Black Holes Don't Exist

quote:

---

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?

---

The Higgs is never directly observed (it blinks from reality before it can be observed, at least that is the claim).

quote:

---

The standard model predicts clear effects for the Higgs boson related to decays in channels of other particles.

---

Does the tail wag the dog here?The effect is observed before the cause, the cause can not be disproved (it is a assumption of particle/field). That my friend is religion not science, if you want to claim faith in the cause, that is your prerogative (and burden).

quote:

---

Correct = What is observed in experiments.

---

I would add what is observed in reality, not what we interpret reality to be.

quote:

---

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.

---

Where is QFT without virtual particles (or whatever you want to call them)? Here is a classic straw man. You have me holding my breath for the details.By the way the Higgs seems to be a virtual particle or (too short lived to be seen, if you like). So in a sense a real particle is predicted by QFT and a virtual particle shows up in experiment.

quote:

---

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 am not defending supper-symmetry or the propping up of the Standard model.. Please give me your take on the following, no quantum double-talk is acceptable.

quote:

---

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.

---

Please in your own words. summarize this. So I do not have to endure the agony again.

quote:

---

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.

---

Thank you for a simple honest answer about the input parameter. There is yet to be definitive proof the particle found was a Higgs. The Higgs mechanism is still unproved, only theoretical constructs exist. Further, you know my objections to the particle/field hypothesis. I still claim it is not falsifiable, thus not formal science.Personally, I would never include the mass of a electron in the same sentence as Higgs mass (it seems to add excessive validity to the Higgs).

quote:

---

The fourth problem is a problem, but it is one every theory of physics has, the need for input parameters.

---

Again: What did Archimedes say? Give me a lever long enough and a place to put it, so I may move the world. QFT says, give me enough free parameters and fields to put them in and I will describe the universe.

quote:

---

This is nonsense. For an idea to be correct it doesn't have to apply to everything.

---

No, just reality

quote:

---

Zaius137 comment implies that a theory must be 'unprovable' in some new realm. That's not necessarily true.

---

Now, maybe I was not clear (that never happens just for the record).A theory must be falsifiable or else it is a tautology or classified in religious terms.

That's the case for most subatomic particles aside from the proton, the neutron, the electron and photon and a few of the pions and force carriers.The vast majority of subatomic particles are not directly detected. Although as the years go on they are.For instance the pions were originally detected via their effect on the decay channels of other particles, now they have been directly detected. Of course the cause can be disproved. The preliminary tests of the Higgs can only detect it via its decay products, then, as with other particles, eventual direct detection.I can understand you saying that you don't believe it until it is directly observed, but I don't really understand why it is a "religion".What I think is that current observations are consistent with a Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism has survived the first round of observations. It has to survive more, as most physicists will tell you. Again I don't see what is religious about this.Speaking of which, what is your explanation of the increase in Tau lepton production and photon production around 126 GeV?
The Standard Model says it is due to Higgs decay. Where is it? I'm not fully sure what you mean. Quantum field theory does not involve virtual particles. You can read accounts of this in graduate quantum field theory books like:
Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras, Rudolf Haag.
The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I, Steven Weinberg.
Quantum Field Theory, Claude Itzykson, Jean-Bernard Zuber.I'm not really sure what saying "quantum field theory has no virtual particles" is a straw man of. That's a discussion of the MSSM or the minimally super-symmetric standard model, created in the 1980s. This is a different theory than the standard model, created in the 1970s.Most physicsts, even Georgi himself, did not think the MSSM was correct. I have never said the MSSM was correct. I have been talking about the standard model.They have similar names in the English language, but they are vastly different theories with completely different particle species and decay rates. Well since I have explained in detail to you before, I will summarise briefly. When you calculate the vacuum energy in the standard model you get the observed value for the cosmological constant. It's a toy model that gives a value 170 orders of magnitude off, not the standard model itself. (The calculation is done using steepest-descent methods on the Path Integral.)I have previously linked to a paper which goes through this calculation and obtains the correct value at the end. No actually, I don't. You've never stated them, just that you object. We've seen field states decay into particles, fields coalesce into a particle and fields produce particles. What part of the concept is untested or not falsifiable to you? Well all theories of physics have free parameters. Although it would be better not to, I still don't see what is "incorrect" about them. Classical physics also has free parameters, Newtonian gravity has free parameters. It isn't just QFT that does this, so I don't see why you are leveling it against it in particular.

To be honest, I think you don't have a clue what you are actually disagreeing with. You purposefully say leading things with no content like:It seems all is not well in the Higgs camp....without ever backing them up. This nonsense about the Standard Model not being falsifiable is the latest in a line of guff where you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark.I mean do you really think that the Standard Model is not falsifiable. That scientists at the LHC have conversations like:
Jaysus Dave, sure why did we build this massive machine, the theory isn't falsifiable.
I know Anne, I just like building big machines, lol!

quote:

---

What I think is that current observations are consistent with a Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism has survived the first round of observations. It has to survive more, as most physicists will tell you. Again I don't see what is religious about this.

---

The observation that would best aid the verification of the Higgs mechanism would be verification particle/field. I suppose the first round of observations you are referring to is the W scattering process statistics. Why are these observations always so rare, in this case I believe it was 36 events in trillions of collisions, I would like to see the statistical significance of 36 events out of trillions of observations. I bet the random events are of better statistical significance.

quote:

---

They have similar names in the English language, but they are vastly different theories with completely different particle species and decay rates.

---

No comment.

quote:

---

Well since I have explained in detail to you before, I will summarise briefly. When you calculate the vacuum energy in the standard model you get the observed value for the cosmological constant. It's a toy model that gives a value 170 orders of magnitude off, not the standard model itself. (The calculation is done using steepest-descent methods on the Path Integral.)

---

So the magnitude still remains off by an order of 170 That is crystal clear.

quote:

---

No actually, I don't. You've never stated them, just that you object. We've seen field states decay into particles, fields coalesce into a particle and fields produce particles. What part of the concept is untested or not falsifiable to you?

---

Your reasoning is completely circular, particle /field is right so that is what we observe.

quote:

---

Well all theories of physics have free parameters. Although it would be better not to, I still don't see what is "incorrect" about them. Classical physics also has free parameters, Newtonian gravity has free parameters. It isn't just QFT that does this, so I don't see why you are leveling it against it in particular.

---

It is not an objection to free parameters, it is a objection to the quality and quantity of them in QFT.

quote:

---

To be honest, I think you don't have a clue what you are actually disagreeing with. You purposefully say leading things with no content like:
It seems all is not well in the Higgs camp....
without ever backing them up. This nonsense about the Standard Model not being falsifiable is the latest in a line of guff where you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark.

---

This is not a scientific peer review, it is a discussion forum that permits different points of view. It is up to the participant to accept or object.you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark That is debate with panache my friend.Son,I would like to review a few nuggets of your posts in this thread,

quote:

---

*Yes, distorting spacetime actually changes the meaning of "empty" or "devoid of mass-energy". A quantum field derives its definition of empty/vacuum/void from the spacetime around it. So initially the quantum field is in some state and it "queries" the spacetime as to the physical content of its state. The spacetime "returns" the result "that's a vacuum state". However if the spacetime changes it might return "That's a state of ten particles.

---

Almost like a computational algorithm. It is kind of like a conversation between two separate individuals, not at all like the quantum universe you wish to convey by implication. So the quantum field quarries space-time, clearly a entity of GR. This scenario is very bizarre since there is a great controversy over what empty space really is. No criticism here, everyone is entitled to their own wild conjecture, even me.

quote:

---

There is something "behind" matter in modern physics and that is the quantum fields. A particle itself is nothing more than a localised excitation of these fields. The universe is indeed "full" of these fields and they do indeed span the space between stars, with the stars themselves being typically low energy excitations of these fields, like most conventional matter.

---

I believe it is God more scientific than the Higgs.

Then bring the math.

They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant. To be honest this is getting really stupid.I have given you two papers proving mathematically that the standard model calculation is correct and agrees with observations.Why do you think it still remains clear that it is wrong by a factor of 170? How is that crystal clear?Seriously why do you think this? What is wrong with the papers?As I said, in a previous thread in 2012, I gave you two papers and wrote three long posts explaining the standard model calculation.This year I have explained where the old "170 orders of magnitude" quote came from to help you understand.Yet without saying anything or providing any reason, you continue to just assert it is 170 orders of magnitude off? Not only that, it is in fact crystal clear that this is the case.Why do you think this? What is your reasoning here?

What would count as proof of the concept to you? QFT has less free parameters than any other theory in physics. Only 19 for all of subatomic physics.What does "the quality" of a free parameter mean? Saying nothing and providing no reasoning other than sarcastic remarks is panache? It's very easy to be full of panache I guess. Let's compare shall we.Hypothesis: A scalar boson, the Higgs, couples to other particles in a manner dictated by the standard model.Evidence:
1. CMS collaboration observation of scalar particle with mass 125 GeV and ATLAS statistical analysis to confirm particle is spin-0, ruling out spin-2 with 99.9% confidence:
Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions | Nature Physics
2. CMS collaboration statistical analysis of the coupling of this scalar particle to the fermion and photon sectors demonstrating that it possesses decay properties of standard model Higgs detailed here:
Evidence for the direct decay of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to fermions | Nature Physics
3. ATLAS (a separate detector) collaboration statistically analyses this scalar boson's coupling to muons. Again it matches the Standard Models predictions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0370269314006583
4. ATLAS statistical analysis of diphoton channel, new scalar particles coupling to photons. Again it matches Standard Model predictions:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4222
5. CMS Collaboration statistical analysis of Z-boson decays from new scalar particle show that it possesses zero-parity to 99.9% confidence:
http://journals.aps.org/...ct/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081803Hypothesis: Yahweh, national god of the bronze age monarchical nation state Israel, controls the entire universe:Evidence:1. After the kingdom was conquered by Babylon and given freedom under Kūru II of Persia, most of the priests of his major temple at Jerusalem thought so and wrote literature displaying that idea which survives today as the latter books of the Old Testament.

What Son Goku said *was* pretty clear - read it again. He said that the application of a decades old simplified model (rather than the actual standard model) is what gave a result 170 orders of magnitude off. Son Goku was giving voice to what I'm sure most people following this thread have noticed. Your posts are remarkably free of objective support. The real agenda emerges.--Percy

Ahhh yes. There we go. Fuck all the science. I know goddidit. That is how you show all the science is wrong. One sentence. Easy, clean with no need to wast time with pesky math and calculations. Next time quit wasting peoples time and just get to this statement.Actually, don't worry I think maybe we should just ignore you in science threads because your argument is the same in them all. How about sticking to the religion threads.

You would think that I am the one posing a formal objection to a disagreement of predicted vacuum energy to apparent vacuum energy.Formally it is known as the vacuum catastrophe. I asked Son to summarize all the minutia in formal objections, he did not, I still pose that offer.

quote:

---

I gave you two papers and wrote three long posts explaining the standard model calculation.
This year I have explained where the old "170 orders of magnitude" quote came from to help you understand.

---

No I am not reading all the papers he has cited (even if I had all the access I needed), as far as I know from the summations I have read, the problem remains unanswered except by superfluous ontological apparatus.About the Higgs:

quote:

---

They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.

---

This is the true straw man I have seen you use time and time again. Here he is! now you pick him apart. First problem is getting to a true particle/field relationship, The Higgs is never seen as a particle FACT. The excuse is that it appears too fast to observe. The particle/field provides a framework in QFT to build a mathematical construct around the same. It is in all definition a speculation Unprovable by definition.In my opinion, the critics of the discovery of the Higgs particle will eventually win the day.

quote:

---

What Son Goku said *was* pretty clear - read it again. He said that the application of a decades old simplified model (rather than the actual standard model) is what gave a result 170 orders of magnitude off.

---

What Son said was read the paper. Here is a brief summery of the problem from (wiki). The light it sheds on the issues is very supportive of QFT, only when it states that QFT assumptions must be limited to a particular scale. Son has implied scale does not matter.Cosmological constant problem - Wikipedia

Great post... Cheers!

quote:

---

They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.

---

Here is just some quotations from your citations very convincing.

Well there you go folks. A sarcastic one-liner yet again. "Very convincing, lol", with no comment on why it is not convincing or in fact any content at all.