[graham.d]

So it seems. News of great gravity I think :-)

[graham.d]

Live feed fron the LHC a bit impenetrable. See Sean Carrol's on-line blog.

[CPT ArkAngel]

Though they have probably found a new unknown and unpredicted particle, the decay modes indicate clearly that it is not the SM Higgs. No Tau decay, the WW decay level is almost at the noise level, the photons decay is too high significantly and the ZZ decay is not at the predicted level (at least not yet). (with all the corrections, everything will be lowered by 0.5 to 1 sigma).

In fact, the detectors catch only non-virtual particles but the SM model is based on W and Z bosons which have only theoretical properties because they are virtual particles. There mass-energy is supposed to come from the vacuum and their excess energy go back unnoticed to the vacuum so energy is conserved. It is a circular argument needing a higgs field and a higgs boson. So they are stuck using a wrong model to analyse the data.

In a few months, we will learn that it is not the SM Higgs but by tweaking parameters it is another version of the Higgs. But it is a dead end... The way toward unification is not by adding fields and parameters but by eliminate some of them. A simple example is the magnetic and electric field unification by using relativity.


http://www.quantumdiaries.org/tag/linear-collider/

Photons have transverse mass... Look how QM explains photon's spin and circular vs linear polarization (transverse components only, the longitudinal components are totally  contracted by relativity: this is my explanation). 

Spacetime is an effect and not a cause, the proof of that is instantaneous entanglement. Photons having a transverse mass is the best solution. ;)

[imatfaal]

Come on Arkangel, you know that your post should be in New Theories :-D 

At present the Standard Model is the mainstream and is pretty good at making correct predictions - this thread is for discussing the news from Cern and not for debating the Standard Model

[yor_on]

I don't know what they have found. Whatever it is it has to be in what not is there so to speak, as I think of it. And  that makes it a questionable logic to me, with a lot of 'plasticity' to it. But I really need to read up on it.

[yor_on]

Like this..

"Huge question ongoing: are we seeing a standard Higgs with a couple of statistical fluctuations, or are differences in different channels the sign of something new? Easiest way to make different channels mismatch is to add new particles to your theory that couple to the Higgs, and enter as virtual particles that modify different decay rates.

Full employment for both experimentalists and theorists!"

[CPT ArkAngel]

Thanks for advertising my theory Imatfaal!  :o)

I have good arguments for any critics about it...

I would say that the particle they found is a kind of meson (quark-antiquark) with a very short life. It comes from a higher mode of vibration.

I understand why you say so (the discussion could attract some weirdos) and i don't feel offended by it, but you must admit that the mainstream is shaken and it deserves it. It is not grounded on reality, though it worked well for quite a while...

[questioner]

It's all junk without energy. What powers the atom?

[grizelda]

I remain sceptical. I doubt they'll be able to reproduce anything meaningful from this, so I'll await the retraction. I think they are afraid of what they'll find, so they want to stop looking. Reminds me of "peace with honor" in Vietnam, complete with helicopter evacuations. Maybe they should call their new entity the "saigon particle."

[yor_on]

It's all junk without energy. What powers the atom?

Ahh yes, a good one :)
But,, It has to be 'energy', doesn't it? Because if it doesn't then we have to ask ourselves..

'but? What powers that?'

Energy is a 'catch all' answer, sort of :)