

  • point

    yes….because the apollo program was just fraudsters picking our pockets…. idiot.

  • Rasta Rakista

    Get off my fucking internet you queeosexual ron cunt.

  • dB

    By all the gods, this must be the dumbest article I’ve seen this year. Don’t write about shit you know nothing about should be a law for any journalist (or idiot that likes to think of himself as a journalist)

  • Jim

    I find it hilarious that you’re bashing scientific research on the internet, which was created through governmental research. Very very poorly I might add. You really should have held tight through high school physics. You might have learned something.

    • Meee

      That is a strawman argument. Using government services does not take away your right to advocate for abolishing the services. I can easily argue that the scientific research he cited would have been funded by physics-loving private sources.

  • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

    From the amount of ad homs in the comments, it looks like I pissed off some religious fanatics.

    I’m sorry I called your religion a sham. Well… not really, I’m just saying that because I know it will infuriate you more. I need to work on loving people who hate me more.

    • ucstruct

      You need to work on learning things more. Its nice you think that you can refute hundreds of equations and decades of work with a severely flawed one page blog post but the real world doesn’t work that way. You’re getting pushback because nothing you wrote made any sense.

      • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

        See the link that cites all the problems with the standard theory?

        You are saying that I don’t make any sense, yet you believe in a theory that claims more than 95% of the matter and energy in the universe is invisible and undetectable. – To me, that makes absolutely no sense.

        I’ve actually done my homework:
        http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/08/einstein-was-wrong-2/

        have you?

        • Ladam

          Personal incredulity fallacy.

        • Jane

          You have clearly not done your homework. As someone working on their phd in physics, the idea that you’ve “done your homework” is outrageous. This article, and your subsequent comments are so COMPLETELY ridiculous that I’m having trouble even figuring out where to start with my comment. Yes to someone like you, the idea of dark matter will be confusing, but I hope you trust in the extremely intelligent and educated physicists who have developed this theory. Saying dark matter is “invisible and undetectable” is seriously showing how little you know about science —yes, right now we do not have the knowledge or technology to detect it, but we used to not be able to detect many things, such as background radiation, areas beyond the visible sky, and even things like cancer cells within humans. But as knowledge and research progressed, science found a way TO detect it. Do you understand? There are many scientists who are very good at explaining the idea of dark matter to non-scientists, which I’m sorry to say you clearly are. Might I recommend reading some of Brian Greene’s books, or even reading the wikipedia page on Dark Matter, and particularly where the theory originated? I think it will explain things adequately, and maybe you will learn something.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            “but I hope you trust in the extremely intelligent and educated physicists who have developed this theory. ”

            Sorry, I don’t. They are not constrained by market forces. There is no reason to believe them over other highly accredited, very intelligent individuals. There is no benefit to humanity that will be realized by their pronouncements. People will not live longer. People will not live better. People will not be more comfortable after spending billions on this problem.

            “yes, right now we do not have the knowledge or technology to detect it,”

            Nice of you to acknowledge this. But then you go on to say:

            “Saying dark matter is “invisible and undetectable” is seriously showing how little you know about science”

            Actually, it shows how little you know. The CDMS project and the Xenon experiment have returned nothing. Simply pointing out at the stars and saying “GR cannot account for rotational velocities based on observed mass; therefore, dark matter must exist” is not proof of anything other than the fact that GR is a miserable failure.

          • sjastro

            “Actually, it shows how little you know. The CDMS project and the Xenon experiment have returned nothing. Simply pointing out at the stars and saying “GR cannot account for rotational velocities based on observed mass; therefore, dark matter must exist” is not proof of anything other than the fact that GR is a miserable failure. ”

            What profound ignorance.
            The rotational velocities are not even modelled on GR. The most common model is based on Keplers laws. The missing dark matter is calculated using the Virial theorem which is an extension of Newtonian physics.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            Ok.

            Then go change this wiki article and cite your sources:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

            “Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.[2]
            Dark matter came to the attention of astrophysicists due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects, and mass calculated from the “luminous matter” they contain; such as stars, gas and dust. It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in theMilky Way and Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of “missing mass” in the orbital velocities of galaxies inclusters. “

          • sjastro

            I suggest you go back and read the Wiki article more carefully or better still click on the Galaxy rotation curve link in the article.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curves

            You’ll find the mainstream theory is based around Kepler’s laws and Newtonian mechanics not GR. GR is a very difficult theory to work with for 2 body problems or greater.

