drewjmore

Translation: V-bird asserts that the Higgs boson predicted by the 'standard model' will never be confirmed. Further, due to our 'shutter speed,' neither will V-bird's hypothesis; it is a neat little unfalsifiable package. I've been cuffed for unkind words on these ideas in the past, so here I close.

Deltin9, in response to your intial postI've rifled through the IIDB archives and found this discussion of simultaneity written by the great & powerful Schneibster, whom many of us usually find to be the most clear and correct voice on physics.

V-Bird

The Higgs boson is an 'imaginary' particle it remains that way because despite exhaustive and truly terrifyingly expensive efforts.

First we have to find a particle that has mass and nothing else... that is a really rather bad start... We call this 'particle' that has only 'mass' a boson...

Now the theory jumps to this 'particle' [that has no other attributes except 'mass'] somehow gets into proximity of an electron [just how something so 'inert' does this is mind-boggling in itself, but let's be kind, let's pretend it is close to an electron] and this inert particle somehow 'interacts' with the electron giving it mass, quite 'how?' is just a conjuring trick with the maths.

We must remember that these particles must be there because the zero state field [Higgs field] needs them and there must be billions of them... yet not one has been found, nothing, ephemera of something maybe, but that is open to interpretation, my interpretation is that the ephemera are just the FTL hang-over as outlined in my own hypothesis.

Let me explain how it really works...

ALL c./sub-c. particles and their interactions are zero mass, however the forces that work upon them appear to give them mass by FTL action, the binding force that holds a nucleus together and imbues it with is done so by virtue of a large amount of the FTL energy passing below the 'light-barrier' around this cluster.

Now there are thousands of people who will say... Ahhh but we 'know' that the 'Top Quark' has a mass [maybe] 215,000x that of an electron... well actually that is entirely wrong, by forming a 'top quark' [ie proving it exists as a singular entity] we separate a structure that relies on FTL to keep it together, so we pump greater and greater amounts of energy to find this 'top-quark', that is fine and dandy, but in reality all we are doing is upping the energy and predicting that we will find even higher energy products, we don't need to do this at all, it is just cheese-paring. We will get higher and higher energy sub-particles [we can call them cutesy names, but frankly that is just to catch the publics imagination for continued funding] the more energetically we bombard things, and trust me on this the amount of FTL energy out there far exceeds anything we can muster so the MeV of these particles will go on increasing for ever and a day.

So, to answer Reddish, how about a really simple prediction, as we increase the energy of our Synchrotrons we will discover further particles with even greater MeVs' and until someone has the common sense to call a halt we can travel this wilderness road for the rest of time.

I believe that this year a newer even more powerful CS comes on stream and at present the search is for definitive 'top quark' indentifiers, my money is on there being some damned old fool on the box saying:-
'Yes we have found the Top Quark, and we are really excited, it's the fruition of 10*/20*/30*/40* years of work for me, but the most extraordinary thing is we have found evidence of further particles, we can't be sure, but that is really exciting and may lead to a whole new line of investigation'

* dependent on Media prompting for the max impact, old avuncular 'profs' are not as big a pull as perhaps a skate-boarding micro-genius fresh out of nappies...

Cynical... but so true it hurts typing it.

IanC

My mistake, I think I have figured my way around your explanations.

Back to something you did mention though, maths. Please post the maths you have.

Ian

epepke

Well, I'm guessing that there is no Higgs boson. That's because it seems more natural just to work in terms of energy/momentum in GR, and the Standard Model seems to me like a quasi-classical approximation anyway. I fully expect brane theory, or at least something that seems as weird as brane theory, to supplant it in time.

But the stuff that V-bird writes comes off as "deedle deedle queep" to me. I have my own weird ideas, too, but I don't talk about them, because I haven't figured out a way to make them make sense in language that other people can understand.