4 ms·

The 'Sharpest Picture Yet' of the Higgs Boson

46 points by snake117 11y ago

lisivka 11y ago
For me, whole Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics looks like huge scam. Mathematics is Turing-complete, so proper formula with right magic constants can separate dogs from cats (see neural networks for example: they are pure mathematics). However, I had belief in Theory of Relativity for my whole life until I saw three effects: double slit experiment at macro level [0], magnetic foam at the edge of Solar system [1], and Sagnak in _linear_ motion [2]. Sorry, but I lost my belief and I want explanation, not a magic formula. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suo7_u18C_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suo7_u18C_s [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf , http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609235.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609235.pdf
- monknomo 11y ago
  I don't see what math's Turing-completeness has to do with models describing physical system. It means that math can describe whatever model is most accurate, but it can also describe plenty of unphysical models. If you want explanations and not formulas, I'm not sure math or physics will help. They are both famously bad at explaining why, beyond "if it were different you would not be able to ask the question".
  - poelzi 11y ago
    This is a problem of mathematical logic that is used in QM. In a classical logical system, you can't do this. You can only use formulas that have a real relation in nature and not invent something out of the blue and use it for substitution. You can describe any physical implementation with any mathematical as long as you use enough dimensions. Fact is: we are living in a 3 dimensional euclidean space, this you can experience every day. Time is some other thing. The need for 12 dimensions is just a absurd mathematical emergency exit for having something fundamentally wrong.
    - monknomo 11y ago
      Time is some other thing? It isn't a dimension? How do you do Newtonian physics like that? As far as extra dimensions being a crutch, I must disagree. Take 6-axis mills for instance. To accurately describe the position of the tool you need six dimensions. That doesn't mean they are particularly strange or wrong, just that they are a little complicated. By the same token, if we invented a system of analyzing pirouetting ballerinas, it would be useful to have not only the normal 3 euclidian dimensions and time, but perhaps to have a spin dimension so we can compactly describe the ballerina's direction of spin.
      - poelzi 11y ago
        Of course you can do a integral over time for example, but you logically understand in the process that its only a virtual dimension in this case, not a real euclidean one. Your spin 'dimensions' still reside in 3 euclidean dimensions but for technical reasons you implement those vectors as an axis. Don't get me wrong, sometimes its useful to add a virtual dimension in the mathematical sense to get a shortcut in calculation, but it should be clear that those are not real ones. One the level of physical implementation, everything requiring more then 3 looks unlikely.
- tasty_freeze 11y ago
  lisivka, that one can get wavefront interference is the expected outcome, even at macro level. This video shows a "particle" going through an opening, but really it is just the mechanism which produced waves in the water. Why do you think this has any bearing on relativity?
  - lisivka 11y ago
    It example that wave-matter duality of particles in QM can be explained without need of God, Observer, and other stuff. It is just simple physics. Moreover, probability is not a physic at all — it is measurement of lack of _our_ knowledge. Universe is deterministic, so there is no place for half-alive cats.
- imglorp 11y ago
  What's departure from common wisdom of the Sagnac effect in that arxiv paper? It appears to be accounted for by reference frame as normal.
  - lisivka 11y ago
    According to Theory of Relativity, regular linear motion must not change speed of light, isn't? Moreover, explanation of Sagnac effect is simple and easy to understand when we accept Aether theory (2 paragraphs of texts), but explanation of same effect with Theory of Relativity needs 10 pages of texts with formulas and manipulations with time. I am sorry, but I cannot accept that anymore.
- poelzi 11y ago
  Me too, the blind believe in mathematical logic is absurd, just because we could not find a classical model in the past does not mean there can't be one. For example, for the photon you can have a very promising model that just uses classical kinetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1323&v=0z2RujXPcq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1323&v=0z2RujXPcq4 Problems are ignored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether-drift-exp/ether-drift-exp.pdf But you are free to find the errors in the 11 experiments listed, Your Michelson-Morley experiment people generally refer to is PROVEN faulty - even Michelson said that they made mistakes in their assumption. Then you get stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE I explained this some days ago to a geologist that is into physics as a hobby. When I explained to him hat they did with the substitution he just said: This is nuts, you can't do this. I told him, you can, but then you are not in classical logical anymore, mathematical logic allows you to do this. It is a believe that you can invent a clever formula and use substitution to get solvable solution. Everybody in real logic and philosophy knows, that those logics are not compatible - if you can prove this, you will get a very major price for sure. The Big Bang Theory looks not very likely: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf But hey, if you believe in that, find me in explanation for every mentioned problem - And don't come with bullshit arguments that this site is of nutjobs. All they do is link to papers in other peer reviewed journals, they see problems where they are and not ignoring them - real scientific behavior. My current tip for the most likely model: Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory by Stoyan Sarg 3 Eucledian dimensions. 2 indestructable fundamental particles 1 force of attraction Very minimal set of constants. Classical Logic. Every force/constant or effect from the standard model is derived with 0.2-2% accuracy. If this model is so nuts as some people claim, then bring me the error, show me the logical breakage or math error, because for me everything checks out good so far and the predictions fit much better then the standard model. But people are lazy and don't want to spend month thinking about some alternative concept, this is the feeling I get from scientists reactions. Best books I have ever read: www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified/dp/1412083877 You can start with some of his papers, but the book is the best source as it follows a logical flow that will lead to understanding. If you just open the book somewhere and start reading, you will hardly understand (this is what one of the amazon reader clearly did. Everybody how really tried to understand give the theory full stars). http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev I can promise you this: Once you understand the basic principles of this model, you can think about everything yourself. Every physical phenomena you encounter will only take days to get some really good idea what is happening there. I needed 3 days to have a logical explanation of the electron double slit experiment, just thinking in this model. I explained Stoyan my conclusion and he came to the same experiment and explanation. This is one of my principles of cross validation, thinking about stuff myself and see if I come to the same conclusion - if everything is logical this should very often be the case. Of course, some parts are one of many possible ways, but at least one explanation in this framework exists. This is the power of logic, you can understand on the most fundamental level and don't need some wired theory/believe.

