Lonnie Hicks, click here
to update your web pages on AuthorsDen.
Einstein is Wrong-Maybe Updated:11/29/12 Higgs Conference By Lonnie Hicks
Posted: Friday, November 18, 2011
Last edited: Thursday, November 29, 2012
This short story is rated "G" by the Author.
In an article in September I examined the proposition that Einstein may have been wrong.
Maybe space does operate as a simple dynamo plus Aether not primarily gravity
Updated: 9/27/12 Blog continued in "Einstein, CERN and Higgs part two on this site.
Updated: 9/22/12 Some are predicting no Nobel Prize for the Higgs?
Updated: 8/26/12 Has the Higgs been "discovered" or not?
Updated: 7/30/12 All of the "Through the Wormhole" Shows in one link
Updated: 7/21/12 Cold Gases and Hot Superconductors
Updated: 7/21/12 Magnetic Locking and Quantum Levitation
Updated: Plasma- the 4th state of matter and the most abundant form of matter
Updated: 7/20/12 magnetics and superfluidity-any relationship to the Higgs?
Updated: 7/18/12 Six videos-The Magnetic Universe and the Higgs Field-Connections
Updated: 7/11/12 Was the right Higgs found or was it an Imposter Higgs?
Updated: 7/9/12 Science Friday Interview on the Higgs. Good interview
Updated: 7/8/12 Five Higgs Boson Varieties? Really? What is That About?
Updated: 7/7/12 Is the Higgs Field Dangerous?
Updated: 7/6/12 Best podcast on the Higgs I have found and can the stars appear and disappear in a matter of decades?
Updated: 7/6/12 Discussion of the Higgs particle and in relation to other theories of how the universe works.
Updated: 7/5/12 Live Video Press Conference by CERN on the Boson
Updated: 7/3/12 Boson Announcement Tomorrow-Golly! See six videos
Updated: 6/20/12 Higgs Field = Aether?
Updated: 5/30/12 Do Some Galaxies Move Faster Than The Speed of Light?
Updated:5/29/12 NASA Videos on Einstein and a Video Showing Galaxies Moving Faster Than the Speed of Light
Updated:5/17/12 What Are Superflares?
Updated:5/16/12 Oxford Scholars Examine the Safety of CERN
Updated 5/13/12 CERN A Danger To The Entire Planet?
Updated:5/9/12 What is Nibirur?(Six Videos)
Updated:5/8/12 "Do Black Holes Really Exist?
Updated 4/27/12- 15 new videos (at bottom)
Updated 2/21/12 Has findings on the Higgs Boson been overstated? See what you think.
Updated: 3/27/12 How the speed of light controversy can be resolved.
3/31/12 Who Resigned And Why?
4/2/12 What About Dark Energy and Magnetism?
4/6/12 Galaxies are held together mostly by huge magnetic fields, not gravity?
Updated: 4/17/12 Dark Flow, Another Dimension and the Expanding Universe (Link fixed)
Updated: 4/18/12 If Plasma Theory is correct is the Earth in Danger? (See six videos on these topics)
4/25/12 See NOVA special on our Electric sun and the danger it poses to the Earth
4/25/12 The Earth's Magnetic Field and it precarious nature and how CERN could affect it.
4/25/12 More on the sun and also a link to experiments which argue that ultra cold gas and ultra hot gases can behave in a similar fashion and why you should care.
There are about 15 videos to review here
Updated: 4/17/12 Who is Lisa Randall? (Link fixed)
Update: 3/12 So why is there a speed limit on light in the first place and does such a speed limit make any sense in the first place?
Updated:5/13/12 Does Physicists recognize themselves that Einstein was wrong? See Video on this
and see video which states that Nibiru is "bunk"
Updated: 5/13/12 The best video on the net on parallel universes, quantum physics and time travel,and CERN's dangers
In my blog in September I reported that an experiment at CERN showed that neutrinos were traveling at speeds exceeding that of light. This was not supposed to happen.
All of the physics establishment quicky criticized these results, insinuating that the experiment was flawed. What they really were doing, in my view, was trying to save their own jobs and careers.
Today, the experimentors after taking into consideration the suggestions of the critics, reported the results of this second round of experiments. The results confirmed the first experiment results.
So Einstein possibly being wrong is back on the table. See my blog on all of this in "Einstein May Be Wrong."
This effectively calls into question much of modern physics and the wisdom of the CERN project itself. These experiments may be a danger to the project itself.
