ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Have Scientists Found 2 Different Higgs Bosons?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Higgs boson

The latest results from the Atlas experiment indicate that there may be two different Higgs bosons—one that weighs 123.5 GeV (in blue) and another that's 126.6 GeV (in red).

A month ago scientists at the Large Hadron Collider released the latest Higgs boson results. And although the data held few obvious surprises, most intriguing were the results that scientists didn’t share.

The original Higgs data from back in July had shown that the Higgs seemed to be decaying into two photons more often than it should—an enticing though faint hint of something new, some sort of physics beyond our understanding. In November, scientists at the Atlas and LHC CMS experiments updated just about everything except the two-photon data.* This week we learned why.

Yesterday researchers at the Atlas experiment finally updated the two-photon results. What they seem to have found is bizarre—so bizarre, in fact, that physicists assume something must be wrong with it. Instead of one clean peak in the data, they have found two an additional peak.* There seems to be a Higgs boson with a mass of 123.5 GeV (gigaelectron volts, the measuring unit that particle physicists most often use for mass), and another Higgs boson at 126.6 GeV—a statistically significant difference of nearly 3 GeV. Apparently, the Atlas scientists have spent the past month trying to figure out if they could be making a mistake in the data analysis, to little avail. Might there be two Higgs bosons?

Although certain extensions of the Standard Model of particle physics postulate the existence of multiple Higgs bosons, none of them would predict that two Higgs particles would have such similar masses. They also don’t predict why one should preferentially decay into two Z particles (the 123.5 GeV bump comes from decays of the Higgs into Zs), while the other would decay into photons.

The particle physicist Adam Falkowski (under the nom de plume Jester) writes that the results “most likely signal a systematic problem rather than some interesting physics.” (By “systematic problem” he means something like a poorly-calibrated detector.) The physicist Tommaso Dorigo bets that it’s a statistical fluke that will go away with more data. Indeed, he’s willing to bet $100 on it with up to five people, in case you’re the kind of person who likes to wager on the results of particle physics experiments with particle physicists. The Atlas physicists are well aware of both of these possibilities, of course, and have spent the past month trying to shake the data out to see if they can fix it. Still, the anomaly remains.

But let’s not let this intriguing blip distract us from the original scent of new physics. Back when the preliminary data seemed to show that the Higgs was decaying into two photons more often than it should, I wrote that it could be “a statistical blip that would wash away in the coming flood of data.” But more data has now arrived, and the blip hasn’t gone anywhere. The Higgs boson continues to appear to be decaying into two photons nearly twice as often as it should.

All the more reason to stay tuned for the next big data release, currently scheduled for March.

*Update 12/17/12: In November, scientists at the Atlas and CMS experiments (not the “LHC” experiment—apologies for the dumb typo) updated everything except for the two-photon data and, in the case of Atlas, the data regarding the decay of the Higgs into four leptons. I have added “just about” to indicate that the two-photon data wasn’t the only thing missing. I apologize for the imprecise language.

*Update 12/17/12: The sentence as originally written inadvertently implied that there are two peaks in the two-photon data. In fact the two photon data has one peak, but at a different mass than the peak found in other data sets. The Higgs to two-photon data shows a peak at 126.6 GeV, while the Higgs to four-lepton data (newly updated) shows a peak at 123.5 GeV. Apologies for the confusion.

Higgs boson at CMS

Image of the new Higgs data courtesy of Atlas/CERN. Image of Higgs to two-photon event courtesy of CMS/CERN.

About the Author: Michael Moyer is the editor in charge of space and physics coverage at Scientific American. Follow on Twitter @mmoyr.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 86 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. soapydishwater 1:41 pm 12/14/2012

    It does sound like a system error, rather than a genuine challenge to the model. It’ll almost be sad if the next results continues to prove what we already thought: while it’s heartening to see further evidence supporting the standard model, we might lose the questing element of the hunt for the Higgs that John Ellis of CERN talks about in this video: http://iai.tv/video/search-for-the-higgs-boson

    Link to this
  2. 2. jtdwyer 1:45 pm 12/14/2012

    Nice report of results that are now much more interesting!

    Alternatively, perhaps two new bosons have been discovered – neither of which is a Higgs boson!

    Link to this
  3. 3. priddseren 2:06 pm 12/14/2012

    This is interesting but the reality is no one has discovered anything more detailed than some kind of particles at two different GeV created with the destruction of other particles in an accelerator.

