An alternative to quarks?

[Bignose]

Obviously I respect scientific data.

 

Bullplop. I brought up Briedenbach's paper no less than 3 times in this thread where the first experimental evidence of quarks was published. The report of 3 point-like bodies was very clear from the paper. You have not shown in any way why your collection of thousands of particles would lead to 3 point-like bodies. You can't even demonstrate that your idea replicates the first experimental evidence for quarks, much less the thousands of experiments that have come after the first one. If your model can't even predict the first result, why even look deeper? If you respect scientific data so much, why the rejection of this first groundbreaking experiment (that was verified many times over)?

 

My claim is that a proton is a ball of around 1250 negative charges and 1251 positive charges.

 

Again, if this is true, why does the Briedenbach paper report 3 point like bodies, and not 2501?

[uncool]

I'd like to correct another misconception that newts seems to have.

 

He claimed earlier that there were 60+ types of particles in the Standard Model. That is incorrect. There are 16 particles in the standard model: 3 generations of 2 quarks and 2 leptons each, and 4 force-carrying bosons.

=Uncool-

Edited December 3, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

No. He means that you are acting in a hypocritical manner; that you are as bad as your pretend physicist.

=Uncool-

The expression 'the pot calling the kettle black', derives from bygone times when both vessels were heated over open fires, so each got equally blackened by soot. Therefore the expression should only really be used when two people are equally bad. For instance I would not apply it to Obama calling Cameron a 'lightweight', since Obama is substantially more stupid even than the fool Cameron. Nor would I apply it to Gell-Mann calling Heisenberg a 'crank', as Heisenberg did actually do some proper science.

 

I have experimented to see whether people on here are interested in an alternative to quarks, and the result is negative. I suppose I could keep repeating the same experiment, at higher and higher energies, hoping for a different result, like the Higgs-hunters; but I would rather not run the risk of being thought a hypocrite. So I think it is time I tried a new experiment.

 

I'd like to correct another misconception that newts seems to have.

 

He claimed earlier that there were 60+ types of particles in the Standard Model. That is incorrect. There are 16 particles in the standard model: 3 generations of 2 quarks and 2 leptons each, and 4 force-carrying bosons.

I got my information from the same interview where Gell-Mann slags off his colleagues. http://discovermagaz..._start:int=0&-C=

 

" How many types of elementary particles are there?

We have a thing called the standard model, which is based on about 60 particles, but there may be many more. These are just the ones that have a low energy, so we can detect them. "

 

Maybe the reporter got it wrong, perhaps Gell-Mann did actually say 16? Or maybe the standard model is such a mess that even the people who invented do not really have a clue what is going on? Anyhow it is a bit sly not to include the antiparticles in the final figure.

 

 

 

I brought up Briedenbach's paper no less than 3 times in this thread where the first experimental evidence of quarks was published. The report of 3 point-like bodies was very clear from the paper. You have not shown in any way why your collection of thousands of particles would lead to 3 point-like bodies.

Yes, and you stopped mentioning it after I gave this reply:

 

"Having had a month to think about scattering, I can provide an answer of sorts. My understanding is that if high speed electrons are fired at protons, then they scatter as if off a solid sphere. It is only if the electrons are accelerated to hundreds of times their rest mass, that scattering is inelastic and a pattern is observed.

 

My interpretation is that in high energy collisions, the energy of motion is turned into particles. I would assume that when an electron collides with the surface of a proton, it creates new particles such as muons, so my first guess would be that what is actually happening is that the electron is scattering off the muons.

 

I do not see how anybody can really argue that the electrons are scattering off the internal structure of the proton, unless they can first answer the question as to whether the muons are created before, during, or after the electrons hit the quarks; and nowhere have I seen this question addressed."

Edited December 3, 2011 by newts

[uncool]

The expression 'the pot calling the kettle black', derives from bygone times when both vessels were heated over open fires, so each got equally blackened by soot. Therefore the expression should only really be used when two people are equally bad. For instance I would not apply it to Obama calling Cameron a 'lightweight', since Obama is substantially more stupid even than the fool Cameron. Nor would I apply it to Gell-Mann calling Heisenberg a 'crank', as Heisenberg did actually do some proper science.

And Bignose is using it to say that you are as bad as your strawman of a physicist.

I have experimented to see whether people on here are interested in an alternative to quarks, and the result is negative.[/QUOTe]

The result is that people have told you precisely what you need to interest them. You have chosen to ignore them.