See what you think. Here are links below on all of this.
I will continue the discussion on all of this tomorrow.
11/23/11
The plot thickens here because it has been announced that another group at CERN has duplicated the initial conditions of the Einstein experiment and have the view the OPERA group made mistakes in doing their experiments.
1/17/12 The Plasma Universe idea (see my blog on this on this site has been verified, partly. It also has implications for all of physics and for the much-maligned idea of Aether.
More later. Meantime here is the link.
In the above article I argued that the neutrino faster than light finding by the CERN OPERA team had been prematurely denigrated.
The statistical analysis of that finding and that concerning the Higgs Boson are compared. The point is made that the Higgs is given more statistical weight that it deserved and that of the faster than light finding was statistically downgraded.
Ok, it looks like the neurtrino machine may not have been all the way plugged in. But on the other hand another gizmo was a bit off in the opposite direction., so we are at square one again.
Now what makes this story interesting is that the light speed barrier apparently only applies to light not to other bodies out there. Yes, it is a strange universe.
3/1/12
While waiting for the CERN results we need to look at an underlying issues.
Why did Einstein make the claim that nothing can travel faster than light in the first place? What was his argument and rationale?
It might surprize you when you get the answer.
Here it is.
Nothing can travel faster than light Einstein says because to do would require an object to have infinite energy. Moreover, to approach that speed and attain it, objects would have to acquire infinite mass as well.
Well there you have it.
What is wrong with this statement?
First objects traveling faster than light would be invisible to us. Light is not being transmitted so an object would not be seen.
(Sounds like black holes and dark matter doesn't it?)
Secondly, since infinity is not possible then nothing can attain that state.
But note that at CERN particles are being accelerated to 99.9 percent of the velocity of light. Are we seeing there infinite mass and energy? If so then this is similar conditions to what has been described as the beginnings of the big bang.
Is there danger here? See the video below. The answer as to CERN's dangers lies in whether Hawking was right or whether Einstein was right.
Humm, perhaps that is why we are not hearing much talk about it. Sounds too dangerous?
Third, note that in science, infinity in an equasion means zero, or no solution possible.
Thus the rationale for the speed limit on light has some logical problems as well and mathematical ones too.
In any event Physics is in real trouble and should not, in my view, be fooling around with forces it poorly understands which they are wrong, such an experiment can destroy the planet.
Now there are alternative notions about the speed of light and its limits which we shall explore while we wait for CERN to announce its findings on this issue.
Last, note, as I have already said, Einstein only intended his speed limit to apply to light. But we now know that many objects may travel faster than that, that is an expanding universe is expanding at speeds in some sectors which may already exceed the speed of light. If not then what is to stop our own expanding universe from exceeding that speed limit and virtually disappear from our sight or ability to sense-- indeed escape our dimension into infinity. Preposterous? See link below
The anti-faster than light group says neutrinos did not travel faster than light, but the orginal group will try again in May to see if they were wrong.
Dizzy? I am.
3/24/12
So what are the issues with light?
Lets explore this issue and why it is important.
I have explored this issue in some of the detail in various blogs on this site--"Einstein May Be Wrong" and "The Speed of Light Controversy" to mention just two.
Here we want to step back and view the controversy in a broader context in the next few weeks.
Actually the larger controversy is between Einstein's ideas of relativity and the ideas of quantum mechanics and string theorists.
Put in its simplest form the question becomes how can Einstein say that nothing exceeds the speed of light when we have many exceptions to the contrary. To wit:
1-Galaxies and dark matter may in fact exceed light speeds. We just don't know but perhaps so.
2-Quantum jumping of electrons from one orbit to another apparently happens at speeds exceeding that of light.
3-The quantum entanglement states that particles can instantly respond to one another across vast distances (implying faster than light movement) and have proven to do so time and time again in experiments
4. Gravity apparently can effect bodies at speeds which exceed the speed of light.
5. Ideas around string theory suggest that we cannot detect entire universes inches away from us occupying the same space and time and
apparently operating under different laws of physics -stay tuned.
Finally, space itself can move faster than the speed of light inside a black hole and then ejects light and particles at speed at or exceeding the speed of light.
So what we have here,in fact, is an ideological battle between branches of Physics and the hope is that CERN can solve some of the controversy.
But note the Physics establishment backs Einstein, right or wrong, and the insurgents are pushing for quantum and string theory ideas.
My view: Even Einstein did not say Einstein was right about the speed of light versus other bodies and their velocities. He was only focussed on light, denegrated the "spooky action at a distance" idea (quantum theory) and in the end could not figure out gravity or black holes.
So if quantum ideas seem right on the level of the atom does it mean Einstein is wrong? Humm, that is the big question.
For the best explanation of the problem between these two ideas see:
But note there is an alternative way of looking at the light issue.
First, note that visible light, if part of a film strip stretching from NY to LA, would only be one frame in that film strip.
The rest is other forms of invisible light, gamma rays, infrared light, x-rays and the like.
Why they are invisible in an interesting question and allied to the secondary question of how light becomes light, and indeed stars become stars and therefore visible is the real question.
The only answer I perceive is that the largest structure in our galaxy is responsible-that is the electro-magnetic bubbles which straddle our galaxy.
See my blog on this. This structure has analogs in terms of magneto-spheres with see we around stars and planets. Simply put magnetic lines of force affect the polarity of atoms to planets and ,therefore, the formation and speed of light itself.
What is the function of the gigantic structures which cover half the galaxy or 50,000 light years? The Milky Way galaxy is only 100,000 light years across with these two magnetic bubbles covering half of it perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy. Amazing.
What is the function of these structures? Astronomers are mum on this because it implies that Hannes Alfven was correct. See my blogs on the Plasma theory of the Universe on this site for details.
But the upshot is that the galaxy and the universe is a gigantic dynamo which means that particles of various stripes are in orbits throughout the entire galaxy at, perhaps, speeds at or above that of light.
The articles below show how matter orbits in and out and back into a given galaxy occurs, but Hannes Alfven is never mentioned. The article also seems claim that gravity is responsible for these orbits. I would disagree.
But there is more. Two other huge magnetic fields also exist.
The latest data confirm what Hannes Alfven claimed: Our galaxy is dominated by two huge magnetic fields each rotating in opposite directions right through the center of the Millky Way.
This is in addition to the two huge magnetic bubbles which are perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way-so there are four huge fields involved here.
Below is an actual map of the two horizontal fields, the first ever.
But ominously it means that our very sun is affected by these orbiting ions and electrons posing a danger if correctly understood. That is cosmic rays from far away stars impact Earth routinely and periodically
driven in galaxy wide orbits by the four huge magnetic fields documented by observations.
(See video below on gamma rays coming from outside our galaxy from supernova explosions?)
So gravity is the weak force in all of this. Magnetic lines of force are the real drivers in what is going on in our universe. Magnetic fields create black holes, not gravity. In fact, it may be that the black holes at the center of many galaxies are in fact magnetic turbulances and huge magnetic storms driving and be driven by the magnetic fields above.
See the Science Channel show on Megaflares that is truly frightening. Astronomers are now beginning to realize that the most powerful force in the Universe is magnetic fields.
But I digress. See the blogs for the detail because these magnetic fields have a direct impact upon our sun. Meantime see links below which show that more and more astronomers are recognizing that magnetic fields, not gravity dominate the galaxies.
This theory of a dynamo universe potentiallly unites quantum, Einsteinian and string theory concepts. Allied with notions of Aether as pilot waves guiding particles you have an entirely new theory of how the Universe works. (See the TV show "How the Universe Works" with Morgan Freeman for details on the French scientist testing pilot wave theories.)
(Point of fact: Gravity is a trillion, trillion, trillion times weaker than the electro-magnetic force and the strong and weak nuclear forces and yet some scientists still insist that it accounts for black holes and star formations.)
The show "Through the Wormhole" also explains how one of the laws of Physics around radiation are broken via observations from a solar flare. What this means is that cosmic radiation from our very sun can alter radiation levels in matter on earth breaking a law of physics that states nothing can alter radiation levels.
Moreover, my point is that solar flares and the periodic flare activity of the sun every 11 years is a reflection of the return orbits of cosmic rays coming from outside our solar system periodically driven by and moving along magnetic lines of force.
Here is a link on the cooler aspects of the sun's core and what could be causing it. The article speculates it is dark matter. My guess is that it is iron.
All of this affects GPS, satellites, medicine and the Earth's magnetic stability.
Also this harkens back to black box radiation levels and Planck distances. (I know what does this last sentence mean? Stay tuned to find out.
4/6/12
Dark Matter, but what about Dark Energy? The latter comprizes 75% of the Universe, matter 4% and dark matter 21%. So how much do we really know about Dark Energy?
For a view of quantum entanglement see below:
But first a quote from the article:
"Entanglement is a fascinating property connecting quantum systems. Albert Einstein called it the "spooky action at a distance." This bizarre coupling can link particles, even if they are located on opposite sides of the galaxy."
Opposite side of the galaxy instantly. This is going to be faster than the speed of light and moreover, we want to know what is the medium through which entanglement works. Higgs, magnetism, what?
See what you make of it.
The politics behind this must be fascinating. I will email a few folks and see what this means. But the obvious is that CERN folks realized that the publicity around this draws attention to what the they are doing there and some of the problems. Science, Smcience, their motto is "Let's Save Our Jobs. We can't expose our faults."
More later.
Coming: Lisa Randall, Dark Flow and another dimension.
For those who want to know more about Alfven's predictions about how the universe is structured can get more detail on this site in my blog at the link below:
For those who want to read more about Einstein and the genesis of relativity theory should look at the link below. It is a scathing critique of Einstein.
Randall as far as I know has given us the notion that gravity is weak in our universe perhaps because it resides in another dimension and we are therefore getting a weaker pulse of gravity and gravatons as a result. That high gravity dimension I have alluded to in my blogs as well.
If the Randall thesis is correct it can be aligned with the Dark Flow finding that billions galaxies are being pulled all together in a line toward one corner of the universe.
What could be causing this. If verified it could be that Randall's ideas could fit well into that thesis. Some other dimension or universe is pulling our universe in its direction. Golly.
So if this other universe exists then it has the powerful gravity Randall has postulated. If it is not a universe it could just be that other dimension Randal speaks of. But the two ideas do seem to compliment one another.
Naturally I have another to add to the mix.
Perhaps this is the context to understand Dark Energy. Suppose the universe is not expanding but instead is being pulled by another universe.
Now the key point is whether the expansion of the universe which began about 4 billion years ago (before that it was shrinking, yes shrinking) and the alll of a sudden it started to expand and expand exponentially. What could have caused this?
Now my merger of two dimensions or universes doesn't seem all that preposterous. (See my ideas on this in "Everything You Have Heard about the Universe is Wrong on this site. The link is a few paragraphs above in this blog.
All interesting questions here we will explore them further in this blog.
Meantime to read about a different view of the universe see the link below:
Here is the view of the cosmos that is holograhic in nature. We will go through others in time. But for now take a look at yet another view of the universe.
On this site is also the blog " A Summary of Theories on Physics" summaries them for you if you need to hurry along.
See links below for the summary and the holographic theory
4/18/12 Plasma Theory and Danger to Earth?
Below see several utube videos which seek to expand Alfven's ideas. See what you thlnk. These are pretty radical.
The Youtube video above makes an important point. That if we stretch film from California to Alaska, representing the light and wave spectrum only one frame of that film would represent the visible light spectrum.
What this gives us in an idea of the size of the electro-magnetic spectrum of radio waves, ions, positrons, hydrogen ions, electrons, neutrinos and the like which make up the invisible components of the universe. Sound familiar? Who needs dark energy which this huge phenomenon as the 4th state of matter needs to be investigated.
See what you think. In Science Daily search on plasma for much more information.
Meantime below find youtube videos on the topics above
4/27/12
For increasing evidence that our very sun operates as a dynamo and within plasma principles see this NOVA special. See also the danger this represents to our planet.
In this program they have identified the magnetic fields in the sun which create huge magnetic storms and CMS (coronal mass ejections) which propel themselves toward earth. Finally, they are realizing the dangers this presents to Earth.
But they still portray all this as having nothing to do with the giant magnetic fields which dominate our galaxy and propel cosmic rays into our sun. See what you think
For more on the precarious aspects the Earth's magnetic field and how CERN could easily effect it see the Science Channel special on this--as related to the Earth's Core which generates the magnetic field.
Now what is interesting in this show is that the Earth's core is nickel and iron and produces the magnetic field which protects the Earth from cosmic rays from space. Now note that this show makes clear that this protective magnetic field has a big hole in it which is growing.
They correctly portray the Earth's core as a dynamo but fail to inform the viewer of the possiblity of a flipping of the Earth's magnetic poles and its history in terms of what can precipate such a shift. See links above for more detail and also see my "Everything You Have Heard About the Universe is Wrong" on this site, and another blog on Plasma theory again on this site.
A new startling finding is that ultra cold gas can act in ways similar to ultra hot gases. This has implications for star formation theories. See link below and later I come back to what it all means.