    It is all statistical data, which is why no one really knows what was discovered, let alone the why.

    It will be interesting to see the results of whatever scientists do the research to figure out what was really discovered, could be the Higgs, multple Higgs or something else entirely.

    Link to this
  4. 4. rloldershaw 3:41 pm 12/14/2012

    Oh, oh. The wheels are already coming loose on the higgledly-piggledly god particle bus.

    Shades of faster-then-light neutrinos.

    The Higgs Mechanism is unobservable and cannot be tested scientifically in any direct and unambiguous way. It is the biggest pile of steaming you-know-what I have heard in 40 years of of atrocious model-building (make it up as you go) theoretical physics.

    Neither can the putative Higgs boson be observed directly. Rather they detect well-known and mundane decay particles and then infer on faith that a decay of Higgsy produced them. You betcha!

    Where has the crucial predictions/testing step of the scientific method gone when it is needed the most?

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  5. 5. RSchmidt 5:16 pm 12/14/2012

    @rloldershaw, spoken like someone suffering from the dunning-kruger effect. There is a reason, you are writing in the comments section while the scientists are writing papers, you have no idea what you are talking about. Well I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion, too bad you haven’t found anyone that thinks yours matters.

    Link to this
  6. 6. rloldershaw 6:20 pm 12/14/2012

    Would RSchmidt care to discuss the details of the substantive science involved?

    Or is he only qualified to make ad hominem slurs on someone who makes him feel insecure about his worldview?

    Let’s talk about the grossly ad hoc and facile “confinement”, or “asymptotic freedom”, or the “Higgs Mechanism”.

    Bring it on, poser!

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  7. 7. bartoshrandal 8:42 pm 12/14/2012

    I looked at a book one or two years ago, that put forth the idea of two different types of photon. Is this still a valid approach to these results. Could a ‘Higgslike’ particle decay differently depending on the exact photon it is interacting with. What if there are more than 2 states of photons?

    Link to this
  8. 8. genevehicle 9:49 pm 12/14/2012

    @RScmidt
    Have you been to the address rloldershaw faithfully provides? If so, what is your critique on this Discrete Scale Relativity of his? I, for one, find the concept rather interesting.
    More and more we’re finding that natural systems exhibit “macro” behavior that “emerges” as a result of “complex” behavior of its’ “micro” constituents. That this concept might have a broader application and, in fact, might indeed be fundamental, is not that far a stretch really. Of course, I’m no physics pro so I would be interested to find out what specifically (in layman’s terms if you can) you find so objectionable about the idea that the behavior at each “discrete scale” emerges from the activity at the one below it, thus betraying some sort of overall “fractal-like” structure to space, time, matter, and energy.
    Sure, it’s out-there alright, but still….I find it somehow aesthetically pleasing. And, always keep in mind that most of the major scientific revolutions started somewhere way out on the fringe, or at least, all the really cool ones did. (my opinion)

    Link to this
  9. 9. genevehicle 10:13 pm 12/14/2012

    Oh crap, I almost forgot…the new Higgs info!

    Dear God,

    Please let the double mass spike or the excessive data in the double photon channel be a sign of some really, really cool physics to come.

    Amen

    I’ll bet any five people 100 bucks that this prayer is being secretly prayed by a whole sh!t-load physicists around the world right now.

    Link to this
  10. 10. growoldtimber 10:39 pm 12/14/2012

    It seems like Einstein was right when we finally stumble on the correct theory it will be so obvious.
    Seems opposing angles / charges are constant throughout nature. From the smallest to the largest it’s very similar. You can not have one without the other.
    It’s an equalization and should be no big surprise.
    Or am I just a tree hugger with an over-sized brain imagination? Electrical theory is my thing / hobby.
    From astronomy to atoms it’s all the same to me.
    We are plugged in to the universe electrically through magnetic fields.
    Excuse my lack of explanation but I lack the terms and leave it up to you to understand what I am saying.
    Equal and opposing forces are natural. thanks

    Link to this
  11. 11. Fossilnut 11:07 pm 12/14/2012

    ‘Colder winters are part of climate change’

    Ya, sure.

    The term ‘climate change’ covers any eventuality – hot, cold, snow, wind, rain, flood, drought etc. That is why the fanatics love the phrase ‘climate change’. They are manipulators of the first order.