46 points by snake117 11y ago

For me, whole Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics looks like huge scam. Mathematics is Turing-complete, so proper formula with right magic constants can separate dogs from cats (see neural networks for example: they are pure mathematics). However, I had belief in Theory of Relativity for my whole life until I saw three effects: double slit experiment at macro level [0], magnetic foam at the edge of Solar system [1], and Sagnak in _linear_ motion [2]. Sorry, but I lost my belief and I want explanation, not a magic formula. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsaUX48t0w8 [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suo7_u18C_s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suo7_u18C_s [2] http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609222.pdf , http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609235.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0609235.pdf

monknomo 11y ago
I don't see what math's Turing-completeness has to do with models describing physical system. It means that math can describe whatever model is most accurate, but it can also describe plenty of unphysical models. If you want explanations and not formulas, I'm not sure math or physics will help. They are both famously bad at explaining why, beyond "if it were different you would not be able to ask the question".
- poelzi 11y ago
  This is a problem of mathematical logic that is used in QM. In a classical logical system, you can't do this. You can only use formulas that have a real relation in nature and not invent something out of the blue and use it for substitution. You can describe any physical implementation with any mathematical as long as you use enough dimensions. Fact is: we are living in a 3 dimensional euclidean space, this you can experience every day. Time is some other thing. The need for 12 dimensions is just a absurd mathematical emergency exit for having something fundamentally wrong.
  - monknomo 11y ago
    Time is some other thing? It isn't a dimension? How do you do Newtonian physics like that? As far as extra dimensions being a crutch, I must disagree. Take 6-axis mills for instance. To accurately describe the position of the tool you need six dimensions. That doesn't mean they are particularly strange or wrong, just that they are a little complicated. By the same token, if we invented a system of analyzing pirouetting ballerinas, it would be useful to have not only the normal 3 euclidian dimensions and time, but perhaps to have a spin dimension so we can compactly describe the ballerina's direction of spin.
    - poelzi 11y ago
      Of course you can do a integral over time for example, but you logically understand in the process that its only a virtual dimension in this case, not a real euclidean one. Your spin 'dimensions' still reside in 3 euclidean dimensions but for technical reasons you implement those vectors as an axis. Don't get me wrong, sometimes its useful to add a virtual dimension in the mathematical sense to get a shortcut in calculation, but it should be clear that those are not real ones. One the level of physical implementation, everything requiring more then 3 looks unlikely.
tasty_freeze 11y ago
lisivka, that one can get wavefront interference is the expected outcome, even at macro level. This video shows a "particle" going through an opening, but really it is just the mechanism which produced waves in the water. Why do you think this has any bearing on relativity?
- lisivka 11y ago
  It example that wave-matter duality of particles in QM can be explained without need of God, Observer, and other stuff. It is just simple physics. Moreover, probability is not a physic at all — it is measurement of lack of _our_ knowledge. Universe is deterministic, so there is no place for half-alive cats.
imglorp 11y ago
What's departure from common wisdom of the Sagnac effect in that arxiv paper? It appears to be accounted for by reference frame as normal.
- lisivka 11y ago
  According to Theory of Relativity, regular linear motion must not change speed of light, isn't? Moreover, explanation of Sagnac effect is simple and easy to understand when we accept Aether theory (2 paragraphs of texts), but explanation of same effect with Theory of Relativity needs 10 pages of texts with formulas and manipulations with time. I am sorry, but I cannot accept that anymore.
poelzi 11y ago
Me too, the blind believe in mathematical logic is absurd, just because we could not find a classical model in the past does not mean there can't be one. For example, for the photon you can have a very promising model that just uses classical kinetics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1323&v=0z2RujXPcq4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1323&v=0z2RujXPcq4 Problems are ignored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY www.helical-structures.org/new_evidences/modern-ether-drift-exp/ether-drift-exp.pdf But you are free to find the errors in the 11 experiments listed, Your Michelson-Morley experiment people generally refer to is PROVEN faulty - even Michelson said that they made mistakes in their assumption. Then you get stuff like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE I explained this some days ago to a geologist that is into physics as a hobby. When I explained to him hat they did with the substitution he just said: This is nuts, you can't do this. I told him, you can, but then you are not in classical logical anymore, mathematical logic allows you to do this. It is a believe that you can invent a clever formula and use substitution to get solvable solution. Everybody in real logic and philosophy knows, that those logics are not compatible - if you can prove this, you will get a very major price for sure. The Big Bang Theory looks not very likely: http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf But hey, if you believe in that, find me in explanation for every mentioned problem - And don't come with bullshit arguments that this site is of nutjobs. All they do is link to papers in other peer reviewed journals, they see problems where they are and not ignoring them - real scientific behavior. My current tip for the most likely model: Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory by Stoyan Sarg 3 Eucledian dimensions. 2 indestructable fundamental particles 1 force of attraction Very minimal set of constants. Classical Logic. Every force/constant or effect from the standard model is derived with 0.2-2% accuracy. If this model is so nuts as some people claim, then bring me the error, show me the logical breakage or math error, because for me everything checks out good so far and the predictions fit much better then the standard model. But people are lazy and don't want to spend month thinking about some alternative concept, this is the feeling I get from scientists reactions. Best books I have ever read: www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified/dp/1412083877 You can start with some of his papers, but the book is the best source as it follows a logical flow that will lead to understanding. If you just open the book somewhere and start reading, you will hardly understand (this is what one of the amazon reader clearly did. Everybody how really tried to understand give the theory full stars). http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stoyan_Sargoytchev I can promise you this: Once you understand the basic principles of this model, you can think about everything yourself. Every physical phenomena you encounter will only take days to get some really good idea what is happening there. I needed 3 days to have a logical explanation of the electron double slit experiment, just thinking in this model. I explained Stoyan my conclusion and he came to the same experiment and explanation. This is one of my principles of cross validation, thinking about stuff myself and see if I come to the same conclusion - if everything is logical this should very often be the case. Of course, some parts are one of many possible ways, but at least one explanation in this framework exists. This is the power of logic, you can understand on the most fundamental level and don't need some wired theory/believe.