The God particle, The Higgs

I now have a better presentation, both in english and danish. It includes predictions, which is a must for theories, and a better rundown of my theory compared to Big Bang. Plus new ideas about plasma, the creation before electromagnetism. Below you will find some comments on the newest from Kyoto.

And for my danish friends, I even made it in danish:

Last year in december the statistics on the Higss particle was 3 sigma. That is not enough to call it a scientific discovery. The July verdict was a 5 sigma, which is a close to 100 % discovery. But that 5 sigma was only that there is a particle, not on the qualities that is necessary to call it the Real Higgs particle. I don’t think that statistics on the qualities has changed much since last december, but I cannot say, because the media does not write about it.

My prediction is still that the qualities of the Higgs particle, necessary to prove the standard model right, will not reach 5 sigma. The simple argument is that these qualities do not exist.

The standard model in its formative states, concluded that there is no mass. That sounded weird to Peter Higgs, and therefore he mathematically predicted the Higgs particle.

I think that the standard model is right, when it comes to the conclusion of no mass. I, as Einstein did in his older days, think that everything, including gravity, can be explained through electromagnetism. On top of that I think that above the force of electromagnetism there must be a force that we do not know, yet.

Hope to see your comments.

14 thoughts on “The God particle, The Higgs”

  1. Quantum field theory does to some extent suggest that all there is are fields permeating the universe, and that particles are just manifestations of those fields caused by disturbances (i.e. ‘ripples’ in the fields). However, quantum field theory does support the Higgs boson – itself in turn a disturbance in the Higgs field, a field that permeates the entire universe and gives particles mass. The view that the entire universe is made up of fields does not seem to be incompatible with the view that mass exists.

    Also, mass is simply the label that we give to the property of a body to resist movement. It can just as easily be thought of as ‘gravitational charge’ just as easily as we think of electrical charge, again – compatible with the view that the universe is made up of fields.

    1. I think that the reason Quantum Field Theory supports the Higgs is mainly due to scientists normalisation of anomalities. Remember that my view is that the universe is a constant flow of energy from minus infinite energy (antimatter) to plus infinite energy (matter). Physicists has been taught to normalise at some far fetched point very close to absolute zero or absolute infinity. This normalisation makes it seem as there is mass, and hence The Higgs.

      The problem with the Higgs particle is, that the properties for it fitting into the standard model, is missing. The big hype about its finding is only that they found a particle at 125 GeV. They have very few signs of the needed properties. Furthermore supersymmetri SUSY has not one single observation. You seem to understand much more than I do, could you in plain language explain to me, what the correlation between SUSY, Quantum Field Theory, Standard Model and Higgs particles are. I cannot read scientific papers, unfortunately, and have to rely on reporters interpretation of what scientists say. I have a hard time understanding SUSY. If SUSY is found, will it then be a proof of the standard model, or is it a proof that the standard model is wrong, or is it a proof of something entirely else? Is SUSY needed to prove the standard model? I am really confused on that one. Some say something, and others say something else, that I interpret 180 degree different. Please fill me in in plain english, if you can.

      This is very important to me, because in my theory supersymmetri is a must. But my supersymmetri is definitely different than SUSY. I say that the combined energy in the universe is ZERO, because the combined energy of antimatter and matter is ZERO.

      Thanks for your reply, i really do hope that you will take the time to fill me in on this.

      1. Most recent physics papers are here:

        arxiv.org/

        However, I’d advise starting with the Wikipedia articles on the topics that are of interest to you. Even if you disagree, you should be able to learn about the theories of modern Physics. Here are some of the ones you mention:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

  2. I don’t think that statistics on the qualities has changed much since last december, but I cannot say, because the media does not write about it.

    You’re looking in the wrong media.

    Here are summaries:

    http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/higgs_new_atlas_and_cms_results-96412
    http://resonaances.blogspot.com/2012/11/higgs-whats-new.html

    It doesn’t look like your Higg-less prediction will come true.
    Of course, we’ve known that your “the speed of light is infinite in a vacuum” is false for a long time.

    Other than that, looking at your earlier posts, you either don’t understand the current state of Physics or are using standard terms to mean different things than is commonly accepted. Either way, I’d advise studying modern Physics. Even if it’s wrong (or imperfect), it’s easier to attack something you understand than something you don’t.

    1. Thankyou very much. I will for the tenth time try to make sence out of the confusion shortly. I just cannot get it, probably because I don’t believe in it, but if I have to argue this, then it is essential that I understand what they are talking about. My plain view on the Higgs particle is, that I am pretty sure that we will be able to create short “particles” many places on the energyscale, and that the original standard model is correct. Particles in reality does not exist. Everything can be explained through electromagnetism, if we start considering “natural constants” different in time and space. I have put myself up to a hard time, I know, but as long I enjoy the journey I am satisfied.

  3. I used to be very happy to find this web-site.I desired to I appreciate your efforts with this great read!! I surely enjoying every single small little it and I’ve you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.

    Can I just say what a relief to locate somebody who actually knows what theyre dealing with on the internet.

    air jordans

  4. Hello. First let me confess that I’m only a curious layperson. I can’t speak with any technical expertise.

    Still, it has long seemed likely to me that something is very wrong with the practice of “normalizing” infinities, such as those found in QED. To simply replace these infinities with values calculated by other means is, as Feynman described, “sweeping them under the rug.”

    Perhaps the infinities are already quite “normal” as they are. Perhaps the bizarre commodity of “actual infinity” is something that is constantly being attained in the physical world, and might in fact be a prerequisite for all existing. (I don’t know, of course. I’m just wondering.)

    Anyway, I just stumbled across your website today, and I look forward to learning more about your ideas of infinite energies, and also reading what others have to say on the topic.

    Thanks,
    Bruce

    1. Yes, infinity is infinitely hard to get a grasp on, but in mathematics its okay, but not so in physics.

      I think we got Quantum Mechanics all wrong from the discovery of all the paradoxes. In the thirties we knew that the charge on the electron seemed to be infinite. As that “could not be possible” it started a lot of miscalculations. I don’t blame the old physicists, as the idea of infinite charge is bongus. But today it seems in my view, as a fact. The charge on the electron is infinite.

      I am going a bit further and saying that the energy of the electron is infinite. It’s completely bongus, but I mean it. In physics we will in the future have to calculate in degrees of infinity. The problem is that 2 point infinite is infinite.

      But still, I am pretty sure that this will be futuristic science.

  5. I do not think you understand basic physics or math. Have you ever taken a Physics course or read a Physics textbook? It is great to have ideas but how do you plan to test your ideas mathematically or experimentally?

    You can do an experiment yourself that will allow you to calculate the charge of an electron. It is not infinity.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

    If the charge on the electron was infinite how could we have non-infinite current, which you use to power all of your electronics devices?

      1. The reason we don’t accept certain infinities in physics (some are generally accepted – for example the range of the electromagnetic force) is because we don’t see them experimentally.

        1. I know, and it is sensible to do that. Or at least it has been until now, when physics has become so complex, that everyone is baffled about everything. In my head, the reason for us not seeing infinities in experiments, is because of the negative energy in separate mental parallel universes. The negative energy is also going towards negative infinity, and that makes our world seem finite. I am happy that I at times understand myself, because I don’t blame you at all for not understanding what I mean, if that is the case. But thanks for your interest.

    1. I do agree, Bob, that experimentally the electron’s charge and other quantities are indeed finite. Theoretically, though, they remain uncomfortably infinite, hence the need to sweep the infinities under the rug.

      The discomfort in sweeping them there comes, I believe, from a cognitive dissonance. There is an almost blind faith in the idea that nature must obey logic. And in most simple questions and practical applications, nature does. But it’s on closer inspection–in peering in to the deeper nature of nature–these paradoxes emerge. Or do they not?

      1. This is exactly why I am so much into these separate mental parallel universes having opposite energies. When Paul Dirac predicted antimatter in the thirties, he did it by finding a missing “minus” in Einstein’s work. There was a square root somewhere, where Einstein only had taken the positive number. Everybody knew that the result of a square root always give plus and minus. But even to Einstein it was crazy to think that antimatter could be a possibility. But not so to Dirac. He voiced the idea, and became a Nobel prize winner.

        My idea is in the same category. The many world interpretation has this idea that the wave collapse creates new physical universes all the time. To me that is crazy, but I respect those believing in it. My idea is that in all the bogus mathematics, somebody left out a minus sign, or forgot a square root somewhere, or drank too much whiskey. That results in the idea that these parallel universes should be physical. I think they have been here all along and that they have opposite energies, and make up for what we see as missing antimatter, and somehow has to do with consciousness. Crazy indeed, but if a mathematician could find the missing minus sign, then he would probably get a Nobel Prize. That is, if it can be shown experimentally, off course. I have ideas to do just that, but I want the mathematics to fit in first. And I can’t as I go blank every time I see some formulas.

        I sincerely hope that I am clear in my expressions, as it is so fu….. difficult to express myself clearly about these matters.

        Have a very nice and enjoyable Sunday.

I would love to hear back from you