            In fact GR is used to theorize rotation curves of stars in galaxies but is NON MAINSTREAM. The model attempts to use GR, (like MOND) to explain the rotation curves without the need of dark matter.

            This is in complete contrast with your “GR cannot account for rotational velocities based on observed mass; therefore, dark matter must exist”.

    • Michael Suave

      You didn’t call anyone’s religion a sham, you just made yourself look like you were about to go attack some windmills. I can’t even begin to explain how wrong you are in the article (calling this an article is laughable in it’s own right), there are too many known fact s you got wrong, I’ll just ask you where you heard that finding the Higgs supposedly proves the standard model of physics, because it certainly wasn’t from a physicist. Go get those windmills Don!

      • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

        “there are too many known fact s you got wrong”

        OK.

        Point them out to me.

        • Same as above

          Ta da..

          The second paragraph:

          The truth is quite simple – the physicists have no idea what they are looking at.

          This is ridiculously wrong by any measure. For one thing, they
          definitely know they have a new particle. That’s what the whole “5
          sigma” business is all about. 5 sigma means that there is a 99.99994
          percent chance that what looks to be a new particle in the data is
          actually a new particle and not an aberration in the background noise.

          So you have a new particle. Is it the Higgs? Well they found it
          using data analysis techniques designed to search for the Higgs, so
          probably yes, or something near enough to keep calling it the Higgs.
          The question that does remain is how closely the new particle fit
          predictions for the Standard Model Higgs. More data and analysis will
          be needed to say for sure.

          The Higgs is the standard model’s answer to the aether concept.

          No, no it’s not. The Higgs is the Standard model’s answer to where
          mass comes from. Without the Higgs, the Standard Model does not have an
          explanation for why some particles have mass and some don’t.

          A sound wave cannot form or travel without air, and likewise, logic dictates that light cannot act as a wave unless it has a medium for the light wave to propagate through.

          This is so wrong it is almost offensive to read when presented so brazenly. Maxwell’s equations and Einstein’s relativity have long demonstrated that light definitely does not require a medium to propagate. Light is it’s own medium. Light is not a wave, light is a particle and
          a wave so it does you no good to make conclusions about the properties
          of light by comparing it to sound waves. Instead you need to compare it
          to something else with particle and wave properties.

          The rest of it is just ranting and gibberish and misinterpreting
          someone else’s research. Researchers, by the way, who are no doubt
          excited for the Higgs discovery. Interesting how one can pick and
          choose which “statist scientists” one is going to believe.

          The author can wail and gnash over the morality of tax dollars being
          spent on research all he wants, but when he actually writes about the
          science he makes an absolute ass out of himself.

          …logic dictates that light cannot act as a wave unless it has a medium for the light wave to propagate through

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            You didn’t do what I asked you to do. And further, you didn’t prove to me that they know what they are looking at. As the article I cite clearly says, it could be something entirely other than the Higgs.

  • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

    Due to the incredible amount of ad homs this article has received, I’ll be happy to change any portion of this article if someone provides me with evidence that refutes my assertions. The format should be as follows:
    You said this “…”
    Which is wrong because this paper/article says this “…”

    • Q

      It’s really more of a case of you not knowing how the scientific process works so you’re using a record amount of confirmation bias to say you’re right even though you’ve got a few hundred people calling you out in every way possible.

      To put it into terms you will easily understand: you’re asking for an extra-terrestrial corpse when we’re only slowly finding out that there might just be life on Mars but saying everyone is wrong because we can’t give you a corpse of a little grey man.

  • Ivan

    Reddit took apart your terrible article, just deal with it:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/w31y3/the_slippery_higgs_boson_and_statists/

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jesse-Melat/1331583316 Jesse Melat

    Wow….this guy probably shouldn’t talk on the internet anymore. Ever.

  • Hannah

    You seriously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

  • everyone.

    this is really bad. I can only hope your readers are intelligent enough to entirely dismiss it and move onto another article.

  • Pingback: The Church of the Higgs Boson: Hallelujah He is Risen! | unlearning the problem()

  • http://www.facebook.com/juliarp Julia Riber Pitt

    This article is so bad, I can’t help but laugh.

  • herro

    You said this ”
    If dark matter does not exist, then the standard model is off in its predictions by an astounding amount. ”

    Which is wrong because our understanding of gravity could be the culprit.

  • Matthew Alexander

    Lots of scared, angry statists had their religious convictions challenged. Apparently, they didn’t take too kindly to it, as evidenced by the vitriol in the comments section.