It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have CERN got it wrong?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wifibrains
Ok, I'm no scientist. And have no clue how this LHC works. Scientist smash particles together at the speed of light, yippy. Some how this gives them the awnser to the universe? Nope.


Okay, so since you do not actually know anything about the LHC or particle physics / quantum physics, as stated above, can you really say "Nope." or even question their findings? Nope.

The Higgs Boson is not the "awnser to the universe" it is another stepping stone, another discovery. I dont remember reading claims that anyone has figured out the "theory of everything" and all the universes questions have been answered.




posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wire.
 


Photons do not have mass. There are theorized Dark Particles, and a Dark Photon would theoretically have Mass. There are experiments being done at CERN which to date have yielded null results date. If they do find Dark Photons normal photons would still not ever have mass.


As I have recently posted to O.C....look at the Free Electron Laser is capable of....this will provide you a line of logic to which to explore as far as Photons having a Micro-Mass. Split Infinity



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by wire.

Originally posted by yampa
I think CERN have it wrong, I don't think the reading they are getting at 125 GeV is a particle which behaves like Quantum Field Theory theorises.

I'm not really going to try and back this assertion up, because no one would pay any attention, but I will use this quote to show how groundless the theory behind the Higgs boson is in my eyes:

"For a start, theory suggests the particle's own mass (which it gets by interacting with itself) should be huge"

That's right, current theory says the Higgs boson gets its own mass from itself. Circular reasoning?
edit on 7-7-2012 by yampa because: (no reason given)


Well actually the Higgs field sets the energy scale at which particles acquire their masses. The Higgs boson, being a quanta of this field, naturally also has a mass (energy) scale.
edit on 7-7-2012 by wire. because: (no reason given)


So fundamental quanta of the universe get their properties from an energy scale that only exists in a physicists equations? What a brilliant theory. Giving something a scale does not give it physical properties.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


So what is your theory?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa
 


So what is your theory?


My theory is that the universe is made from cheesecake. But the recipe requires an advanced understanding of matrix math and Lie algebra, thus this reply box is too small to contain an answer.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


That's what I thought, nothing worthwhile to contribute.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by yampa
 


That's what I thought, nothing worthwhile to contribute.


Your predictive accuracy is truly impressive, have a slice of cheesecake to reward yourself.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

So fundamental quanta of the universe get their properties from an energy scale that only exists in a physicists equations? What a brilliant theory. Giving something a scale does not give it physical properties.


Actually, it doesn't only exist in the equations. You may have missed the news, but observation of the Higgs boson was recently announced at the LHC.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by yampa

My theory is that the universe is made from cheesecake. But the recipe requires an advanced understanding of matrix math and Lie algebra, thus this reply box is too small to contain an answer.


Would you only accept physics that can be written with high school algebra, or something?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by wire.

Originally posted by yampa
So fundamental quanta of the universe get their properties from an energy scale that only exists in a physicists equations? What a brilliant theory. Giving something a scale does not give it physical properties.

Actually, it doesn't only exist in the equations. You may have missed the news, but observation of the Higgs boson was recently announced at the LHC.

I've already said I don't believe whatever has been found will eventually turn out to be the Higgs boson, because I don't agree with the theory behind it. I'm not doubting they have found a stable particle at 125 GeV, but you should remember that you are stating as fact something you have no data on yet. So far, you have a press release, that's it. To quote from the Guardian:
www.guardian.co.uk...

The results presented today are labelled preliminary, the statement adds.

They are based on data collected in 2011 and 2012, with the 2012 data still under analysis. Publication of the analyses shown today is expected around the end of July. A more complete picture of today's observations will emerge later this year after the LHC provides the experiments with more data.

You didn't address my point, either. I said the idea that the Higgs boson could give mass to itself is circular. Then you said because the Higgs boson belongs to Higgs field theory, then it has an energy scale. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'scale' but afaik a scale is something that humans make up to measure or chart something. How can a scale give physical properties to anything?

How does the Higgs boson give mass to itself by interacting with itself? Do you not see that is circular? Moreover, how does a massive particle give properties to a less massive particle? Since when did elemental physics work on a reverse hierarchy?


Originally posted by wire.

Originally posted by yampa

My theory is that the universe is made from cheesecake. But the recipe requires an advanced understanding of matrix math and Lie algebra, thus this reply box is too small to contain an answer.


Would you only accept physics that can be written with high school algebra, or something?

If you could have a go at least, that would be just swell!

Cheescake for you too if you can come up with a visualisable mechanical postulate about how to build a Higgs boson:



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


A layman "not agreeing" with the current findings and theories of particle physics is all rather presumptuous and... well, a bit silly, really.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa
 


A layman "not agreeing" with the current findings and theories of particle physics is all rather presumptuous and... well, a bit silly, really.


Aw, thanks for your input! I am glad to see that dissent, freedom of thought and adversarial science is alive and kicking!

If the idea of a layman having the audacity to express doubts about current theory offends you, how about Stephen Wolfram's opinion on the current discovery (the one you have yet to see a published analysis of).

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Writing on his blog, he explained: 'At some level I’m actually a little disappointed. I’ve made no secret - even to Peter Higgs - that I’ve never especially liked the Higgs mechanism. It’s always seemed like a hack.
'And I’ve always hoped that in the end there’d be something more elegant and deep responsible for something as fundamental as the masses of particles. But it appears that nature is just picking what seems like a pedestrian solution to the problem: the Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model.'



'And it’s then assumed that all types of particles continually interact with this background field - in such a way as to act so that they have a mass. But what mass? Well, that’s determined by how strongly a particle interacts with the background field.
'And that in turn is determined by a parameter that one inserts into the model. So to get the observed masses of the particles, one’s just inserting one parameter for each particle, and then arranging it to give the mass of the particle.
That might seem contrived. But at some level it’s OK. It would have been nice if the theory had predicted the masses of the particles. But given that it does not, inserting their values as interaction strengths seems as reasonable as anything.
'Still, there’s another problem. To get the observed particle masses, the background Higgs field that exists throughout the universe has to have an incredibly high density of energy and mass. Which one might expect would have a huge gravitational effect - in fact, enough of an effect to cause the universe to roll up into a tiny ball.
'Well, to avoid this, one has to assume that there’s a parameter (a "cosmological constant") built right into the fundamental equations of gravity that cancels to incredibly high precision the effects of the energy and mass density associated with the background Higgs field.
And if this doesn’t seem implausible enough, back around 1980 I was involved in noticing something else: this delicate cancellation can’t survive at the high temperatures of the very early Big Bang universe.
'And the result is that there has to be a glitch in the expansion of the universe. My calculations said this glitch would not be terribly big - but stretching the theory somewhat led to the possibility of a huge glitch, and in fact an early version of the whole inflationary universe scenario.


So, although it looks like Wolfram has conceded to the Standard Model picture, he certainly recognises that the current theory is a bit of a hack. I'd take that further and say it is a lot of a hack. But I don't expect anyone to listen to some dude blabbing on a conspiracy forum. So, enjoy your enlightenment!



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


So you're taking Wolfram's comments "further"? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to inform all of the scientists at CERN of your latest, cutting edge research?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Cheesecake for you too if you can come up with a visualisable mechanical postulate about how to build a Higgs boson:
Scince you said Visualisable, I'd like you have a go at that using my theory if I may.

Remember the one, orbit, helix, triple helix ect devouring itselfe like the ancient symbol of the snake consuming it's own tail.
flic.kr...
Like the hungry caterpillar it consumes and consumes, getting fatter and fatter. The boson is created as the hole in the centre of the ring is closed, thus the outer most orbit has to resist against itself. Then it interacts with its self.

edit on 8-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by yampa
 


So you're taking Wolfram's comments "further"? Perhaps you'd be so kind as to inform all of the scientists at CERN of your latest, cutting edge research?


You just get a block of very smelly, rancid cheese for being intellectually dull.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by yampa
I've already said I don't believe whatever has been found will eventually turn out to be the Higgs boson, because I don't agree with the theory behind it.


You don't understand the theory behind it! Or perhaps you'd like to prove me wrong by discussing spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism? Maybe throw in a little discussion about how this effect shows up in superconductivity? And then mathematically detail its inclusion into the Standard Model and point out exactly where it goes wrong?

Or, you know, keep talking about cheesecake, whatever.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by yampa
 


Of course I'm just guessing with the mind. Numbers will be no use with this idea, as the orbits and speed can be infinite possibilities, all depends on time. Something to do with phi, but outward not inward perhaps. When the orbits interact, the numbers will scramble.or maybe squared momentarily as at sme point it has to go staight up or down[edit by]edit on 8-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2012 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 

You can tack all the numbers you want onto something and substantiate it with millions of facts but it doesn't make a difference if what you are trying to prove is not pertinent to the subject. If you take things apart and try to prove each part individually sometimes it adds up to a conclusion far from the truth. I'm not going to say they are right or wrong, my statement is whether their research has any bearing or reliability when compared against the big picture they are trying to decipher.

CERN could have everything wrong. A mechanics can replace many parts of a car and not solve the problem because they were looking in the wrong direction. This same thing can apply to those high in science, they are not immune to deception created by their own knowledge and teachings. I cannot say that the OP's concern is wrong because I have not investigated the direction of the research of CERN. Even if I did and found problems nobody would listen to me because of my lack of credentials.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Moduli
 


Is that knowledge of the theory "spontaneous symmetry breaking and the Nambu-Goldstone mechanism" necessary for my existance here on earth. I consider a farmers knowledge worth a lot more myself.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Wheres my cheese cake?



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
4
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join