Register Lecture: Can big science keep up with discovery?

The Higgs Boson particle was first predicted by scientists in 1964 but it wasn't until 2012 that the existence of this fundamental of physics could finally be proven. That was thanks to CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Scientific understanding has, for centuries, been constrained by the volume of data that could be captured …

1. Did they even make mass?

OK, a simple thought experiment

1. You have light, and its electric and magnetic field.

2. And light comes from matter.

3. So the +ve and -ve that form the electric field in light must be the same matter

4. But they're really weak in light, you cannot bend it. If the -ve is the same as in an electron how did it get weak?

5. Suppose that velocity is the cause of the weakness in 4.

6. So if you accelerated an electron is a magnetic field causes the magnetism/electric property to decrease, you'd have to push harder and harder.

7. And you've observed that, it's a known phenomenon. Accelerating an electron is harder the faster it goes.

Conversely

8. If accelerating an electron in a magnetic field makes 'mass', why isn't light super massive?

You see what I'm saying here, CERN are not making mass when they accelerate particles, they're making fast particles.

And when they smash together and CERN detects the breakdown products, or their bend response in a magnetic field, its not really a measure of 'mass' from velocity because the field they're bending against must be weakened by the velocity from 6.

Consider diffraction

9. If the bending of light in glass is from magnetic or electric field....

10. Which it must be because light ONLY has a magnetic electric field...

11. The more light is slowed, the stronger the field in light, and so the more it must bend

12. Which is an observed effect

Again, here we have a common observation which suggests that field strength decreases with increased velocity.

None of the above needs you to accept electric resonant massless model. But velocity in that model does explain this mechanism and it is trivial to understand, and very trivial to model.

So, CERN

You're claim is you accelerated particles to give them 'mass', you smashed the particles together, and claim it made a complex particle which decayed, and you detected some fragments, which you measured and declared you'd found the Higgs Boson.

But if you don't make mass, all you did was make the breakdown products directly.

1. Look at decay mechanism

Look at it from a different angle, the decay mechanism.

You have a fundamental particle, a "Higgs Boson", or some other from the standard model, lets call it X.

Particle X is fundamental, and does not contain particle Y. *However* the claim is that Particle X *decays* to form particle Y. The actual mechanics claimed here is X to energy to Y+other articles.

But Y gets properties from X, e.g. spin is common, position and others depending on the decay.

The claim is that properties from X are transferred to Y via unknown magic called quantum entanglement. And various experiments show that this mechanism could transfer properties across space and backwards in time. This is usually claimed as proof via photons.

So lets examine entanglement, beyond the basic flaws in causality and propagation, lets look at the experimental 'proofs'.

*********

Entanglement basic claim:

Properties like spin, polarization, phase, position are independent.

In entangled particles, when you measure one, the others are set in entangled particles across space and time, backwards in time if necessary, affecting past interactions.

Entanglement reality

A filter signal is used. It selects the subset of 'successful entangled' photons. It filters for time, it is selecting the particles at the same time, i.e. in a resonant universe, it is selecting the same resonant phase.

Entanglement properties are demonstrably not independent

Put light through a vertical slit (a polarizing filter is just a series of slits), and it will bend, spreading out according to phase, the spread depends on the slit width, it depends on wavelength (i.e. oscillation or spin properties).

In other words all those properties are connected via their interaction with matter. POSITION IS SET BY INTERACTION OF THESE PROPERTIES WITH THE MATTER OF THE SLIT.

And you know this, you *measure* the phase using a slit, you measure polarization using a polarizing filter! You literally cannot measure these properties directly without interacting them with matter and measuring the displacement!

So, you own experiment disproves your own experimental hypothesis.

*******

Matter is resonant, it's oscillating and pushing via electric force, you've witnessed both oscillations and electric force, and given time, it must equalize out.... you cannot deny resonance, so you must know that the matter in the polarizing filter is resonant with other matter. Including your laser.

1. Re: Look at decay mechanism

It's also worth pointing out that the connection between the 'entangled' photons via matter is TWO way.

It isn't just that a slit sets position according to phase/frequency/polarization etc. one way only.

You can set polarization via crystals for example. The circular polarizer in your 3D glasses uses a crystalline layer that has the property of slowing light in one diagonal axis more than another, turning vertical or horizontal polarization into rotation. Either clockwise or anti-clockwise spin.

Two such filters half a wavelength apart could turn horizontal into vertical polarization.

i.e. the property polarization can be set via interaction with matter, depending on wavelength and position, it is not just that position is set from polarization! Two-way not one way.

All these properties are interconnected via the interaction with matter.

Entanglement is false.

Particle to energy to particle is also therefore false.

2. Re: Look at decay mechanism

"The claim is that properties from X are transferred to Y via unknown magic called quantum entanglement.

Err, no. Properties from X are transferred to Y via very well known conservation laws.

P.S. X ceases to exist when Y forms, there is nothing left for it to entangle with.

2. Re: Did they even make mass?

All the LHC did was make enough Higgs bosons to confirm their existence. The way in which the Higgs "creates mass" is something altogether different.

2. "the world’s largest scientific machine"

Actually, just "the world's largest machine".

https://interestingengineering.com/17-of-the-biggest-machines-in-the-world

Another big theory that science is unwilling to give up.... the big bang.

Known facts:

We are *accelerating* outwards, the expansion is accelerating.

Stars are disappearing at the edge of the universe.

We cannot see past the edge of the observable universe.

Hypothesis:

1. We are in a black hole.

2. Each black hole resonates twice the frequency (F) of the universe its in. The universe is resonant electric massless model.

3. So our universe is 2F relative to the outer universe, and blackholes in our universe resonate at 4F, i.e. 2F relative to us.

4. Our resonant wavelength is half the wavelength of the outer black hole.

5. Since speed of light depend on F, speed of propagation of forces depends on F, and so on, so everything appears normal.

6. The observable universe ends at the event horizon of our black hole. The point at which light and matter switch from resonanting at 2F bound to us, to 1F bound to the outer universe.

7. The acceleration of our galaxies, is driven by the spin of the outer black hole.

8. As more stars cross the event horizon, they oscillate at 1F the same as the outer universe, and form growing accretion discs, which in turn form galaxies.

9. A black hole is either spinning up, or spinning down, matter is either heading in or heading out.

10. As the black hole gets more massive, so its event horizon is bigger, it can drive a larger 2F sphere relative to universe its in.

11. As stars disappear from our universe, so our observable universe will get smaller, as our black hole can sustain only a smaller 2F bubble relative to the outer universe.

Give it up

Since we know we are accelerating, it must be why we have velocity now. Why would there be *two* separate mechanisms that give us velocity! Why *both* big bang* and other mechanism? Lose the big bang.

Note, rotation = velocity is a property of the massless velocity model. This only works in massless world. If you had mass, you'd notice the rotation.

1. Re: About the big bang

Well done, you have a hypothesis. Next you need to read this:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Let us know how you get on. Thanks.

4. Nobel prize on the way

Can you engrave it with Anonymous Coward?

Alfred Wegener spent decades gathering evidence for continental drift but was mostly ignored because he proposed no mechanism for shifting large plates of rock around.

Immanuel Velikovsky was pretty much ridiculed by everybody for trying to shoehorn events from the Old Testament into a dynamic model of the Solar System with planets and comets crashing into each other on a regular basis. Modern understanding of the local neighbourhood is that orbits are not stable over billions of years and everything is fairly chaotic.

Both published under their own names, however.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.