Black Holes Don't Exist

You do not get this debate thing do you?Since you like to be all mysterious and cagey let me cut to the chase. You imply the higgs boson is just speculated. Can you address the evidence presented by the worlds leading physicists that it exists, and show us how they are wrong?Can you?

quote:

---

Quantum Fields can bend and curve spacetime under General Relativity without the theory breaking or anything going wrong mathematically. In fact this is the current theory of physics:
The standard model quantum field theory (with its fourteen fields) living in four dimensional spacetime with the stress-energy of the fields distorting the spacetime as described by general relativity.

---

You may be describing the magic kingdom here perfectly. Exactly where are the fourteen fields of quantum field theory incorporated in a field equation? You might show how the Higgs field fits into a stress-energy tensor.Or are you saying if you step back far enough and just assume all matter fits into a particle/field, by reason of tautology, the classical universe is the quantum universe.

quote:

---

Quantum gravity refers to any theory where spacetime/gravity itself is quantum mechanical. In current theories of physics spacetime/gravity is classical. Quantum Fields however interact perfectly well with classical spacetime.

---

Only at the very small scales. Quantum fields are local (if the particle field hypothesis is even correct).I know what Quantum gravity refers to, a failed paradigm.

quote:

---

Can you explicitly say what this is. Again I have done research into the Strong Nuclear force and I am not aware of this problem. Could you say what mesons in what probings/experiments?
Maybe when you actually explicitly state a problem, I might get uncomfortable and I can avail of your free psychoanalysis. Until then, I'm waiting for you to actually state a problem.

---

Frankly, quantum mechanical nuances are just a curiosity to me, some of the particulars are obscure to individuals like me who are not wrapped in its mathematics.
Here is a particular you might expose here please do not bore us with in depth opacity.Misbehaving Particles Poke Holes in Reigning Physics Theory | Live Sciencenow show us your stuff.

quote:

---

So the reason that the eta prime has a mass of 957.67 MeV is because of:
"The underlying symmetry and implications there of".
Can you show how an underlying symmetry and its implications leads directly to a mass of 957.67 MeV for the eta prime?
I will be interested to see this, as in conventional physics, that is quantum chromodynamics, the eta prime is unusually heavy explicitly because there is no underlying symmetry associated with it. A phenomena originally known as the U(1) anomaly.

---

I love quantum double talk, the answer is usually right and wrong at the same time. First there is a underlying symmetry then that symmetry does not apply. This is more like a religion than a religion. And no I would not even attempt a direct proof of a mass of 957.67 MeV although given time I would find it in the research. The same as you would, only you could understand the contradictions.

Okay, for once I will just answer the question directly.If is the Higgs field, its complex conjugate, its spacetime derivative and the metric of the spacetime and the Higgs mass, then the Higgs contribution to the stress energy tensor is: I have retained standard SI units as you have complained about the use of particle physics units before. No, I am not saying this. Why does locality imply they only interact sensibly on small scales? Quantum fields are known to give the correct gravitational fields on large scales, it's actually at small scales that they might be incorrect, although no experiment can probe length scales that small as of 2014. So I am to explain this to you and "show my stuff" without going into detail. Fair enough.
The problem you are referring to was later disproved:
http://cds.cern.ch/...d/1456302/files/LHCb-CONF-2012-022.pdf Once again, can you say why it is like a religion? Can you provide an actual argument?
What is it about the U(1) anomaly derivation of the eta prime mass that is "like a religion"?Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You do not get this debate thing do you?

---

Maybe you can teach me something?

quote:

---

Since you like to be all mysterious and cagey let me cut to the chase. You imply the higgs boson is just speculated. Can you address the evidence presented by the worlds leading physicists that it exists, and show us how they are wrong?

---

I am not the only one who doubts the Higgs is real. Not only the particle but the action of the Higgs mechanism. It could be the Higgs is a artifact of statistical error.

quote:

---

Okay, for once I will just answer the question directly.

---

Thanks for the tensor. The problem I have with you simply adding it as a stress-energy tensor to the relativity field equations is not correct. Here is some speculation on the matter:

quote:

---

The Higgs field is a quantum field that is described by quantum mechanics (more precisely, quantum field theory). General relativity is a classical theory that is not compatible with quantum mechanics. Therefore, as far as I know, you cannot describe the Higgs field in general relativity in any useful way.https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/inertial-mass-gravitational-mass-and-the-higgs.335546/

---

Also Assumptions about the Higgs contribution to stress-energy hinges on if that particle is real at all. Trying to get any real contribution from an arbitrary field with a particle of suspicious existence is impossible. It is not provable, thus not science, at best a speculation.Like all speculation (especially about the Higgs which is a chain of many speculations) you can get it to work one way or the other mathematically but the proof is impossible.One bad assumption can lead to another bad assumption, black holes don’t exist right? So says the QM.

quote:

---

Why does locality imply they only interact sensibly on small scales? Quantum fields are known to give the correct gravitational fields on large scales, it's actually at small scales that they might be incorrect, although no experiment can probe length scales that small as of 2014.

---

What does that mean? is this another case of it is right and wrong?

quote:

---

So I am to explain this to you and "show my stuff" without going into detail. Fair enough.
The problem you are referring to was later disproved:
http://cds.cern.ch/...d/1456302/files/LHCb-CONF-2012-022.pdf

---

I know you could find an objection Clear as a bell. This is a objection to the earlier finding, maybe it is accurate, maybe it is not. Maybe the entire Standard model is ready for a revamping.

You are not addressing the evidence and showing how they are wrong. Show us how they are wrong.

I can understand you saying it is not proved. However, it is provable there are clear predictions by the standard model for what effects the Higg's boson should have. Surely that is provable and hence scientific? Note I am not saying it is proved, just that it is provable. That is not true. The Higgs properties are constrained by gauge symmetry and triviality bounds. You cannot get it to work "one way or another" a proof of this is to be found in:
Triviality Pursuit: Can Elementary Scalar Particles Exist? - Callaway, David J.E. Phys.Rept. 167 (1988)There is a free version of the article here:
CallawayLabResearch No. I'm saying QFT seems to give the correct gravitational effects at large scales. We currently don't know about small scales. Except all evidence points to it being correct.
The paper above is a more detailed study than the one you cited (much higher statistical certainty) and the original objection has been shown to be a statistical error.

quote:

---

I can understand you saying it is not proved. However, it is provable there are clear predictions by the standard model for what effects the Higg's boson should have. Surely that is provable and hence scientific? Note I am not saying it is proved, just that it is provable.

---

Your statement alone goes against the principle of theory refutation, That being: a theory can never be ‘proved’ only disproved. Also, a theory must be disprovable, unobservable particles and subsequent fields for those particle are unobservable in QFT.By the way the point of this thread about black holes seems to imply that the major source of black holes in the universe is shown to be wrong by QM. That alone goes against observation in astronomy.

quote:

---

No. I'm saying QFT seems to give the correct gravitational effects at large scales. We currently don't know about small scales.

---

You must explain correct, least we quibble over quantum gravity.Here isa short summation of the standard model issues:Virtual particles that are never seen (only determined by their decay products) that makes it a theory that is not disprovable, undetected supper-symmetric particles, virtual particles difficult to quantify in general relativity and a calculated vacuum energy for virtual particles is 170 orders of magnitude greater than observed in astronomy. Prediction of the location in energy of the Higgs boson was broad and variable (no precise prediction here).Look, I have no doubt that some sort of assumptions and mathematical patches could be presented in every case. The problem I encounter is that the basic assumption of particle/field for the Higgs is difficult to swallow (no observable particle and a scalar field).The particle/field hypothesis is in affect a straw man being presented as evidence and backed by extensile reasoning in complex mathematics.If particle/field hypothesis were correct, gravity (being the most relevant in the macro universe) would easily demonstrate a particle field relationship.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

Not exactly. A theory must be falsifiable, which means that there are some possible experiments which could fail and disprove the theory. But once those experiments are performed, the theory will not be falsified or disproved in that way. But that does not mean that the theory stops being a theory just because we've done all of the experiments we can think of. Is the mathematics under discussion really mature enough to favor it over observation?It seems that your mode of addressing science is one of desperation. Any nook and cranny of doubt is an avenue of hope that some contrary version informed by your 'world view' is correct. You are on record here as saying that the Higgs boson will not be found and apparently it must not be found. That causes you to favor weak arguments that it does not exist over strong arguments and evidence that it does.I don't begrudge you your worldview. It's what makes discussion here interesting.

How is the Higgs boson a patch?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is a legitimate quibble, but I don't think Son Goku is using the word "provable" in a mathematical sense. He's using it in a scientific sense to mean supported with sufficient evidence. He's saying that the standard model makes predictions for the effects of the Higgs boson, that experiments are possible that would gather evidence of these effects ("provable"), and that the Higgs is therefore scientific.--Percy

I'm not sure I followed this correctly. I think you're saying that a successful falsification experiment doesn't falsify a theory nor mean that it is no longer a theory, because of what might be learned from future experiments.But I'm not sure.--Percy

Well isn't it clearly disprovable? (I only used provable because you used it) The standard model predicts clear effects for the Higgs boson related to decays in channels of other particles. If these aren't observed then it is disproved. Isn't that scientific? Correct = What is observed in experiments. Okay, this is what I have been looking for. The standard model does not involve virtual particles. No quantum field theory does. Virtual particles are not a component of quantum field theory, they are a pedagogical device used to describe quantum field theory in popular or undergraduate textbooks.
However they are not really a part of the theory. Quantum field theory does not predict the existence of or involve virtual particles. I can give a few references for this if you want. The standard model does not involve super-symmetry. I mean, literally, the standard model is not super-symmetric. This makes me think you don't really know what the standard model is. In fact recent observations, due to not observing super-symmetric partners, have disproved super-symmetry and upheld the standard model. I gave you a paper in a previous thread that demonstrated this is no longer the case, i.e. that 170 orders of magnitude error is from the 1970s when QFT calculations could not be done as accurately. The Higgs mass is an input parameter, same as the electron mass. Now, I too would want a deeper theory to explain why this mass, just as the standard model doesn't explain "why this charge for the electron". However this isn't an unusual problem, it's just that the standard model has input parameters like all other physical theories. Well not really.
Two of your objections (virtual particles and supersymmetry) are nothing to do with real problems. Neither are a part of the theory. The first (virtual particles) are just an explanatory device and the other (supersymmetry) as nothing to do with the standard model.The third (vacuum energy) is just false. People originally couldn't work out the actual value for the standard model, so they used a toy model to approximate it. The toy model is very far off. Years later when the standard model value was computed it was correct.The fourth problem is a problem, but it is one every theory of physics has, the need for input parameters. Why is it hard to swallow in the case of the Higgs. The standard model has this particle/field duality for every fundamental particle, like the quarks, the electrons and the neutrino. What is so hard to accept about it in the case of the Higgs? You still haven't said this, i.e. the details on what has always been your main point, the incorrectness of the Higgs model. Then why does it get all the decay rates and interactions of all subatomic particles, the shapes of all mesons and baryons correct? This is nonsense. For an idea to be correct it doesn't have to apply to everything. This is like saying photosynthesis is incorrect because not everything is a plant. Photosynthesis is correct, it just doesn't apply to everything.The particle/field idea appears to be correct. The model that particles are excitations of fields (quantum field theory) has produced a theory (the standard model) that correctly predicts all sub-atomic interactions.General Relativity already says gravity is not a field, even at the classical level. So it seems that the particle/field duality model (quantum field theory) does not apply to gravity. Gravity is not a field, so what? Everything is not a quantum field, so what? How does invalidate the concept for thousands of subatomic particles whose experimentally observed interactions seem to be extremely accurately model by the particle/field concept?Edited by Son Goku, : Spelling

I do not disagree with the observations or predictions/conclusions of the Higgs particle, as someone said but I pretty much go along with what NoNukes, Percy and Son Goku have posted.All I am saying is that whatever pops up as matter, illusive as it may seem to be, is all part of the system where matter is a special effect created from forces which elude matter, and yet by which matter exists.
And I do not jump from matter straight over to God, but recognize that there are hierarchical layers or dimensions of laws/forces in between, which make it possible for infinite energy to be calmed down to the finite we call matter.The "Waters and Light" have very specific qualities and put an immediate relation or connection with any particle in the universe. That means they traverse time and space. So the disappearing and appearing act of some particles, shows that they are sharing something, in which matter resides. Otherwise we have defied energy laws.On the edge of matter, so to speak, we have particles that are slippery and hard to define, and yet the observations predict such particles. If the particle is of such a nature then we should expect it to be able to transcend our space time boundaries to some degree, or at least sometimes. So I expect a whole lot more similar particles as the Higgs to be found in the future.One of the reasons some scientists are doubting the Higgs is because it is potentially more powerful than matter as we know it, and it also may have those illusive qualities of being everywhere or no where at once. However its predicted interaction with matter is not unlimited, but fits in like a piece of the puzzle, and may explain things like the attractions within the atomic nucleus.

That's almost what I was saying. A theory is falsifiable because there are tests that it can pass or fail. But even if we complete those tests and find that the theory is confirmed, those same tests can still be used to show that the theory is falsifiable. I see that I was not clear that the test we are using to define falsifiability were passed.Zaius137 comment implies that a theory must be 'unprovable' in some new realm. That's not necessarily true.