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.
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.
A 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: