What is Our Universe

[georgi_zlatev]

The Scientist is looking for higgs boson.This partical can
not exist because we can make conclusion what is small than this partical.The
smallest partical is wave.We can make supposition that partrical is two waves
positive and negative.They attract each other and form the mass.Is our Universe
without end?Over our universe there is field.This field make positive and
negative waves exist and to form mass.

Is our Universe endless.No it is surrounded by field .This
is the only explanation ,in contrary the
Universe shall always be expanding.If we think what is beyond the space if the answer is space what is beyond
that space if it is substance what is beyond
that substance.The only answer is that Universe is surrounded by field .

There
is no such thing as higgs boson because as much as little it is arise the
question can it be devide into small pieces.The smallest particle is composed
by two waves positive and negative which attract each other and create the
mass.

Edited April 30, 2013 by georgi_zlatev

[Griffon]

Particle physicists have found the Higgs boson though.

 

As for space .... I agree it's difficult to imagine a limit to space without wondering what's beyond it. But is that because our minds are trapped in only being able to visualise up to three dimensional space? I can visualise a two dimensional space which is limited in extent - the surface of a sphere for example.

 

Space could be infinite of course, which might get around your problem?

[Ophiolite]

Hi georgi, could you show me the mathematical relationship that would lead to positive and negative waves making a neutron a different mass from a proton.

[MigL]

Georgi, stop writing gibberish. Even elementary texts in cosmology and particle physics will set you straight, if you bother to read them.

[Dekan]

Particle physicists have found the Higgs boson though.

Well, they had to find it. Because otherwise all their work, and the public expense of building the LHC, would a waste of time and money.

 

Big projects like the LHC have to produce results. So they don't get shut down.

 

"If Higgs did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it." Didn't some old philosopher made a similar point?

[imatfaal]

Well, they had to find it. Because otherwise all their work, and the public expense of building the LHC, would a waste of time and money.

 

Big projects like the LHC have to produce results. So they don't get shut down.

 

"If Higgs did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it." Didn't some old philosopher made a similar point?

 

Sorry Dekan - but that just doesn't wash. The scientists at the LHC-Cern are all passionate about science and dedicated to their chosen subject - you don't make it to such high levels of your chosen profession if you are just a time server and you don't survive in such a competitive milieu if you are a fraud. You are castigating people's life work without any form of knowledge base and from a position of scientific ignorance.

 

Even if a coterie of fraudulent cheats at CERN wanted to perpetrate a hoax on the worldwide science community (and I believe this would never be the case) then at least one or two of the remaining 2400 full-time, 2000 part-time, and 10,000 visiting scientific researchers would be sure to blow the whistle on their duplicitous colleagues. This is a science forum - if you wish to throw such accusations about it would be nice if you had some form of proof, or an argument that cast doubt on the theory, or a valid critique of the methodology, or a predictive alternative theory ...

[howlingmadpanda]

Physicists at CERN believe they have found the Higgs boson, and even if they hadn't it would exist based on our model as all fields have excitements, I can see why this was moved, wrong section. Classical physics is pretty much simple things such as: Vectors and Scalars, Torque, motion and force.

[Dekan]

 

Sorry Dekan - but that just doesn't wash. The scientists at the LHC-Cern are all passionate about science and dedicated to their chosen subject - you don't make it to such high levels of your chosen profession if you are just a time server and you don't survive in such a competitive milieu if you are a fraud. You are castigating people's life work without any form of knowledge base and from a position of scientific ignorance.

Even if a coterie of fraudulent cheats at CERN wanted to perpetrate a hoax on the worldwide science community (and I believe this would never be the case) then at least one or two of the remaining 2400 full-time, 2000 part-time, and 10,000 visiting scientific researchers would be sure to blow the whistle on their duplicitous colleagues. This is a science forum - if you wish to throw such accusations about it would be nice if you had some form of proof, or an argument that cast doubt on the theory, or a valid critique of the methodology, or a predictive alternative theory ...

I'm just going by how people operate.

 

The top people at CERN realised they needed to say they'd found Higgs. So they said it.

This got headlines, and more funding.

 

Isn't that the way the world works?

[imatfaal]

I'm just going by how people operate.

 

The top people at CERN realised they needed to say they'd found Higgs. So they said it.

This got headlines, and more funding.

 

Isn't that the way the world works?

 

No.

 

You, over 3 or 4 threads, have been contradicting established and emerging physics from a standpoint of seeming complete ignorance. Science is not an x-factor style popularity contest, you do not get to choose an idea and argue for it regardless of its worth or merit; unfortunately for those who wish to merely to hold forth with no knowledge there is a gold standard in science - and that is evidence.

 

The big bang theory is mad bad and dangerous to know, it blows your mind and challenges far too many human preconceptions - but, and it's a big but, it matches all our observations; feel free to postulate another idea that is as accurate. And the clincher is that the BB theorists made wild and weird predictions that many decades after they were made were shown to be correct (CMB not least).

 

The Higgs' Boson was predicted - or more realistically postulated - many decades ago as a method of solving a problem in the standard model of particle physics. Since the Higgs' was mooted there have been many alternative ideas - and each was shown to be false, either theoretically (in that the hypothesis was internally contradictory) or experimentally (particle/field/interaction just didn't show up). The Higgs' survived all of these and when we finally had the wherewithall to test for it - we found it!

 

And before you start repeating the ridiculously cynical argument that "they needed to say they'd found Higgs. So they said it" - there were north of 20,000 people involved in LHC/Cern over the last few years; if human nature would imply that the bosses lied and made a false claim, then surely human nature would also imply a few whistle blowers!

 

Science demands a healthy scepticism - but the automatic gainsaying of any received knowledge is fruitless, counter-productive, and intellectually bankrupt.

[Dekan]

Thanks imatfaal. I appreciate your long, considered, post. I've read it through three times, and it's very well expressed. All your posts are worth reading. They're nearly as good as the posts by Swansont. He's a rampant lion, who sapiently roars and rules the board.

 

But getting back to Science, may I just say this:

 

Does anyone really, truly, deeply, believe in the "Higgs"? Isn't the thing just a product of theory and interpretation of equivocal meter-readings.

 

The point about meter-readings may be especially valid. Because in the past, there used to be bubble-chambers. These showed the paths of particles as ionisation trails, which could be photographed. That at least proved there was something physical to make the trail.

 

But nowadays, haven't the bubble-chambers been done away with. So all we have is meter-readings.

Can't these can be made to mean anything, depending on what you want to see, like a "Higgs"?

Edited May 4, 2013 by Dekan

[georgi_zlatev]

Dekan listen me.The scientist in CERN willl never find higgs bozon because the smallest particle is made by waves.To my opponents before attack me give me evidence for existance of higgs bozon.

[pwagen]

Dekan listen me.The scientist in CERN willl never find higgs bozon because the smallest particle is made by waves.To my opponents before attack me give me evidence for existance of higgs bozon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#Current_status_of_the_125_GeV_particle

 

Work is, of course, currently on-going.

 

How about answering Ophiolite's question in post #3?

[georgi_zlatev]

I am not a physicist i am thinker.If higgs boson exists the answer can higgs boson be devided into small pieces is positive.Also this pieces being material can also be devided into small pieces and this is without end.The only answer of this problem is higgs boson to be made of waves.

[pwagen]

So what you're saying is that, no matter how much sense your ideas make, you have nothing with which to back them up except your own thinking?

[georgi_zlatev]

I think that i am misunderstood.Let accept that higgs boson is smallest material particle.Even smallest particle higgs boson is big compared with free space which means that higgs boson can be devided into small material particle except higgs boson is made by waves.

[Bignose]

I am not a physicist i am thinker.

None of that really matters. Science is indifferent to your background or named profession.

The only answer of this problem is higgs boson to be made of waves.

Now this does matter. If the Higgs boson is made of waves, that has repercussions. Repercussions that should be able to be predicted and then detected.

 

So, one the one hand, we have the standard model that predicted we'd find a particle a certain amount of the time under certain conditions. As above, the research is ongoing, but the initial data coming out is that that particle has been found with the correct frequency of occurrence under those conditions. Seemingly a correct prediction.

 

On the other hand, what predictions can you make about the Higgs Boson being 'made of waves'? If there really are waves, you should be able to predict the frequency of the waves, and the energy in them, and how they interfere with other waves, etc.

 

This is what science actually is: prediction and then comparison of that prediction with measurement.

 

We have measurements, and the standard model has made a prediction that has pretty good agreement with those measurements.

 

Conceptually, the hurdle you have the now jump is demonstrate that the predictions made by your model are even better than those made by the standard model. Make a plot with the measured data, the predictions made by the standard model, and the predictions made by your model. Show us that your predictions are even better.

 

Otherwise, if you don't have predictions, then all you are doing is story telling about bosons and waves. Science is not story telling. Science is prediction.

[pwagen]

Let accept that higgs boson is smallest material particle.Even smallest particle higgs boson is big compared with free space

How big would you say the Higgs Boson is? How big is it compared to other bosons?

except higgs boson is made by waves.

Even if the Higgs Boson is the smallest elementary particle, how would you go from that to being sure it's made up of waves?

[georgi_zlatev]

If higgs boson is material partical it can be devided because even the
smallest material partical is bigger than the free space.This mean that
the smallest material partical is made by waves.

[pwagen]

What about a point like particle? Can a singular point be divided?

[Bignose]

If higgs boson is material partical it can be devided because even the

smallest material partical is bigger than the free space.This mean that

the smallest material partical is made by waves.

Simply repeating yourself is not a prediction. Can your model make any predictions at all? Or is it just stories and unfounded assertions of what you consider the truth?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

This is what science actually is: prediction and then comparison of that prediction with measurement.

 

 

 

Otherwise, if you don't have predictions, ...............then all you are doing is story telling ............. Science is not story telling. ...............Science is prediction.

 

Is this not a bit of a rash statement ! Surely there are areas of science , where in the early investigative stage of Research into a scientific subject that using Prediction versus Non prediction test ( yes No ) might cause " the baby to be thrown out with the bath water ".

 

Also . What if the area of Science under investigation was particularly UN predictable , by its very nature. Would that make it an area of Scientific Investigation , not worth following !

 

Say the Monolith in 2001 a Space Odessy ? ( By Arthur C Clark ) We might yet come upon a Monolith. ( May be we already have, in Dark Matter ) Will we run away from this Saying " This is not a Science investigation " we can have No Predictions ! " May be the thing in question , Just is Non Predictable . . So What ! IS SCIENCE going to limit its investigative sphere to JUST PREDICTION . Maybe we will miss many proverbial tricks. ! Why are all you scientists SO interested in this SPECULATIONS Forum ? Surely it belies the genuine interest that many scientists have in the unknown and possibly for some time the UNPREDICTABLE. But , let us not walk away from the MONOLITHS ! .

 

 

 

. What the dickins is That ! Where did that come from ? Who put that there ?

.

.~ So its a Story . Life is one whole big Story Let's read the Book ~

.~

Edited May 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos