Prof. Elam Gross from the Weizmann Institute, head of the Higgs boson search team at the Atlas facility: there is still no certainty that it is indeed a Higgs, but the fact that two experiments independently reached similar results strengthens the possibility * Weizmann Institute of Science scientists made a significant contribution
In a seminar held today in Saran, the organization that operates the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the heads of the Atlas and CMS experiments said that they saw jumps in the data at approximately the same mass - 124-126 Giga Electron Volts (GeV). However, the heads of the two experiments emphasized in the seminar held today that the statistical significance of the results is too small and does not allow for a formal announcement of the discovery, which will require additional experiments and additional analyses.
The search for the Higgs boson on behalf of the Atlas Center experiment by Prof. Elam Gross from the Weizmann Institute, who says in a conversation with the science website, that the fact that two experiments operating independently reached similar results increases the chances that it is indeed the Higgs and not statistical fluctuations, but the two experiments do not yet have enough data to prove unequivocally the existence of the particle that gives the other particles in the universe their mass.
"We at Atlas discovered statistical significance in the area of 126 giga electron volts at a level of 3.6 standard deviations, beyond what is expected if there is no Higgs. CMS sees peaks at 124 and 119 GeV, where both peaks are at a significance level of 2 standard deviations which is much lower than ours. Our record at 126 and theirs at 124 could come from the same particle that chooses to look like this for us and like that for them. The 119 is something new, it is certainly possible that the 124 and 126 will disappear and it will turn out that the Higgs mass is close to 119, or vice versa."
"In any case, we have been carrying these two records, both 119 and 126, for over a year. One of them is real and the other is probably a statistical fluctuation and will disappear. When we reach five standard deviations this is the necessary situation in particle physics to announce a discovery. We'll have to run the accelerator for a good few months, I guess by next summer we'll know what's going on, but it's not certain."
"If we believe there is a Higgs there, it should be there, so we close it, and here it shows itself at 119 and 126. If there is no Higgs, everything will turn upside down, it will be a big crisis in physics, it's like a car driving without an engine, you manage to get there, look inside and there is no engine. We will have to find another explanation for how nature works. Everyone is sure that the masses come from the Higgs, but what if it doesn't?"
In a press release issued by the Weizmann Institute, Gross is quoted: "The Atlas findings imply the possibility of the existence of a Higgs boson particle, whose mass is 126 Gev, but there is a one in 5,000 chance that the source of the additional events observed at this mass is a statistical deviation, and not a Higgs particle. These results are still inconclusive, and there is no certainty that they will repeat themselves, but the scientists believe that they lay a good foundation for the next round of experiments at the accelerator, which is expected to begin in April 2012."
The two experiments in the accelerator, Atlas and CMS, are looking for the Higgs boson particle, which is considered to be the particle that gives all other elementary particles their mass. The existence of the Higgs particle was predicted by the standard model of particle physics - the model that organizes all the subatomic particles that exist in nature. However, the existence of the Higgs particle has not yet been experimentally proven. If it turns out that it does not exist, it will be necessary to reformulate the standard model.
Prof. Gross: "Over 2011 trillion proton collisions took place in the LHC particle accelerator in Geneva during 300. All this enormous energy, amounting to 7 trillion electron volts, was invested in the effort to produce Higgs boson particles. Unfortunately, in every such collision, many more similar particles are also created, and there is no way to predict what exactly will happen to them. The chances that Higgs boson particles will be created in a collision are so small that this is expected to happen only about a hundred collisions a year."
Searching for possible signs of the particle is done by looking for inconsistencies in the statistical data (compared to the data expected to be obtained if the particle does not exist), in the area of the estimated mass of the particle. The problem is that as soon as such inconsistencies are encountered, the possibility that it is a statistical deviation must be ruled out. A few weeks ago it was discovered that during 2011 a number of events accumulated in the estimated range of the Higgs particle. Prof. Gross: "We couldn't believe our eyes. We stared at the screen for a long time, until we began to digest what we were seeing. During the last three weeks, the entire Atlas trial research team went back and checked the results, from every possible angle. We checked if we made a mistake, or if there were 'bugs' in the program."
The scientists of the Weizmann Institute of Science are permanent partners in the Atlas experiment, one of the two main experiments carried out at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), with the aim of studying the elementary particles: Prof. Giora Mickenberg, who headed the Atlas-Muon project for many years, is the head of the group of Israeli scientists at the accelerator. Prof. Ehud Duchovni leads the group of scientists from the Weizmann Institute of Science and head of the SUSY team, and Prof. Elam Gross currently coordinates the physics group searching for Higgs particles in the Atlas experiment. All three are scientists in the Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, and have been partners since 1987 in the search for the Higgs particle. In addition, large teams from the Technion and Tel Aviv University work at Atlas, and this after a decision was made at the beginning of the decade to concentrate the entire Israeli effort in one experiment so that the Israeli presence would be significant.
From the CERN website: Higgs boson limits
The article was prepared by the CENR Scientific Policy Committee providing information to the members of the CERN Scientific Advisory Board July 2011
- Although in the popular imagination, the purpose of the LHC is to discover the Higgs boson, the purpose of the accelerator is much broader. This is scientific research at the TeV scale. A significant part of the initiative is aimed at answering one of the important open questions in Physics. That is to discover the mechanism that breaks the symmetry of the electro-weak force? Discovery of the light Higgs boson as predicted by the standard model is one of the possibilities of these efforts. What if we finally found out about nature's choice to solve the puzzle. However, the general argument based on the basic principles such as the conservation of probability increases the certainty that a search in the TeV field will give an answer in one way or another.
- Information about the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson as expected according to the standard model will be possible in one of two ways. The first way is direct detection through the production and decay of Higgs bosons in the LEP and Tevatron accelerators which showed that according to the standard model the boson cannot be lighter than 114 GeV or between 158 and 173 GeV. The second way is indirect evidence for the existence of the Higgs boson predicted by the standard model by taking into account the expected effect of the process that includes "virtual" Higgs bosons in a large quantity precisely measured in LEP, SLC and Tevatron. The analysis made it unlikely that the boson would have a mass greater than 158 GeV.
- The discovery of the Higgs boson according to the standard model would be a very important discovery in itself because it would serve as a gold standard of statistical significance. However, the discovery of the Higgs boson in its forbidden areas, and with it the current formulation of the standard model, will be a more important discovery, precisely for the same reason of statistical significance.
57 תגובות
Oren, decide who you quote and who you attack.
Whoever said "a photon is an indistinguishable particle" is a student from the Technion.
The one who said "all the photons in the world are the same photons" is a student from the Technion.
The one who said "If you want to invent your own particles, give them a different name" is a student from the Technion.
I only said the last sentence you quoted, and I stand by it: "A photon is an engine (in quotation marks) that creates a wave". You are welcome to try to contradict this, not in the way of a "list of reasons" that you think are appropriate (because then it would really be a waste of time), but by referring to an article written by an authoritative physicist who explicitly discussed this possibility and rejected it (that is, rejected the possibility that a photon is interacting with the wave it itself creates).
I quote Meir:
"Elementary photon" - a photon is an indistinguishable particle. All photons in the world are the same photons. If you want to invent your own particles, give them a different name.”
Every sentence in your claim is full of mistakes and nonsense.
A photon is an indistinguishable particle - how can a photon be indistinguishable if it is possible to distinguish its momentum and its interaction with matter in known experiments for many years?
All the photons in the world are the same photons - nonsense again. Different photons have different energy, which depends on their wavelengths.
"If you want to invent your own particles, give them a different name" - you are the only one who invents and more than that changes properties of existing particles to fit your unfounded theories (not to mention that you don't have enough scientific background).
And really, a photon is an engine that creates a wave?? This is really nonsense. If you insist, I can start with a list of reasons that contradict this theory (although I think it's a waste of time...)
Student, I apologize for lying.
The intention was to say that there are two options. Either the theories at the forefront of today's physics are correct and we just need a little more understanding for all the pieces of the puzzle to fit together, or one or more of them are fundamentally wrong.
I assumed that those who are not willing to take the second option into account are necessarily locked into the first option.
Regarding the particles that you say I "invented", I did not invent a single particle. There is nothing in the standard model that rules out the possibility that there exists a photon with a minimal energy, which in reality does not have an energy smaller than that.
If you propose a theory with some particle(s) you invented, you are refuting the standard model of particle physics.
And please don't lie - I never claimed how to solve the problems, because I don't know enough to understand what the problem is. What I am trying to do in the comments here is to correct this common phenomenon, where people try to "solve" problems on the front of science before they have even learned who is against whom. It just paints a wrong picture of how science is progressing.
Is it possible to sleep peacefully and trust Stephen Hawkins that we will not have a black hole that will swallow the earth and the solar system?
If the answer is yes, then please explain where the security comes from
Student, leave my model. forget about him.
I don't know what theory you mean I'm trying to rule out, one thing is for sure. I shouldn't try to deny her. The two leading theories today are mutually exclusive. You will continue to claim that the problems will be solved by means of a small and spotty "patch" in our understanding, and I will continue to claim that the problems will be solved when false assumptions are replaced.
For your attention, Prof. Schechtman came up with inexplicable experimental results only after ruling out any other possibility based on the knowledge he had accumulated during his life (when he discovered the same diffraction, he already had 16~ years of experience in academia and a Ph.D.), while you try to rule out You are one of the most complex theories in physics today without any experimental result and without any prior knowledge.
Meir.
Here is a site of alternative theories:
http://www.wbabin.net/Science-Journal/purpose
You can present your theory in it, and also read about others.
And here's another site that will demotivate you to do it.
http://www.physicsgroupie.com/2009/07/physics-crackpots.html
If you would like more sites, including those that claim that the cheating Einstein actually stole the theory of relativity from his wife - let me know.
All in all you are right. I agree that I lack a lot of information.
The problem nowadays is that even if I had all the necessary information (and I would still stand behind my model, something Technion student Michael and Ben Ner claim to deny), and even if I were a famous professor of physics, I would still not have a chance to pass my model without being crucified in the city square , by Dan Shechtman.
Therefore, for now the most I can guarantee is that the next day when gravitational waves are measured in LIGO or LISA, or the Higgs boson is discovered, I will go sell pickles in the market 🙂
To R.H., of course I will try. I assume that if there are positive results they will be reported here in a main article and not as a tickbook 🙂
In the event of a rebuttal, I will post the pickle stand address in a sponsored ad.
Meyer,
Listen, in general self-thinking is a positive thing. The point is that self-thinking also needs to be done correctly. The problem with you is perception - you have to realize that what you think you know about the standard model, quantum theory, quantum field theory, relativity theory, and the problems in these theories, is probably incorrect and certainly incomplete. I don't know what your background is, but you don't seem to be a physicist, so you don't realize how much you don't know. This is not said out of disdain for you or your abilities, but because in order to understand (really understand) such complex theories, in most cases you have to engage in it as a way of life, and not as a hobby.
I don't know if I'm new to you, but there are many more like you. All the faculties in the universities (especially those of the natural sciences) receive articles by autodidacts every week with the more delusional and less delusional theories that claim to bring about a revolution. I don't know of any cases where it was successful.
Meyer,
Don't say "there is no way that one of the editors of a theoretical physics journal would risk himself to publish such a model." Just try!
Maximum be where you are now. Even if they don't accept and make constructive comments, you will learn a lot from it and maybe improve the model.
Successfully!
PS I don't have the tools to judge models in physics, but I think that everyone who believes in their theory should try to publish within the accepted scientific method and try to get a Gushpanka. There is no point grumbling and grumbling on sites like the science of opacity and cowardice like many others do (Svardamish did we say?). So really try and don't forget to report what the results were.
Meir:
Maybe, but you showed none of these.
I do not know what to tell you.
As I mentioned before - both the theory of relativity and the quantum theory predicted so many things that they did not guess in advance - things that they all matched - that it is absolutely inconceivable that their basic assumptions are wrong.
Therefore, it is difficult for me to see myself devoting significant time to studying your model.
Michael,
Of course I am offering testable predictions.
My model undertakes to explain every gravitational phenomenon through one fundamental interaction between the elementary photon and space.
The model predicts a variety of phenomena attributed to gravity in all its operating ranges, including phenomena that are considered anomalies (Flyby anomaly, Pioneer anomaly including a daily component and an annual component that accompanied the anomaly, the flatness of rotation curves, and more), and all this without adding "patches" to explain each phenomenon, but through interaction A cyclical one, from which everything else is derived.
I can't really suggest a mechanism for harnessing photons together. What I propose is to refer to the fact that the energy that a photon brings with it "connects" to an existing mass, which implies that the mechanism exists, and the question is only how to interpret it. Even the accepted models do not know how to explain "how" energy becomes mass, or how it is "released" from mass.
The model I propose refers to gravitation, which even the current models do not know how to indicate a connection between it and electromagnetism.
R.H.
It takes courage to make such a proposal here in the forum..
There is no chance that any of the editors of a theoretical physics journal would risk publishing such a model. I have no choice but to document my words in a certain peer review that allows this, and on my personal websites, and that's what I do.
I know that my articles are being downloaded, but of course I don't know who is downloading them and for what purpose. I assume that in some cases these are high school students, or "non-physicists", but it is clear to me that even if physicists are among my readers, it would not be respectful of them to risk criticizing the work of an "unknown". After all, the very act of referring to things, if only in order to dismiss them, could cost them dearly.
About two weeks ago I emailed two professors in the US and one doctor from NASA a certain question, which I don't think they gave their opinion on.
The answer was that from a few days later until these days, the relative number of visits by surfers from the USA to my website increased drastically. Of course, it could be the hand of chance, but I believe that if my question was stupid, this wouldn't have happened, and that at least one of them was nice enough to throw me a polite answer "go study physics".
Meir:
Your response seems very strange to me.
You are proposing completely different physics than exists without any testable prediction.
You say that everything consists of photons but you also say that there could be other particles for the charge.
You talk about photons being bound back to back without describing any mechanism that can bind them.
You ignore all the discoveries of physics so far, all the multitude of particles in it - quarks, gluons, neutrino particles and the like and all the forces acting on it.
It was said about it It's not even wrong
Meyer,
Have you tried publishing your model as an article in one of the peer-reviewed theoretical physics journals?
Israel,
According to me, a photon is not a wave entity. He is an "engine" that creates a wave. The medium in which the wave is created is indeed composed of elementary particles, but these are massless particles, the "separate" ones from which space is woven.
Regarding the "ether", and Maxwell, let us recall that in the Michelson-Morley experiment the isotropy of the speed of light was not measured, but the isotropy of the geometry of the interference image.
When I referred to the physics forum, I did not mean a specific one. Any forum where people talk about physics, such as this one.
Michael,
Q: Can you explain how a photon - which is a "particle that creates a wave" and not a "wave" can pass through two slits at the same time and collide with itself?
A: What passes through both slits at the same time and struggles with itself is the wave (and in fact it is a field, not a wave). The photon only passes through one of the slits, but since its movement is dictated by the field strengths that rise and fall as a result of the interference, there are preferred paths of movement, the probability of which it will pass through is higher than others.
Q: And can you describe to us an experiment where you take two photons and combine them into a more energetic photon rule?
A: I cannot describe such an experiment exactly, but there are experiments that show that a photon of a given energy splits into two photons whose sum of energies is equal to the energy of the original photon.
Q: And can you explain what you mean by "the smallest particle that holds E=MC^2?"
Does that mean smaller particles don't hold it?
A: There are no particles smaller than the elementary photon (and for the student from the Technion: having an energy smaller than that of the elementary photon). Energy comes in "jumps" of the elementary photon.
Q: And can you explain to us how in your opinion the photon can give bodies rest mass when it itself has no rest mass?
A: As an example (just to give an intuition) think of two photons that are beamed back to back, each striving to move forward in space at the speed of light, but in fact both are demonstrating "on the spot". This is the state of "rest mass" that "warps space" around a central point, unlike a state where a photon is free to move in a straight line.
Q: And can you explain why the proton does not decay into many photons?
A: From the fact that the proton does not decay into many photons (I assume the question is aimed at the case of a particle collision and not a spontaneous decay) it can be concluded that a "collision" between elementary particles is not similar in all respects to a collision between masses in the macro world. My hypothesis is that when elementary particles approach each other beyond a certain limit, a kind of "competition" is created between them for "resources" (resources = the composition of the field to which the particle is sensitive and reacts) which has the power to "tear" from the particle exactly the amount of mass (released as an elementary particle or as a photon) that frees him from the "Eka".
Q: And can you explain how from photons that have no electric charge, particles that have an electric charge are created?
A: Photons are the ones that contribute the mass to the particles. This does not mean that there are no other components that contribute to the other properties of a particle.
Q: And can you explain what all this pretentiousness of yours is based on - to know better than people smarter than you who have devoted more time to research on the subject than you?
A: I think this question is not relevant to the actual discussion. It doesn't matter if the money in my bank account comes from hard work or winning the lottery. In any case, in certain fields I devoted more time to research than others, and therefore I assume that if at the end of the day (or at the end of three hundred years) the models I propose are accepted, it will be thanks to my work and not because I won the lottery.
It should be remembered that although physics is a complex and broad subject (to the point that there is actually no physicist these days who masters all fields), it is still based on simple basic assumptions. The amount of unsolved problems in physics can imply an error in one or more of the basic assumptions.
For example: I claim that the error in the theory of relativity is the assumption that there is a physical meaning to "an observer at rest". I argue that (a) physics is an interaction between particles (and not between particles and a mathematical convention); (b) all particles consist of an elementary photon; (c) an elementary photon always moves at the speed of light; (d) A body predicted to be at rest (or at a speed less than the speed of light) is a body whose average movement at the speed of light of the elementary photons that make it up is zero (or equal to its observed speed);
From this it follows that there is no particle in the universe that is not at the speed of light.
If this is true, then the theory of relativity is "almost right", as the observations prove, but its basic assumptions are wrong.
Of course, you can say that I have no right to assert my claims, because wiser people than me have devoted more time to research than me. But the fact is, they did not check among the other possibilities the model I just proposed, if only in order to reject it.
I invite everyone who can and wants to explain why the theory of relativity would be correct in a universe where all matter is in motion at the speed of light through space, a universe where there is no (physical) observer at rest, a universe where the "clocks" of all the particles of matter tick at the same rate (the rate of elementary photon), and will indeed exist in it when "average" measurements are made that assume an "observer at rest" (in many cases) the predications of the theory of relativity are obtained.
Alternatively, disprove the model.
Does the fact that the wiser than me who spent more time researching than I did not propose/test/refute such a model, disqualify it a priori?
Nimrod.
I really don't know if you wrote seriously, or if you are kidding like Itzik the Great.
First of all I am neither a scientist nor an engineer but just a layman (and maybe for you an idiot) trying to understand
Does Higgins' bison (which, by the way, as far as I know live in America and not in Africa) create a force field in the entire space? Or does it connect to the other particles and create the force field around them?
And if the Huygens particle didn't exist and the field it creates didn't exist, would the particles still form sealed structures or would the entire universe be full of particles moving everywhere?
Or I didn't understand anything and I'm just rambling...
To Meir
It seems from your words that you took a basic course, an introduction to modern physics, but you didn't
Advanced courses in quantum and quantum field theory. You lack a lot of knowledge
And therefore there is no point in flirting with you either. Anyway, your claim is as if the particle and the wave are
Two separate entities, like the example of the boat and the sea you brought, brings back the science of physics
About 4,000 years back, to the time of the Greeks who believed that the space medium was made of "ether"
Etc. Etc... That's how your words raise the question regarding the dimensions of the photon particle and its structure.
And you certainly don't have an answer for that
In conclusion: your theory, as nice as it may be, does not agree with the experimental knowledge
that science has and most of it is probably unknown to you.
Your question is what are professional solutions?
Well, professional solutions are those that are based on the whole of the known knowledge and not only
on a tiny part of it.
post Scriptum. In your response you did not deny the guess I made that you are an engineer.
I keep guessing since then that you are an industrial and management engineer or a civil engineer.
My guess is based on my impression that many engineers tend to mistakenly think
As if physics (the basic one they studied) is a closed and sealed science.
This is of course a mistake, both at the theoretical level and at the experimental-observational level.
Moshe:
Thanks for the interesting link
Meir.
dont give up. There is a good reason that you are not satisfied with the existing theories: they are unsatisfactory, just as the caloric theories and the Ptolemy theory were unsatisfactory, and after finding really good theories, everyone almost calmed down, disappointed at least.
(Meir, you are not one of the people in Gilad's articles who believe that God is at the center of the universe, are you?).
This is the main problem of quantum mechanics: it works in practice, but not so much in theory.
So let's keep having fun with the models. My problem with your boat model is that there is no doubt that the boat is not an elementary particle in the system you described: it is a fact that it creates waves in the water, and the waves are composed of elementary particles (in our case the water molecules) much more elementary than the boat. So if we throw back to the photon, the fact that it is a wave entity requires that it is composed of more elementary particles, like any wave, right?
And in general, if we have already touched on an electromagnetic wave: how is it that Maxwell's theory, which gave such successful predictions for the description of the propagation of electromagnetic waves, was abandoned, and this in general from a hydrodynamic description of eddies on the site? If the theory is wrong, how did Maxwell manage to derive the speed of light while comparing the constants of electricity and magnetism to the constants used to derive the speed of sound for example? By chance did he succeed?
And what is the physics forum you mentioned, once again they don't tell me anything?!
תיקון
His name is Prof. Matt Strassler, a Jewish man from Rutgers University, New Jersey.
Works in the research team of the Atlas and the CMS in Saarn, Switzerland.
A simple and clear explanation even for those who have no background on the Higgs and friends by theoretical physics professor Matt Stettler.
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/the-higgs-particle/360-2/
My dear.. I read word for word until here and I have to tell you.... I got tired!
Meanwhile you are just wrong... :\
"Elementary photon" - a photon is an indistinguishable particle. All photons in the world are the same photons. If you want to make up your own particles, give them a different name.
The reason a quantum particle can be found anywhere in space is exactly, abstractly speaking, its description as a wave.
What assumptions are you trying to disprove? You'll start with the postulates of quantum mechanics, before moving on to an infinitely more complex theory like the Standard Model.
Meir:
Your every response reveals more misunderstandings.
Can you explain how a photon - which is a "particle that creates a wave" and not a "wave" can pass through two slits at the same time and collide with itself?
And can you describe to us an experiment where you take two photons and combine them into a more energetic photon rule?
And can you explain what you mean by "the smallest particle that holds E=MC^2?"
Does that mean smaller particles don't hold it?
And can you explain to us how in your opinion the photon can give bodies rest mass when it itself has no rest mass?
And can you explain why the proton does not decay into many photons?
And can you explain how from photons that have no electric charge, particles that have an electric charge are created?
And can you explain what all this pretentiousness of yours is based on - to know better than people smarter than you who have devoted more time to research on the subject than you?
A. Ben Ner
What do you think is "professional solutions"?
Let's say that this forum existed in 1904, and let's say that I would argue here, that according to my model, since the speed of light "jumps" out of Maxwell's equations without a frame of reference, the simplest thing is to assume that the speed of light is equal for all observers.
Even then, is all you could contribute to the forum is to try your hand at guessing which certificates are hanging on my wall?
Israel,
I claim there is an elementary photon. It is a photon with the smallest energy that satisfies the equality E=mc^2
And there is no smaller energy than that.
Each photon with a higher energy is a "package" of many elementary photons. Energy exists only in multiples of the energy of the elementary photon.
Regarding the duality of the photon, I will quote as an introduction a sentence of Michael's that expresses the state of contemporary physics very well: "Mr. X takes another step in his clarification and in this step (which relies on his predecessor which was no longer true) there is another assumption that does not have to exist".
I argue that a photon is a particle that creates a wave, but it and the wave are two separate entities. Just as it is nonsense to refer to a boat that creates waves along its course as "dual", so it is nonsense to refer to a particle that creates a wave as a dual entity. The particle exists all the time in its one and only form, and it leaves its impression as a wave in space. The fact that there is a different probability of its being in this or that place in space (among other things also as a function of the wave it itself created), does not make it itself a "wave".
Now, there is a student here from the Technion, who has a problem with the fact that I said that a photon has a "size" (and it should be lamented that science students are exempt from understanding the Hebrew language), but he has no problem nodding in understanding when his lecturer (who in turn heard from his lecturer and so on) explains to him that light He is a wave when not looking for him but as soon as someone tries to issue a contract on him he collapses and turns out to be a particle. Perhaps thanks to this understanding, a student will also be a researcher at CERN in due course.
For our purposes, since the theory of relativity has an impressive record of successful predictions, physicists tend to assume that what is missing to make it even more perfect is another step or two forward, or another new understanding that we lack. And not her. Sometimes you have to go back twenty steps, or two hundred, to realize that you turned in the wrong direction.
This means that, despite the impressive success of the theory of relativity, it may be fundamentally wrong (we would be based on incorrect assumptions), in which case it will never be possible to make it perfect.
At the same time, it is possible that the Newtonian Torah is the one that can become perfect after suitable corrections.
Whoever thinks that one needs to be a professor of physics for the right to claim that when problems are discovered it is permissible and necessary to reexamine basic assumptions, there is no cure for his plague.
Whoever thinks that in a debate about basic assumptions the brain of a physicist weighs more, there is also no cure for his plague.
The only relevant thing in the debate about fundamental assumptions is the degree to which the assumptions correspond to reality, and the physicist who can predict whether a model corresponds to reality before hearing it has not yet been born.
When researching a collision between protons, they check that the products of the collision conform to the law of conservation of energy, but when the calculations are based on the basic assumptions of one theory, they are irrelevant to denying the correctness of another theory (or another model, or another hypothesis, or a tickbook in a physics forum) .
A]. Meir - It seems that you got the stick from Sabdarmish and you are continuing in Mautz
Messengers of nonsense. Isn't it a waste of time? Rothschild is right. for offering
Professional solutions, you must have at least a professional education.
This does not guarantee success either, but it is a threshold condition. It is clear from your proposal that
You are not a physicist and certainly not a physicist specializing in particles and energies
high (I allow myself to guess that you are an engineer), so a little
Modesty please.
B]. To my father - don't forget that bison are also made of bison, and that's in Africa of course.
Here too he was noticed but he immediately hid.
OK, Meir. we are listening (at least me).
What is your model?
How can a photon be an elementary particle if it has wave properties and can, according to the uncertainty principle, be spread over the entire space? Doesn't this require the existence of more elementary particles of which the wave is composed? Or you see the wave function as just a mathematical abstraction and not a physical entity.
Meir:
I am not acting contrary to the spirit of my recommendation.
I will not go to learn physics from someone who does not know physics.
This would be nonsense of the first order.
As for your question with the kinetic energy - it is formulated while demonstrating an extreme lack of understanding, but if I am trying to derive something significant from it, then the answer is positive.
A large part of the discoveries in particle accelerators is based on the calculation of the kinetic energy of the collision and checking if the products of the collision comply with the law of conservation of energy.
Michael,
Thanks for the recommendation.
Of course, you don't have to delve into my words, or refer to them, but when you dismiss them without learning what I teach, you are acting against the spirit of your recommendation.
If you could point to an experiment where the mass of a proton was measured in that split second where all of its kinetic energy was converted to mass and show that it is the same as the standard mass of a proton at rest, then your words would make sense.
"On the other hand, when mass becomes energy, it actually becomes photons of different sizes."
A photon has no size, and this theorem is not necessary either. If you take nuclear fission for example, not all the mass turns into radiation (photons).
And just a note - do you think they would have built a multi-billion dollar accelerator if they hadn't thought of this very "trivial" idea? (That is, the fact that energy and mass are two sides of the same coin is of course not a trivial idea, but it is accepted and known. The physicists at CERN do not need someone to remind them of the most famous formula in the world...)
Meir:
Just because photons can turn into mass does not mean that mass consists of photons.
The kinetic energy of colliding protons can also become mass.
I repeat my recommendation: learn before you try to teach.
According to my "non-standard" model, what gives the particles their mass is the photon.
A photon is massless, and when it is swallowed by elementary particles the energy it brings with it "turns into mass".
On the other hand when mass becomes energy, it actually becomes photons of different sizes.
MC^2 is an expression that mass is motion at the speed of light of photons that make up the elementary particle, which is predicted to be at rest because the photons that make it up are organized in spherical symmetry. Everyone "tries" to fly (and in fact, when they understand that the speed of light is not continuous but an average of quantum jumps, they do fly) at the speed of light in a different direction.
It does not fit the "standard model", but it fits reality.
Avi,
If they watch a bison in Africa it will be a rather amazing and very surprising event, not that I expect you to know why, because it is evident from most of your responses here that you have little to do with objective reality (one that can be critically examined). The truth is, I don't understand why you keep harassing here on this site. It is obvious that you do not understand science, therefore you cannot really contribute to those who do not understand, you are wrong even in simple facts that are very easy to check and thus not only are you not helpful but even harmful. It is obvious that you are not interested in learning what science has to say about things in our world and your entire "contribution" is an exhausting tirade of unreasoned criticism of science and unreasoned support for issues that have no scientific basis, not only regarding the hidden mechanisms by which they apparently work, but even in the fact that they work in the first place . All this could still be accepted if you presented at least rational thinking without self-contradictions (as you did for example in one of your comments on the first article on astrology) but even such thinking you are not able to present. So I ask, out of genuine curiosity, what are you actually getting here other than some attention?
And of course if you could explain (without astrology if possible) how the poor people in Africa, the Rothschild protesters and the Higgs boson taxes are related, which you linked together in one sentence in your response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/higgs-boson-maby-found-1312118/#comment-318392
Africa bothers you?? What about a quarter of a million poor and more than a hundred thousand hungry people in Israel??? Africa has many resources to become a very successful continent, the fact that they did not invest a penny in education and science including political science and preferred Mercedes Kalashnikovs to ash roads and football fields is not a reason for me to give up the progress of science and education in Israel!!!
It is enough to give them courses in democracy, governance, agriculture, etc. There is no need to distribute money, give them tools to generate money...
What to do in the meantime, they prefer the Chinese weapons and the Arab and Indian money in exchange for the oil, the uranium, the diamonds and the other valuable and numerous resources in Africa
We have enough to do at home before we become a light to the Gentiles in matters of corruption, economic disparities and education... To remind you, most of Israel's poor are ultra-Orthodox and Arabs, a high percentage of whom are not really entitled (some are not even interested) to an education at an adequate level for the 21st century
A. Bar Ner - You are confusing a boson with a bison!
There are bison in Africa, a lot, and you can watch them even without a particle accelerator, although if they discover a bison that moves at 99.99% of the speed of light, this will also be an equally important discovery...
Don't forget that the "Higgs", if it does exist, then it also exists in Africa.
Max The last line may be true on the subject of corruption, although I'm not really worried when a project worth hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, ended up in not the cleanest hands.
What about the exaggerated ego of the scientists who really want to get a Nobel Prize lol.
If science is so important then it can be privatized and the money used for the benefit of the hungry world even in your country and western countries if you give up Africa.
Father, don't forget that you can donate your monthly salary to Africa and save some people.
Avi,
What you said about the hungry is cheap populism.
If we were to take your approach and divert the millions (billions) invested in scientific research to the hungry in Africa, two things would happen:
1) The Africans would have continued to die because the money would have reached different centers of power with them and with the middlemen and in fact their situation would have even changed for the worse because their dictators would have become stronger - this is what is happening today. Without a real change of attitude (consciousness) that will bring with it a real political/economic change, I actually see that their situation will not improve.
2) Technology would stagnate and that means - medicine, water technologies, purification, energy, and more and more would stop developing. And that too would end up harming the hungry and the weak populations everywhere in the world.
Of course there are also biased scientists and I have no doubt that there is corruption everywhere (capital/government) including in the trends of scientific research but despite this - we need science and scientific research and this is not something that comes at the expense of something else but a very essential part of the development and understanding of humanity (for the good And the bad thing about that - everything is relative).
I actually see the study of the structure of matter and the universe as a very essential part and perhaps relatively free of biases and corruptions.
Max, you ran away to a place where there is no excessive love.
Your right.
Spring. All the areas that the website deals with are related to one science or another in which a lot of money is invested.
I suggest opening a forum for the science of economics, which is a wide world of topics that we are all connected to.
Hope you will consider the matter
The millions you would have saved in Africa would have come to Israel and taken away jobs from the lower deciles,
With the money poured into this project, it would have been possible to save millions in Africa. These scientists are goal oriented and ego driven and their poor fellows in Africa will demonstrate to Rothschild those who pay the taxes for the Higgs boson
Answer to a colleague: Most of the discoveries and theories in pure research eventually found applications in various fields. For example, a large part of electronics and its applications that affect us in our daily lives, derive from applications of quantum theory.
One of the amazing things about scientific theories and experiments designed to break the boundaries of what is known about how nature works, is the fact that humanity is able to apply this knowledge in the real world in one way or another.
The equation knowledge is power - it is true. Knowledge ultimately allows us to control and shape the reality around us. More knowledge - more abilities.
Can someone explain in easy Hebrew what all the fuss is about?
How will it change what we don't know yet?
What will this help? How will the discovery help the progress of humanity?
How will we integrate the achievement in technology for example?
It is said that there is a particle in this energy - why is this the Higgs? How well does the distribution of products fit the theory?
What is the sadness about?
🙁
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k0EBJT1Y8Q