For more citations as to the basic electro-magnetic domination of the universe see below.
See below an article which documents an observation where more materials are observed leaving a black hole than being sucked in by it. This is not supposed to happen!
"Contrary to the popular perception of black holes pulling in all of the material that gets close, we estimate up to 95 percent of the matter in the disk around IGR J17091 is expelled by the wind," King said.
Astronomers believe that magnetic fields in the disks of black holes are responsible for producing both winds and jets. The geometry of the magnetic fields and rate at which material falls towards the black hole must influence whether jets or winds are produced."
Now what is interesting is that the standard model claims that nothing escapes a black hole. Turns out this is not true . However the interesting question is how and what is the mechanism that makes the posssible. The authors simply make the statement that this is a different kind of black hole and do not explain or acknowledge how extraordinary this is.
Alfven does have an explanation. He aruges that yes, as the quote acknowleges, magnetic fields dominate the process. But the authors don't seem to understand what they are observing. Alfven would say that gravity plays a minor role in black holes, and, as we can plainly see in this example, the so-called power of gravity of even a black hole is easily overcome by the dynomo effect of magnetic fields produced by electrons in motion-just as Aflven predicted producing powerful jets leaving the black hole.
Moreover a second prediction of Alfven is relevant here: that is that most stars are in a binary relationship with another star. Stand alone stars are apparently a mlnority configuration, in Alfrven's view. These binary configurations may mean that a sling-shot effect between the two stars may be in effect and that black holes themselves are magnetic storms where disks we think of as black holes may be magnetic driven material moving at speeds perhaps exceeding the speed of light in some cases and, therefore, invisible or even may be dark energy.
( Tomorrow I will explore the possibilty of a companion star to our own star (Nibirur.) This is in the news and I will give some links tommorow.)
Another implication is that ions and other particles moving at such tremendous speeds and in winds and jets may mean that orbits of such items may be galaxy wide and further may mean that stars and "invisible" black holes form very quickly in decades and may die in decades.
This has implications as to how we think of quasars and pulsars as well--and CERN.
"The haze comes from the region surrounding the center of our galaxy and looks like a form of light energy produced when electrons accelerate through magnetic fields," said Davide Pietrobon, another JPL Planck scientist.
"We're puzzled though, because this haze is brighter at shorter wavelengths than similar light emitted elsewhere in the galaxy," added Gorski.
Several explanations have been proposed for this unusual behaviour.
"Theories include higher numbers of supernovae, galactic winds and even the annihilation of dark-matter particles," said Greg Dobler, a Planck collaborator from the University of California in Santa Barbara, Calif. Dark matter makes up about a quarter of our universe, but scientists don't know exactly what it is.
Below: more evidence that so-called “tornadoes in space”are actually jets driven by magnetic fields.
"WHAT ARE COSMIC JETS: Astronomers believe that cosmic jets form when a massive object, such as a neutron star or black hole, draws in matter, which forms a whirling "accretion disk" around the object. Friction within the disk can heat it to very high temperatures, so that excess energy is vented by ejecting subatomic particles from the poles of the disk at speeds approaching that of light. Scientists believe the jets start out fairly broad and then narrow into a funnel because of the strong magnetic field lines, which rotate and accelerate the jet of particles."
5/9/12
One observation has material ebbing and flowing out of a black hole documentng perhaps a relationship between jets of cosmic material and cosmic winds. I think it suggests an interplay between a star and its companion or between a star and a nearby magnetic field.
"Chandra, with its spectrograph, has observed GRS 1915 eleven times since its launch in 1999. These studies reveal that the jet in GRS 1915 may be periodically choked off when a hot wind, seen in X-rays, is driven off the accretion disk around the black hole. The wind is believed to shut down the jet by depriving it of matter that would have otherwise fueled it. Conversely, once the wind dies down, the jet can re-emerge.
"We think the jet and wind around this black hole are in a sort of tug of war," said Joseph Neilsen, Harvard graduate student and lead author of the paper appearing in the journal Nature. "Sometimes one is winning and then, for reasons we don't entirely understand, the other one gets the upper hand."
If you are interested in the possibility of a deadly companion star for the earth here are six videos whch purport to study the topic and most say such a star would likely end life as we know it on this planet. Also some say it is already here and visible in the night sky. But be warned much untruth is on the internet so don't believe just because someone put up a video. But decide for yourself.
Here is a video on this proposed companion called by some a "brown dwarf
The Mayan Calendar is quoted as having predicted much of the doom videos above but alas, the Mayan calendar apparently did not at least in a recent discovery.
But, as we have noted, astronomers themselves poorly understand the heavens, black holes and such. So debunk or not what we want to know what is the truth about how the universe works.
First, lets see how some of the basic assumptions of Einstein fail and therefore physics fails.
Now what makes all this more critical is that CERN assures us that everything is ok but the very physics theory that it utilizes has collasped and therefore there can be no real assurances offered us. As critics have pointed out, the argument about whether black holes can be created at CERN fails no matter which theorists ideas you use, Einstein or Hawking.
Both of the arguments of these two fail in the end in connection with black holes. But if Einstein is right in his black hole equasions after all, it bodes it for CERN because Einstein's equasion may not be wrong but indeed correct and we have simply not understood that infinity may mean ka-boom and black hole creation.
The history of that argument is one where the debate was had as to whether black hole making by CERN turned into a debate as to whether Hawkings calculations around how black holes are created and whether Einstein was right about how black holes get created--that is the argument as to whether any black holes would be tiny and dissapte instantly or or over-time swallow the earth.
An important debate no?
Well first lets examine the Einstein argument about black holes in the video below and then we will have look at Hawkings arguments. This may be the most important debate ever as to the future of the earth.
See the video first and come back tomorrow and lets talk then.
For even more information about the problems with particle physics, see videos below which gives a quantum view of physics and we get educated on black holes, strangelets, parallel universes and the like, and the dangers of CERN. Fascinating.
Critics of CERN argue that the plan to use iron ion bombardments can produce stranglets which could endanger the earth. Details of that plan are shown in the video below. CERN is proud of this development.
A quote from the above paper after examining CERN's analysis of the safety of the project the authors go on to say:
"While the arguments for the safety of the LHC are commendable for their thoroughness, they are not infallible. Although the report considered several possible physical theories, it is eminently possible that these are all inadequate representations of the underlying physical reality. It is also possible that the models of processes in the LHC or the astronomical processes appealed to in the cosmic ray argument are flawed in an
important way. Finally, it is possible that there is a calculation error in the report."
"However, our analysis implies that the current safety report should not be the final word in the safety assessment of the LHC."
"To proceed with the LHC on the arguments of the most recent safety report alone, we would require further work on estimating P(¬A), P(X|¬A), the acceptable expected death toll, and the value of 15 future generations and other life on earth. Such work would require expertise beyond theoretical physics, and an interdisciplinary group would be essential. If the stakes were lower, then it might make sense for pragmatic concerns to sweep aside this extra level of risk analysis, but the stakes are astronomically large, and so further analysis is critical."
5/17/12
We have made the argument that massive magnetic fields which dominate our Milky Way Galaxy are part of massive orbits of charged particles, and that our sun is affected by these charged particles arriving in regular orbits or even random orbits from around the galaxy and beyond even our Milky Way.
Moreover, our sun can be activated to produce solar flares by other stars, especially supernova and superflares according to Alfven.
Here are several articles on superflares which may fit this Alfven idea.
Finally the article below seems to support Alfven's view that black holes themselves help form stars through the action of magnetic field flows of energy.
"The particle is named for the University of Edinburgh scientist Peter Higgs, who was one of six physicists who suggested that a sort of cosmic molasses pervading space is what gives particles their heft. Particles trying to wade through it gather mass the way a bill moving though Congress gains riders and amendments, becoming more and more ponderous.
It was Dr. Higgs who pointed out that this cosmic molasses, normally invisible and, of course, odorless, would produce its own quantum particle if hit hard enough, by the right amount of energy, and so the branding rights went to him"
7/3/12 The Bosons are coming. The Higgs are in the Field
The home of the Large Hadron Collider is hot with excitement about what two teams of physicists will report this week
The canteen at Cern, the particle physics laboratory and home of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on the outskirts of Geneva, is always abuzz with conversation and rumour, but in recent days one topic has dominated the hubbub more than ever.
"At lunchtime at Cern you can hear conversations going on in every language, and that's normal, but there's one word coming up all the time: Higgs," said Tara Shears, a particle physicist from Liverpool University who works at the lab.
The excitement comes as two teams of physicists at Cern prepare to announce their latest efforts to discover the Higgs boson at a press conference at the laboratory on Wednesday morning. Details will be unveiled by Fabiola Gianotti and Joe Incandela, the respective leaders of teams that use the giant Atlas and CMS detectors to search for new particles... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jul/03/higgs-boson-cern-particle-peo
Look these over and I will discuss after the announcement is made in terms of its significance.
Get some popcorn. The show is about to start!
The fate of the planet might be hanging in the balance.
Come back tomorrow when I will discuss what all this means that you will not read about in the press. I have written for years on this topic. See over eight blogs on the Higgs, Einstein and light on this site. See also blogs on the Plasma theory of the universe which the Higgs may in fact validate which is NOT the standard model. In fact I argue that the HIggs field verifies plasma theory and may deflate Einstein's Relativity theories. Wow you say. ( I heard you)
The article below stresses what is the real news. The Higgs Field is much more important than the Higgs particle.
See what you think.
I propose to examine the finding with the following questions in mind.
1. Which is of more import the particle or the implication of the Higgs field?
By far the field is of more significance and in the coming weeks I will explain this opinion. But if you read the above entries in this blog you can guess why.
2. What is the difference between the Higgs field and "Quantum Foam" of the quantum people, the Ether of the pre-Einstein era, between Relativity theory, its relation to dark matter, and dark energy, and string theory?
3. Does this find imply or not imply other dimensions?
4. The idea of a field which condensates into a particle sounds familiar.
5. What is the relationship of the Higgs field idea and that of Plasma Theory?
6. How might a Higgs field relate to the work of Nicolas Tesla?
7. How does this relate to the "Summary of Physics" article on this site and alternative theories of physics on this site?
8. How does the idea of a Higgs field relate to the work of Hannes Alfren?
Does the Higgs boson and field "complete" the Standard Model, or is this an overstatement?
And we still have the problem of gravity.
You see much to talk about.
Meantime, listen to the best podcast on the Higgs I have heard on the net
See also this related article as it relates to the Higgs field, indirectly.
A point I will make is that space is a power-keg of forces and in equilibrium, and the Higgs Boson is a disruption of that equilibrium and therefore CERN may be dangerous in atempting to do this deliberately.
For the powder-keg analysis see the the Through the Wormhole show
"What is Nothing" Sounds like the Higgs field, if it is out there, it is dangerous to mess with.
Not much time today but note some introductory remarks are in order. We will have to stay with the above topics to do them justice over the next several months.
But the first point is to review the above posts and also see "Einstein-The True Story of Relativity" for reference along with several other blogs
and then we talk.
But the first point to make and ponder: The Universe is an unstable entity and uncertainty is an apt description. The Universe maintains a precarious equilibrium in the context of the Higgs field, if we accept that premise, then note that this can be disrupted by what is going on CERN.
No? Well let us see in the coming days if this idea makes any sense.
But read all of blogs on this site with begin with "Einstein" for background.
Then see what you think.
7/8/12
Note the the CERN people are hesitant to declare "THE" Higgs boson has been discovered. The answer given is that this is due to caution. But the fact is that their math predicts five different kinds of bosons. That's correct five-but only one of the five is the predicted Higgs boson. Or not?
This needs to be clarified.
This complicates matters a lot-especially when they have postulated only one will be the Higgs Boson predicted at the mass predicted. Let's explore these other four bosons and their relationship to the Higgs boson and more importantly to the Higgs Field and the rest of the fields now extend in Physics theory.
Meantime here are articles on five kinds of Higgs Boson. Perhaps you can figure it all out.
Looming confusion as to whether the Higgs found is the right Higgs that the standard model needs?
The imposter Higgs? A Fermi-lab group says of the discovery:
"The trouble is that this signature is not unique, at least not given the amount of data that CERN has so far collected,” said the scientists. “We show that current LHC data already strongly disfavor both the dilatonic and non-dilatonic singlet imposters. On the other hand, a generic Higgs doublet and a triplet imposter give equally good fits to the measured event rates of the newly observed scalar resonance.”
Huh. It means that there are five different kinds of Higgs and this one may not be the one or that the Higgs may not in fact exist? Lets see what happens here.
We begin here the possible relationship between a postulated Higgs field and actual astronomical observatiions which make clear that the Universe is a dominated by gigantic magnetic fields with ions moving in orbits. How do these relate to the Higgs?
First lets refresh our memory on what is the Higgs field and its quest.
What we propose to do here is to weave from actual observations elements and marry those to my own theoretical ideas and create a new way of looking at things which solve some of the issues and problems with the standard model.
We have proposed in another blog on this site, and in this blog, that an electric plasma universe can account more accurately for actual observations and has the merit of being more predictive utlizing some of the concepts of Hannes Alfven and some of the electric theorists.
A second component we have proposed is that a model of merged and merging universes would also add to our understanding and explainations for such things as dark energy and dark matter.
A last component we will discuss in the coming days is new-that is adding the idea the Higgs field, quantum foam and other ideas need one addtional conceptual aspect to bring all of these ideas together as one unifying concept--that is the space is not nothing, space is a particular kind of super conducting fluid.
Does this make sense? First lets discuss what space as a superconducting fluid entails after giving some links which look at actual experimental results in the area of superconducting both in the quantum world and in the world of astronmical observations.
Here we go.
First the argument that dark matter and dark energy may be two sides of the same coin which has been called "dark fluid."
Quote from the article below:
"In Dr Zhao's model, dark energy and dark matter are simply different manifestations of the same thing, which he has considered as a 'dark fluid'. On the scale of galaxies, this dark fluid behaves like matter and on the scale of the Universe overall as dark energy, driving the expansion of the Universe. Importantly, his model, unlike some similar work, is detailed enough to produce the same 3:1 ratio of dark energy to dark matter as is predicted by cosmologists."
More:
"The search for dark-matter particles so far has concentrated on highly-energetic particles. If dark matter however is a twin phenomenon of dark energy, it will not show up at instruments like the LHC, but has been seen over and over again in galaxies by astronomers."
The virture of this idea is that the explains why outlying stars in a galaxy rotate at the same rate as stars close in to the center of a galaxy.
Answer: this is the expected behavior of a superfluid observed in lab experiments. More on this later but for now here is the link to the article.
Another interesting article arguing that expansion in the universe may be related to the shape and curvature of space itself over time not dark energy-concluding dark energy may be an illsion created by space expanding from the big bang itself.
The Holographic theorists add to this mix arguing that observations are consistent with the idea that the universe from the time of the big bang changed its dimensionality, from a one-dimension-to two dimension, and then on to our current three. A fourth is also postulated in our future.
Other important research centers on hydrogen, the most abundant element in the cosmos, noting that hydrogen can act like a superconductor at low temperatures and also even at 80 degrees becomes a superconductor like graphene.
Fluid does not sound so fantastic given these actual experimental results.
So at the macro and at the micro level we see hydrogen acting as a superconductor in superfluid situations. Now we add to this mix a driver which would be magnetic lines of force driving and guiding ions in this construction and we maybe or on to something.
" In Bose-Einstein condensates, for example, "you start with a thin gas of atoms, cool it to incredibly low temperature -- nanokelvins -- and once you get to this temperature, atoms tend to stick with each other in strange ways," Murayama said. "They have this funny vibrational mode that gives you one Nambu-Goldstone boson, and this gas of atoms starts to become superfluid again so it can flow without viscosity forever."
(See the video on this site involviing "Magnetic Locking" entitled "Einstein and Quantum Levitation" which illustrates another aspect of this.) Link:
"Forever" is the operative word here implying that low energy waves can drive the expansion of the universe-low energy dark energy--therefore makes sense as the driver, not particles, but waves, not high energy but low energy. These are not being looked for at CERN.
"Understanding strongly coupled or strongly correlated systems is at the intellectual forefront of multiple subfields of physics," the authors write. The findings at RHIC have unanticipated connections to several of these, including conventional plasmas, superconductors, and even some atoms at the opposite extreme of the temperature scale -- a minute fraction of a degree above absolute zero -- which also behave as a nearly perfect fluid with vanishingly low viscosity when confined within an atomic trap."
(See magnetic locking video alluded to above) Here is a link again.
"If you’ve read this far then you’ve probably picked up on the main message, we haven’t discovered the Standard Model Higgs boson yet! We still have a long road ahead of us and already we have moved on to the next stage. We need to measure the spin of this new boson and if we exclude the spin 0 case then we know it is not a Higgs boson. If exclude the spin 2 case then we still need to go a little further to show it’s the Standard Model Higgs boson. The spin analysis is rather complicated, because we need to measure the angles between the decay products and look for correlations. We need to take the detector effects into account, then subtract the background spectra. What is left after that are the signal spectra, and we’re going to be statistically limited in what we see. It’s a tough analysis, there’s no doubt about it."
WOW! My brain can not even wrap around what you wrote. But...tools change results and tools change with the times...so you might just be there! good luck friend-
Share
Print
Save
