Higgs Boson Discovered?!

Farsight said:
I'm backing up what I say. Take a look at the physicsworld article "picture of a new particle" at this url and it's no such thing. It's just a bump on a graph. And take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He says The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is "The God particle". The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth. On page 174 he says It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification. He gives a good explanation, and finishes by saying: In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.. This absolutely does not square with the hype that CERN nourishes and does not correct.

No it couldn't. I'm not ignorant. Not is Giudiuce.
Click to expand...

Funny how your argument rests on the nonsense of media hype, not the discovery of teh Higgs boson, so where is the mystery of mass issue? In the media?

Are you just engaging in false dichotomy and a non sequiter?

Considering your original statement to Tubbythin, you still are making yet more straw.

I doubt however that you posses the honesty to see that you statement to Tubbythin is unrelated to anything that they said.

Farsight said:
Bill Thompson said:
Maybe I should read this whole discussion.

What good does the discovery of the Higgs Boson do us?
Click to expand...
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous statement, the energy bump is indicative of a particle matching that parameters of the Higgs bosn, so what the fred do you think you are talking about?

What exactly makes you sceptical of that bump being related to the Hiigs boson, not GR, not SR, not some media hype about the god particle, but exactly about that bump and particle physics.

Where the fred is the lie in it?

Do not derail into some silly side track of some delusional nature tangentially related to the bump.

Explain why you are sceptical of the bump.

As usual nothing Giudice says supports any reason to be sceptical of the bump, I know you can be rational and coherent and that you can actually discuss this topic if you choose to do so. The topic of the bump and your scepticism that it a Higgs particle.

So rise to the challenge, prove that you are not just a crank, answer the specific question.
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
I'm backing up what I say. Take a look at the physicsworld article "picture of a new particle" at this url and it's no such thing. It's just a bump on a graph. And take a look at A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC by Gian Francesco Giudice. If you search on Higgs sector you can read pages 173 through 175. He says The most inappropriate name ever given to the Higgs boson is "The God particle". The name gives the impression that the Higgs boson is the central particle of the Standard Model, governing its structure. But this is very far from the truth. On page 174 he says It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification. He gives a good explanation, and finishes by saying: In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.. This absolutely does not square with the hype that CERN nourishes and does not correct.
Click to expand...

DD has already responded to this with pretty much what I would have said.
None of the above or what is said in your hyperlink casts any doubt whatsoever on the statistical significance of the ATLAS/CMS observations. Obviously the book you linked to doesn't and cannot tackle this issue because it was written circa 2009. The only conclusion I can really come to is that you have no semblance of an argument in relation to the statistical significance of the ATLAS/CMS observations and that your comments regarding "lies" and miracles were a pathetic cry for attention.
Now, I don't care about your opinions in relation to the media hype. I doubt that anybody else here does either. What I care about is arrogant, loud-mouthed crackpots crying for attention and effectively accusing competent scientists of lying and fabricating results when they have zero evidence to back up their claims. If you don't want to be considered one such crackpot then its time to put forward your evidence. No more bs distractions about media-hype. Plain and simple for the forum to see:


What evidence do you have to suggest that the five-sigma significance bump observed in the ATLAS/CMS experiments has been wrongly-interpreted by the scientists at CERN?


Aside:
Out of interest, what kind of picture of a discovery of the Higgs boson were you expecting?
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
Aside:
Out of interest, what kind of picture of a discovery of the Higgs boson were you expecting?
Click to expand...

images


I mean, it is the "God Particle" right..... or did CERN lie about that too?
 
Farsight said:
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this comment just exposes your ignorance of the physics.
The discovery of a new particle in particle physics is defined as finding it with 5 or more sigma.
Most of the particles diccovered in the past 30 years (e.g. the W boson) are a "bump on a graph".
The skeptic in you would not rely on a quote from one person. The skeptic in you would research the science and find that when you are looking for specific events in a complex environment, stats are vital.
 
Tubbythin said:
That's not really being sceptical. Not in a scientific sense any way. A scientific sceptic would point to an alternative cause of a 5 sigma bump or at least suggest where the analysis might have gone wrong to produce such a bump. Simply repeating a famous sceptical quote does not make you a sceptic.
Click to expand...

Maybe there was a problem with the machine. Have the scientists checked their machine?

;)
 
Reality Check said:
The skeptic in you would not rely on a quote from one person. The skeptic in you would research the science and find that when you are looking for specific events in a complex environment, stats are vital.
Click to expand...

Assertion not supported by evidence. ;)
 
Farsight said:
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Click to expand...

You should have skeptically observed that your quote, while fine rhetoric is very inaccurate.

Statistics cannot lie, it's the people who misuse them who can lie.
 
Farsight said:
What discovery? All I see is a bump on a graph. And as for five sigma, the skeptic within me drily observes that there are lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.
Click to expand...

Statistically you don't exist.

(tsig drily points out)
 
Farsight said:
Yes, that's being skeptical. So is pointing to CERN physicist Gian Giudice's Zeptospace Odyssey where he tells us that the Higgs mechanism is responsible of only 1% of the mass of matter. Doesn't square too well with all the mystery of mass hype, does it? Wise up Tubby. When a church needs a miracle, a church gets a miracle.
Click to expand...

The HB is the equivalent of the BVM on toast?
 
Acleron said:
You should have skeptically observed that your quote, while fine rhetoric is very inaccurate.

Statistics cannot lie, it's the people who misuse them who can lie.
Click to expand...

Figures don't don't lie but liars can figure.
 
Tubbythin said:
I thought I'd bump this thread, seeing as Farsight seems to be back on the scene.
Click to expand...
Noted Tubby. Do you want me to talk about it? Like how the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc² and needs to come out of the Standard Model to be replaced by a symmetry? You can trace the problem back to QED you know. When the penny drops it's kind of an Ohmygawd! moment.

Edit: I've sat through Demystifying the Higgs Boson with Leonard Susskind. Does anybody actually buy that stuff? Is anybody the wiser? Even Susskind doesn't believe in it. You can tell. Zilch, LOL! OK, thinking caps on. Susskind referred to E=mc² and light in a box. Another form of light in a box is a standing wave in a cavity. Now go and look at atomic orbitals on wikipedia and see if you can suss out why the electron really has mass.
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
Noted Tubby. Do you want me to talk about it?
...
Click to expand...


There seems to be all sorts of unsupported assertions in this post, so Farsight:
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism "contradicts E=mc²"?
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that the Higgs mechanism can be removed from the Standard Model and replaced by a symmetry (in the SM?)?
  • Can you cite the published papers that show that there is a problem in QED related to the Higgs mechanism that is so obvious that people have a "Ohmygawd! moment"?
FYI: The Standard Model is a relativistic quantum field theory, i.e. nothing in it contradicts E=mc² :eye-poppi !

I've sat through Demystifying the Higgs Boson with Leonard Susskind.
Great explanation of it which was his purpose!
 
Last edited:
Farsight said:
Noted Tubby. Do you want me to talk about it? Like how the Higgs mechanism contradicts E=mc² and needs to come out of the Standard Model to be replaced by a symmetry? You can trace the problem back to QED you know. When the penny drops it's kind of an Ohmygawd! moment.
Click to expand...

We can get on to that when you've answered my question from above: "What evidence do you have to suggest that the five-sigma significance bump observed in the ATLAS/CMS experiments has been wrongly-interpreted by the scientists at CERN?"
 
There are no unsupported assertions, RC. And published papers have got nothing to do with it. We don't let other people tell us what to think, do we? Not on a skeptics forum. We don't have published-paper or textbook bibles here, do we? Instead we examine the evidence and the logic, and discuss things as we feel fit. Dont we?
I can explain this to you real easy. So simply that you cannot refute it. Would you like to discuss it? It is after all a discussion forum. And if you don't, please feel free to summarise Susskind's explanation as to how the electron gets its mass.
 
Farsight said:
There are no unsupported assertions, RC.
Click to expand...
They are unsupported assertions because you asserted them and did not support them!
That just screens the need for a :dl:

You also have a strange idea about what skeptics want. Skeptics do not accept unsupported assertions from people ("Big foot exists", "there is a fire-breathing dragon in my garage", etc.).
Skeptics want assertions to be backed up by evidence. In a section on science the best evidence is published papers or textbooks. The next level down is pre-prints. The next level down is your own work supporting the assertion.

Farsight: Can you cite the evidence for your unsupported assertions?
First asked 30 October 2012
 
Here's some completely unscientific, totally unverifiable, and completely anecdotal evidence for you...

On the day of the Higgs Boson announcement, I was following Prof. Brian Cox on Twitter. He was ticking off key points as the press conference carried on, and near the end, he made this statement to the effect that "a lot of money will be changing hands today"

Knowing what a parsimonious bunch of tight-wads most scientists are, I took that a general supporting statement that the discovery of the Higgs Boson has indeed been confirmed
 
RC: no, textbooks and papers aren't evidence. Don't fall into the bible mindset. Evidence is provided by scientific experiment.

Tubbythin said:
We can get on to that when you've answered my question from above: "What evidence do you have to suggest that the five-sigma significance bump observed in the ATLAS/CMS experiments has been wrongly-interpreted by the scientists at CERN?"
Click to expand...
Two-photon physics, electron diffraction, and atomic orbitals. They provide clear evidence that the electron does not get its mass from the Higgs mechanism, meaning the bump can't be the Higgs boson. Would you like me to elaborate? It's all horribly simple plain-vanilla physics. It might help if you watched Susskind's lecture. Pay attention to what he said about radiation in a box.

Smartcooky: yes, that's a supporting statement. A lot of physicists are extremely skeptical of the Higgs mechanism, and have bet that the Higgs boson wouldn't be discovered. With the announcement of its discovery they either have to pay up or cry foul, which they're reluctant to do because it would be very bad publicity for physics. For example see above re Gian Guidice, a CERN physicist who calls the Higgs mechanism "frightfully ad hoc" and "the toilet of the standard model". These guys are in a really difficult position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom