PSI Blog 20190403
Next-generation Particle Accelerator in Doubt
The last collider only found
some equivocal evidence for the bogus Higgs boson. Now, the Japanese are
starting to doubt the necessity for the regressive boondoggle:
Maybe they have doubts about the whole enterprize. Seemingly, after all the billions wasted, all they could find was a nebulous magical particle with a half-life of only 10-22
s and having too much mass (126 times that of the proton). At that mass, it could not be contained inside other less-fundamental particles. So, these aether deniers uncharacteristically went to the theoretical outside for their mass-giving particle. Molasses anyone? That was like saying your vehicle weighs more when stuck in a snowbank. One does not need a Nobel to suggest these folks give up the search for a fundamental particle:
Unzicker, Alexander, 2013, The
Higgs fake : how particle physicists fooled the Nobel Committee, CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform (October 9, 2013), 152 p. [ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1492176249/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
].
This is a nice summary:
Unzicker, Alexander, and
Jones, Sheilla, 2012, The Discovery of What? Ten Questions About the Higgs to
the Particle Physics Community: http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0100v1.pdf
And this sums up what is going
on throughout Regressive Physics with your tax dollars:
Unzicker, Alexander, and
Jones, Sheilla, 2013, Bankrupting Physics - How Today's Top Scientists Are Gambling
Away Their Credibility.
Here is the abstract:
“In this fascinating and
eye-opening account, theoretical physicist Alexander Unzicker and science
writer Sheilla Jones offer a polemic. They question whether the large-scale,
multinational enterprises actually lead us to the promised land of
understanding the universe. The two scientists take us on a tour of
contemporary physics and show how a series of highly publicized theories met a
dead end. Unzicker and Jones systematically unpack the recent hot theories such
as "parallel universes," "string theory," and
"inflationary cosmology," and provide an accessible explanation of
each. They argue that physics has abandoned its evidence-based roots and
shifted to untestable mathematical theories, and they issue a clarion call for
the science to return to its experimental foundation.”
Posts
4 comments:
I read the Unzicker book but found it of little use.
Theory is not fact and we should all know that!
Atomic physics must deal with subatomic detail and there are the limitations of Planck's numbers.
1) of course its all theory but that is because of the subject matter.
2) of course the ratio of noise to real data is high, again that's due to the subject matter.
But in defense particle physics does have evidence to show for its conclusions and it tries, so Unzicker should show us something better and he can't.
I quote: "its evidence-based roots and shifted to untestable mathematical theories,..." That is suggesting that modern math theories are just phantasies and not about the world or the universe. Great. Reading math books, almost all books aren't explaining but just giving axioma's, definitions and rules to follow. There is no link to what people are experiencing during their life. The claim is then that the higher the abstraction is, the more it represents reality. Math is about structures, they say. Which structures, is then the question. Producing paradoxical situations means that there is something wrong with the basic assumptions. As far as I know, in the past, math theories were developped to get a better understanding of physical phenomenae not the other way around.
From: Don Briddell:
"I read Unzicker’s book and recommend it."
As seen from the above comments, there are opposing opinions concerning the value of the Higgs "discovery." In general, in science you only can find what you are looking for. The fleeting half-life (10 billion trillionth of a second) and hugh mass (126 times that of a proton) does not inspire belief or confidence in normal people. One cannot blame the Japanese for second thoughts: Is that all there is? You want $3.5 billion for what?
Post a Comment