I suppose I could keep repeating the same experiment, at higher and higher energies, hoping for a different result, like the Higgs-hunters;

And yet another misunderstanding pops up. No, it is not higher and higher. There are papers putting a bound on the mass of the Higgs. Higher and higher energies are used to see if there are any other particles out there.

but I would rather not run the risk of being thought a hypocrite. So I think it is time I tried a new experiment.

You are claiming the wrong result. The result has been and will always be: "There is no interest until you can show us a reason for there to be interest." That is the result you will get in all of these "experiments".

 

Furthermore, your experimental protocol is honestly crap. You have forgotten to include in your methodology that you would purposely ignore every salient point.

I got my information from the same interview where Gell-Mann slags off his colleagues. http://discovermagazine.com/2009/apr/17-man-who-found-quarks-made-sense-of-universe/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

 

" How many types of elementary particles are there?

We have a thing called the standard model, which is based on about 60 particles, but there may be many more. These are just the ones that have a low energy, so we can detect them. "

 

Maybe the reporter got it wrong, perhaps Gell-Mann actually said 16? Or maybe the standard model is such a mess that even the people who invented do not really have a clue what is going on?

Or perhaps you have no idea what the standard model says. As usual. Once again, you demonstrate that all of your understanding of the standard model is from a magazine, rather than proper study.

 

Any physicist will tell you: the standard model consists of 3 up-type quarks, 3 down-type quarks, 3 neutral leptons, 3 charged leptons, and 4 gauge bosons, plus their antiparticles, as the elementary particles. There is also the Higgs boson.

 

My guess, given other quotes in that interview, is that Gell-Mann is talking about particles in the sense of hadrons and leptons - in other words, he is including all the different kinds of baryons and mesons. Note that Gell-Mann himself never refers to quarks as elementary particles.

 

There are a total of around 81 of those on Wikipedia now.

 

 

Yes, and you stopped mentioning it after I gave this reply:

 

"Having had a month to think about scattering, I can provide an answer of sorts. My understanding is that if high speed electrons are fired at protons, then they scatter as if off a solid sphere. It is only if the electrons are accelerated to hundreds of times their rest mass, that scattering is inelastic and a pattern is observed.

 

My interpretation is that in high energy collisions, the energy of motion is turned into particles. I would assume that when an electron collides with the surface of a proton, it creates new particles such as muons, so my first guess would be that what is actually happening is that the electron is scattering off the muons.

 

I do not see how anybody can really argue that the electrons are scattering off the internal structure of the proton, unless they can first answer the question as to whether the muons are created before, during, or after the electrons hit the quarks; and nowhere have I seen this question addressed."

The fact that you can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Quark theory made a physical prediction, and Briedenbach confirmed it.

=Uncool-

[Bignose]

Yes, and you stopped mentioning it after I gave this reply:

 

"Having had a month to think about scattering, I can provide an answer of sorts. My understanding is that if high speed electrons are fired at protons, then they scatter as if off a solid sphere. It is only if the electrons are accelerated to hundreds of times their rest mass, that scattering is inelastic and a pattern is observed.

 

My interpretation is that in high energy collisions, the energy of motion is turned into particles. I would assume that when an electron collides with the surface of a proton, it creates new particles such as muons, so my first guess would be that what is actually happening is that the electron is scattering off the muons.

 

I do not see how anybody can really argue that the electrons are scattering off the internal structure of the proton, unless they can first answer the question as to whether the muons are created before, during, or after the electrons hit the quarks; and nowhere have I seen this question addressed."

 

And this is a total non-answer. Your model should be able to make a prediction that shows how your 2501 charges lead to 3 point-like bodies being discovered in the scattering. The above is meaningless since it is just words. There is a confirmed experimental number: 3 bodies. Your model needs to be able to make that prediction. Show us how your model makes this prediction.

 

(and as an aside, I stopped bringing it up when it was becoming clear no real desire to actually answer it -- I'll be floored if my question above is answered, actually)

Edited December 3, 2011 by Bignose

[uncool]

Just to use your "miracles" analogy, newts:

 

You are trying to prove that miracles don't exist by saying that Catholics believe that Baal, the god of Carthage, grants the wishes of good Catholics, and that since this is so ridiculous, miracles can't exist.

 

In other words, newts, you may have the correct conclusion, but your attempts to argue it are incoherent, inconsistent, and downright stupid at times.

=Uncool-

[newts]

You are trying to prove that miracles don't exist

On the contrary, for some Catholics miracles do exist, like for some science-believers time travel exists. It is all a matter of what people choose to believe.

 

why does the Briedenbach paper report 3 point like bodies?

Briedenbach did not observe quarks, rather he must have observed something like flashes on a screen, or computer data, and it would be much more useful to have that data rather than somebody's interpretation of it. It sounds like a fascinating experiment, and here is my guess as to what may have happened:

 

Since the lightest exotic particle is a muon with a mass of about 200 electrons, I presume that any electrons of lower energy than that would have bounced off the proton elastically. Since the next lightest particle is a pion at nearly 300 electron-masses, I would assume that an electron with an energy of 280 electron-masses, would produce a muon and then bounce off with the remaining energy of about 80 electron-masses. I also assume that to justify the conclusion of 3 points, the electrons would have been deflected in three separate directions.

 

According to my theory, a proton is a solid sphere of electric charges, so it agrees with the elastic scattering result. As to why an electron with an energy of 190 electron-masses, would scatter of three point particles, as if off a sphere, is hard to fathom, but doubtless somebody has come up with an excuse.

 

When a high energy electron collides inelastically, it is sure to rebound differently, because it must be bouncing off both the proton and the newly created particle. It would be interesting to know the scattering pattern, but I have no way of predicting it.

 

Can anybody explain what physicists think happens in the experiment?

Edited December 5, 2011 by newts

[Bignose]

Briedenbach did not observe quarks, rather he must have observed something like flashes on a screen, or computer data, and it would be much more useful to have that data rather than somebody's interpretation of it.

 

Seriously? this is an objection of yours? He didn't directly observe it? What does constitute a 'direct' observation then? This speculation about 'somebody's interpretation' of the data is just silly -- why don't you actually go an get a copy of the paper wherein the experimental procedure is detailed and you can see exactly how the data was interpreted. This is exactly WHY research papers are written

 

... and here is my guess as to what may have happened:

 

Since the lightest exotic particle is a muon with a mass of about 200 electrons, I presume that any electrons of lower energy than that would have bounced off the proton elastically. Since the next lightest particle is a pion at nearly 300 electron-masses, I would assume that an electron with an energy of 280 electron-masses, would produce a muon and then bounce off with the remaining energy of about 80 electron-masses. I also assume that to justify the conclusion of 3 points, the electrons would have been deflected in three separate directions.

 

According to my theory, a proton is a solid sphere of electric charges, so it agrees with the elastic scattering result. As to why an electron with an energy of 190 electron-masses, would scatter of three point particles, as if off a sphere, is hard to fathom, but doubtless somebody has come up with an excuse.

 

When a high energy electron collides inelastically, it is sure to rebound differently, because it must be bouncing off both the proton and the newly created particle. It would be interesting to know the scattering pattern, but I have no way of predicting it.

 

Can anybody explain what physicists think happens in the experiment?

 

All these words have specific meaning -- such as elastic, inelastic etc. They has specific implications on how the bodies in the collision would act. And I chose the word specific deliberately, because IF you actually think that the above is what happened, you can calculate what it means. You can calculate the trajectory the bodies would take after collision. Etc. You can then compare your predictions to what the data actually is.

 

So, when can we have your calculations?

 

As to why an electron with an energy of 190 electron-masses, would scatter of three point particles, as if off a sphere, is hard to fathom, but doubtless somebody has come up with an excuse.

 

Maybe... just maybe... it is evidence for the quark model. Hmmm, quark model says 3 bodies in a proton, and then 3 bodies found. Ding! That's already better than your model. You can't just say 'it is hard to fathom' -- it is a known result that if you think your model is correct, YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW YOUR MODEL WOULD YIELD THIS EXPERIMENTAL RESULT! And then you need to use Web of Science or some other journal article database and find all the other experimental results from people doing experiments based off of, or similar to, or confirming the Briedenbach result. Then your model also needs to SHOW HOW IT ALSO INCORPORATES EVERY OTHER EXPERIMENTAL RESULT.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Bignose

[uncool]

On the contrary, for some Catholics miracles do exist, like for some science-believers time travel exists. It is all a matter of what people choose to believe.

Well done, newts; you seem to have deliberately missed or avoided the point by snipping out any of the actually relevant parts of my post.

 

Briedenbach did not observe quarks, rather he must have observed something like flashes on a screen, or computer data, and it would be much more useful to have that data rather than somebody's interpretation of it.

Once again, newts: a quantitative prediction was made based on the theory, was tested, and was found to be true. Multiple times. That is the scientific standard.

 

If you want the data, it's at http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v23/i16/p930_1

 

The paper where it is analyzed is at http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v23/i16/p935_1

 

The fact that you have found neither of these is a sign of your unwillingness to learn. It literally took me 2 minutes to find them, given only "quark" and "Briedenbach".

 

The rest of your post is absolutely worthless. You say you have no idea what your ideas imply in terms of this scattering, then claim that it predicts what this experiment found, then effectively say that physicists are making shit up.

 

No.

 

Once again, the way it happened:

 

Physicists who proposed the quark hypothesis made predictions as to the outcome of this experiment. The experiment was run, and the data confirmed the predictions.

=Uncool-

Edited December 6, 2011 by uncool

[newts]

Since this is the season of goodwill, I thought I would wish my fellow speculator, and anti-speculators, a happy Christmas; or a happy Higgs-mass, quark-mass, anti-quark-mass, gluon-mass, or whatever you celebrate. Hopefully Santa will fill your stockings full of dark matter, or at least some 'evidence' that it exists.

Edited December 17, 2011 by newts

[uncool]

Since this is the season of goodwill, I thought I would wish my fellow speculator, and anti-speculators, a happy Christmas; or a happy Higgs-mass, quark-mass, anti-quark-mass, gluon-mass, or whatever you celebrate. Hopefully Santa will fill your stockings full of dark matter, or at least some 'evidence' that it exists.

Hopefully Santa will fill your stockings with quantifiable predictions based on your ideas, and some ability to actually read and comprehend responses to your posts, such as the ones above that have shown you the aforementioned evidence.

=Uncool-

[newts]

Hopefully Santa will fill your stockings with quantifiable predictions based on your ideas, and some ability to actually read and comprehend responses to your posts, such as the ones above that have shown you the aforementioned evidence.

=Uncool-

Santa left a note to say he could not fill my stockings with any more quantifiable predictions based on my ideas, as my ideas are already overflowing with quantifiable predictions.

 

However he did grant my new year's wish, and has promised that early next year: Cern will apologise for wasting billions of dollars on the search for the imaginary Higgs; will acknowledge that it is a nonsense theory; and will vow to devote all their efforts to measuring the mass of as many particles as possible, as accurately as possible, so that a proper theory of particle physics can be developed.

 

I have added an avatar that shows what a proton might look like. I wondered whether a standard-modelist might post a picture of some of their creatures, as I am still unsure how many legs a quark has, if a gluon has a tail, and whether Higgs have wings?

[uncool]

Santa left a note to say he could not fill my stockings with any more quantifiable predictions based on my ideas, as my ideas are already overflowing with quantifiable predictions.

Name one. And I have already shown you that no, the small divisibility is not a "quantifiable prediction" - you can't quantify how likely it would be under a null hypothesis.

=Uncool-

[Bignose]

Santa left a note to say he could not fill my stockings with any more quantifiable predictions based on my ideas, as my ideas are already overflowing with quantifiable predictions.

 

However he did grant my new year's wish, and has promised that early next year: Cern will apologise for wasting billions of dollars on the search for the imaginary Higgs; will acknowledge that it is a nonsense theory; and will vow to devote all their efforts to measuring the mass of as many particles as possible, as accurately as possible, so that a proper theory of particle physics can be developed.

 

I have added an avatar that shows what a proton might look like. I wondered whether a standard-modelist might post a picture of some of their creatures, as I am still unsure how many legs a quark has, if a gluon has a tail, and whether Higgs have wings?

 

stay classy in 2012, newts

[newts]

stay classy in 2012, newts

Since humans are religious rather than rational creatures, the only way to find out whether something is classy is by experiment. I thought a theory that unifies the electric force with the strong nuclear force, might be classy; but it turns out that it is actually "no theory" and "not even wrong".

 

I have also discovered that "nobody thinks the standard model is the final answer", but that criticising quarks and gluons is still a heresy, because they have been "proved by experiment" and "proved by maths". So I am left wondering whether physicists actually realise that quark theory is too complicated to be correct, but are still unable to tolerate criticism; or whether they are really hoping for a 'new Einstein' to come along and make the standard model even more exciting by adding an extra half dozen super-quarks all stuck together with super-gluons.

 

 

The walrus and the physicist,

They spoke of many things,

Of quarks, and branes, and anti-quarks,

And nonsense stuff like strings,

And of magnetic monopoles,

And whether Higgs have wings.

 

The physicist was quite convinced,

That time could travel fast,

The future was already there,

But he could change the past.

 

The walrus was not really sure,

That time was really there,

But the physicist, he proved the maths,

To width of a human hair.

 

The physicist, he also knew,

That time curved like a ball.

The proof, he said, lay in fact,

That Einstein knew it all.

 

The walrus said, that made no sense,

And asked him to explain;

But he, replied the fault must lie,

Within the walrus's brain.

 

Anybody who thinks that poem is classy, can read the rest at http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/

[uncool]

Since humans are religious rather than rational creatures, the only way to find out whether something is classy is by experiment. I thought a theory that unifies the electric force with the strong nuclear force, might be classy; but it turns out that it is actually "no theory" and "not even wrong".

As has been explained to you time and again. You make no specific, quantifiable predictions, and therefore your idea is not a "theory" in the least. The closest you come is to say that the masses must add properly, but you then note that they don't in one case - and then start to excuse that fact.

I have also discovered that "nobody thinks the standard model is the final answer", but that criticising quarks and gluons is still a heresy,

Wrong. Many physicists criticize them, and have criticized them. The difference is, they have experiments to directly back them up, and they actually understand what the hell they were talking about. You have...0. Nada. Nil. Bupkis.

because they have been "proved by experiment" and "proved by maths".

Not quite. That is one part of why your "criticism" doesn't work; the fact that they have been supported by experiment and math means that if you want to replace it, you must do at least as much work.

So I am left wondering whether physicists actually realise that quark theory is too complicated to be correct, but are still unable to tolerate criticism; or whether they are really hoping for a 'new Einstein' to come along and make the standard model even more exciting by adding an extra half dozen super-quarks all stuck together with super-gluons.

newts, you are lying. You malign every person who has participated in this thread; you malign current physicists; you malign every intellect that has come across this thread in the first place. Stop.

 

Newts, what is one quantifiable falsifiable prediction of your "theory"?

=Uncool-

Edited January 7, 2012 by uncool

[newts]

Physicists have believed for a long time, that the reason particles have mass, is that it is bestowed upon them by the bounteous nature of the Higgs field. Now the discovery of a god-particle with a mass of around 125 GeV, is being seen as a sign from the gods that they have been right all along.

 

Some heretics have been murmuring, that believing in the Higgs field is pointless, because it leads to no useful predictions about particle masses. Indeed they have pointed out that the Higgs field is so totally devoid of predictive power, that they actually had to search between 85 and 400+ GeV, before they found a candidate that they could anoint as the god-particle.

 

What these heretics fail to understand, is the true purpose of the Higgs mechanism. By comparison, when the tribal elders were asked what caused the rain, they soon learnt to say it was caused by the rain-god. In the same way that the Higgs field makes no predictions about the masses of particles, so too believing in the rain-god is of no help in predicting the rain. However the rain-god was still useful, because instead of the tribal elders looking stupid by admitting that they had not the foggiest idea what caused the rain, they could instead appear clever by invoking the rain-god; and the rest of the tribe could feel proud that they had such clever elders.

 

350 years ago, Isaac Newton was sat under an apple tree, contemplating the cause of gravity, when he had a brainwave. He realised that assigning a cause to gravity was pointless, unless the theory actually made testable predictions about its effects.

 

The other day, I was sat under an apple tree, contemplating the cause of mass; when the ghost of Newton appeared to me, and told me that hypothesising about the cause of mass, has no place in experimental philosophy, unless the theory produced is capable of actually predicting the masses of particles. Deeply honoured that the ghost of so great a prophet as Newton, should deign to visit a humble peasant such as myself, I then set about devising a particle theory that made specific predictions about particle masses. I then checked the theory against published data, and found it worked very well.

 

The major problem with my theory, is that like most correct physics, it is very boring. In my theory there are not 6 different types of quark, all available in 3 colours; nor is there a matching complement of anti-quarks; and not even a menagerie of cute little gluons; and worst of all, I have completely washed my hands of the god-particle. In fact my theory would probably be of no interest to a religious person at all, as it explains all of particle physics on the basis of positive and negative charges. However if you are an experimental philosopher, you could check out http://squishtheory.wordpress.com/.

[swansont]

The other day, I was sat under an apple tree, contemplating the cause of mass; when the ghost of Newton appeared to me, and told me that hypothesising about the cause of mass, has no place in experimental philosophy, unless the theory produced is capable of actually predicting the masses of particles. Deeply honoured that the ghost of so great a prophet as Newton, should deign to visit a humble peasant such as myself, I then set about devising a particle theory that made specific predictions about particle masses. I then checked the theory against published data, and found it worked very well.

 

I don't see where you predict the masses. I don't see how you could, with no equations. Perhaps all the good stuff is in the missing chapter 3?

 

Oh, and why is this posted in the religion section?

[newts]

Perhaps all the good stuff is in the missing chapter 3?

Chapter 3 in the book is just meaningless waffle, that is why it was omitted from the website.

 

Oh, and why is this posted in the religion section?

Because I am arguing that the Higgs mechanism is a religious rather than a scientific theory. Also I wanted to use colourful religious language. But you can always move it somewhere else if you think that appropriate.

 

I don't see where you predict the masses. I don't see how you could, with no equations.

 

The chapters are designed for people with limited knowledge of physics, all my maths is summarised in http://squishtheory....research-paper/.

 

The equation derived is roughly that the difference in mass between two particles is given by .7 of an electron mass times n, where n is an odd number if one particle is charged and the other neutral, and even in other cases. It is not that useful for making positive predictions, but it does mean that any two particles of similar masses could be potentially used to falsify the theory. What I really need is for somebody to start measuring particle masses more accurately, then the issue could be resolved, but apparently that is no easy task.

Edited April 2, 2012 by newts

[swansont]

The equation derived is roughly that the difference in mass between two particles is given by .7 of an electron mass times n, where n is an odd number if one particle is charged and the other neutral, and even in other cases. It is not that useful for making positive predictions, but it does mean that any two particles of similar masses could be potentially used to falsify the theory. What I really need is for somebody to start measuring particle masses more accurately, then the issue could be resolved, but apparently that is no easy task.

 

 

Why is the mass difference a multiple of 0.7 of an electron mass? How did you derive that? It looks to me like you used the mass of the charged and uncharged sigma particles to come up with this, meaning you do not predict masses based on first principles. i.e. the same criticism you have of the standard model.

 

And did you derive the mass of the electron, or is that also taken from experiment?

[uncool]

Newts, why do you continue lying about how scientists in the field work?

 

Why have you abandoned your old thread, where your lies were specifically pointed out? And have you yet figured out a single quantifiable statistical prediction for your idea?

=Uncool-

Edited April 2, 2012 by uncool

[swansont]

Newts, why do you continue lying about how scientists in the field work?

 

Why have you abandoned your old thread, where your lies were specifically pointed out? And have you yet figured out a single quantifiable statistical prediction for your idea?

=Uncool-

 

Didn't realize this was an ongoing discussion. Threads merged.

[newts]

And did you derive the mass of the electron, or is that also taken from experiment?

I use the mass of an electron/positron as the unit of mass. It is surely the logical unit in my theory.

 

Why is the mass difference a multiple of 0.7 of an electron mass? How did you derive that? It looks to me like you used the mass of the charged and uncharged sigma particles to come up with this

Correct

 

meaning you do not predict masses based on first principles. i.e. the same criticism you have of the standard model.

The mass of atoms is accounted for on the basis of the mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons, less a certain amount of binding energy. The mass of particles is accounted for on the basis of the number of charges less a certain amount of binding energy. Is that not as near to first principles as it is possible to get?

 

Didn't realize this was an ongoing discussion. Threads merged.

The main emphasis of the new thread was to point out that the Higgs mechanism is not a proper scientific theory, irrespective of the discovery of a particle with a mass of 125 GeV. Surely there should at least be one website where the Higgs mechanism gets scrutinised rather than being blindly accepted?

[uncool]

The main emphasis of the new thread was to point out that the Higgs mechanism is not a proper scientific theory, irrespective of the discovery of a particle with a mass of 125 GeV. Surely there should at least be one website where the Higgs mechanism gets scrutinised rather than being blindly accepted?

Not only are there websites, there are papers. You apparently have still not even done the most basic research into the topic, and still have no idea what you are talking about.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgsless_model

=Uncool-

[swansont]

The mass of atoms is accounted for on the basis of the mass of electrons, protons, and neutrons, less a certain amount of binding energy. The mass of particles is accounted for on the basis of the number of charges less a certain amount of binding energy. Is that not as near to first principles as it is possible to get?

 

But you criticize the standard model for not predicting masses. Why is the standard model not permitted to use experimentally-determined values as parameters and yet you are?

 

The main emphasis of the new thread was to point out that the Higgs mechanism is not a proper scientific theory, irrespective of the discovery of a particle with a mass of 125 GeV. Surely there should at least be one website where the Higgs mechanism gets scrutinised rather than being blindly accepted?

 

That's a gross mischaracterization of the situation.