    Link to this
  12. 12. rloldershaw 11:38 pm 12/14/2012

    Hi genevehicle,

    Thanks for the open-mindedness.
    Here are two revelant Einstein quotations.

    “If at first an idea does not sound absurd, then there is no hope for it.” A. Einstein

    “Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulas, but thought and ideas are the beginning of every physical theory.” A. Einstein

    We are choking on erudite mathematical abstractions. What we need for the 21st century are new unifying conceptual principles derived from empirical observations. These will lead to definitive predictions. Then tests of the predictions will guide us forward.

    Discrete Scale Relativity has passed 5 important tests already: http://www.academia.edu/2042222/Predictions_of_Discrete_Scale_Relativity

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Fractal Cosmology
    http:www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  13. 13. genevehicle 11:56 pm 12/14/2012

    @growoldtimber
    Song or poem? Sounds like lyrics to me.

    @Fossilnut
    Wrong article man. All the AGW denier faithful are meeting next door on the…well..article about the AGW denier faithful. Go have a ball, or stick your head in the sand, or hit yourself in the head with a hammer once a week (on Sundays of course), or whatever is you anti-science wackos do for fun these days. Just get to it at let the rest of us worship at the alter of the almighty Boson.

    Link to this
  14. 14. genevehicle 12:55 am 12/15/2012

    @Prof Oldershaw
    I am currently engaged in dropping what I’ve been doing for the past eight years and am going back to school to re-tool. I am planning on focusing on emergent behavior in complex systems as it applies to living systems, possibly computer science, and maybe physics. I’m just going to follow my nose and see where it leads. I would imagine that such a pursuit will be choked with erudite mathematical abstractions, but then again, four dimensional geometry was seen as such at the beginning of the 20th century and look at what it did for the man you quoted so aptly. And while I envy mathematicians their purity of purpose, I still very much agree that we should not confuse the pursuit with the tool.

    Link to this
  15. 15. Layer_8 2:39 am 12/15/2012

    uhmm…, there is still an overlap of the duplet at 95% CL…

    Link to this
  16. 16. Barzydlo 3:46 am 12/15/2012

    Sounds right to me. Colliding corpuscular string theory (CCST) posits two corpuscular fields, one in which hadrons immerse themselves, and one in which leptons immerse themselves. The corpuscular fields are fields of quanta involved in the charge phenomenon. The quarks in the nucleus mirror the courier quanta from one domain to the other by putting the couriers through an orthoganal rotation, and it is this transformation process that bogs down the leptons and hadrons in space-time, giving them the property of mass. Presumably, there would have to be a peak for each domain, and it is the lepton version of the “Higgs” that would decay into two photons. You can read more about it at collidingstrings(dot)org or stringtheory(dot)com on the “string basics” link. –Jim Barzydlo, author of CCST.

    Link to this
  17. 17. Barzydlo 3:50 am 12/15/2012

    We’ll see if they let me link the site:

    http://www.collidingstrings.org/strings.htm

    Might work. Enjoy.

    Link to this
  18. 18. D_Hutchens 5:47 am 12/15/2012

    I’m not a physicist – I’m in finance. I’ve studied quantum theory a bit, but only from the surface. However, “seeing” numbers is easier than breathing for me. Keep in mind that numbers are nothing more than an arbitrary term applied to set of consistently recurring, exact circumstances. In this context, I see recurring social behaviors, thoughts, sensory inputs and emotions on the same basis as the word “four” being applied to a clover with a corresponding amount of leaves. I pose the questions below based on my limited knowledge of physics and my innate tendency to see patterns in everything. The central theme is the interconnection between “one” and “two” – note that these questions are not seeking to postulate on “origin,” which is the interconnection of “zero” and “one.”

    I’ll open with something entertaining:

    * “Is this physic’s version of the immaculate conception?” Seems to be consistent with the same theme that has dominated a particular story-line of someone’s creator.

    Now to more serious thoughts:

    * We have theories for energy & dark energy, and, matter & anti-matter. If the Higgs is truly the particle that sets the boundaries, wouldn’t it be responsible for the formation of both positive and negative ends of the spectrum? If so, does it make sense that one Higgs creates two data streams because there are two “barrier” fields that emerge when we look at the smallest of the small? I see a negative, or reverse, Fibonacci sequence at play.

    * Expanding on matter & energy dichotomy, if there are two Higgs fields, is one responsible for matter formation and the other for energy? Would the Higgs that produces photons govern energy formation while the Higgs that produces Z particles govern matter formation?

    * Unfortunately, the implication of the last set of questions is that the Higgs is neither matter or energy. Could it simply be the “event horizon” between conversion of matter and energy? Perhaps these recent dual Higgs observations are nothing more than echoes that occur once something crosses the horizon from matter to energy or vice versa? The comparisons and similarities to the mechanisms of black holes are blatantly obvious. Could Higgs “echoes” (or “vibrations” if you like string theory) provide the evidence for preservation of information in both the “universe of matter” and the “universe of energy” once the horizon is crossed?

    * The graph at the top looks like a toroidal vortex to me. Anyone agree? What are the implications if Higgs has this form? Does it mean that everything is on an infinit loop?

    I can’t wait to see what conclusions are drawn once these data sets are revealed. But I suspect that we have to wait because there is no way to know for sure until the “sensor calibration” argument is won. The next objection will be “the sun was in my eyes” or something like that.

    Is it odd that a show featuring Morgan Freeman taught me the concepts behind most of these questions?

    Link to this
  19. 19. D_Hutchens 6:19 am 12/15/2012

    Forgot to mention another buzzword, “hologram.” There, I said it. I’m too tired to pose in the form of a question.

    Link to this
  20. 20. vinodkumarsehgal 8:41 am 12/15/2012

    Article states “They also don’t predict why one should preferentially decay into two Z particles (the 123.5 GeV bump comes from decays of the Higgs into Zs), while the other would decay into photons.”

    Higgs particle with mass of 123.5 GeV is stated to decay into two Z- boson, each having mass of 91.2 GeV while another Higgs having mass of 126.6 GeV decays into two photons, each having nil mass. Why this large disparity in decay of two Higgs particles, not having much difference in their masses?

    Link to this
  21. 21. vinodkumarsehgal 9:03 am 12/15/2012

    D-Hutchens

    Your idea of one Higgs Field leading to creation of matter and another being precursor of energy appears quite fascinating. But article states that there is difference of 3.1 GeV only in both the fields. As stated in my blog # 20 why this small difference in the energy level of two Higgs Fields lead to quite diametrically opposite decays — one into matter and another into energy having quite different properties

    Further, another query arises from the existence of two Higgs Fields. Are these two Higgs Fields fundamental in Nature or they result from decay of some higher fundamental particle/field? Where the race for decay of one field/particle into another will stop? Who knows?

    But intuitively and philosphically, it appears that Nature should start with only ONE particle/energy field which should lead in creation of all the matter and energy particles in some sequential cause-effect relation. What is the complete and correct sequence of appearance of different matter and energy particles/ — is a big enigmatic issue for Physicists to crack.

    Link to this
  22. 22. rloldershaw 11:26 am 12/15/2012

    Morning genevehicle,

    Your comments give me hope that theoretical physics will recover from its 40-years diversion into the cul-de-sac that it has ended up in.

    As a strong believer in, and user of, General Relativity, I also strongly believe in the power of mathematics. But, as you know, first come the conceptual ideas and principles and then comes the mathematics that express and develop those ideas.

    Good luck in your new endeavors and feel free to contact me by email with questions on fractal cosmology or on general aspects of physics, multi-leveled modeling, emergence, etc.

    Rob Oldershaw

    Link to this
  23. 23. Percival 2:14 pm 12/15/2012

    If the two peaks turn out to be real, could we be looking not at Higgs bosons as ordinarily conceived, but instead the place where the electroweak symmetry breaks?

    Link to this
  24. 24. kento 2:34 pm 12/15/2012

    rloldershaw

    One thing that has always puzzled me is the seeming disconnect between the complexity of the math used to describe the physics of the universe and the actual processes themselves. Modeling the fluid dynamics in a bottle of water shaken vigorously for 10 seconds would melt our most powerful supercomputers, but nature has no problem with it.

    I’m not informed enough to know if anyone has ever examined the question of the informational and calculation intensity of our current models. For example: How many “calculations” does the universe perform to make an electron orbit an atom, or a star orbit a galactic center? What do these processing requirements say about the nature of space and time?

    Or put another way, the necessity of using grids and positions to describe motion introduces the need for tremendously complex equations, but it is an absolute certainty that real particles do not use any of our equations of motion or force as they go about their business.

    Obviously, the map is not the terrain, but sooner or later the discrepancy between the extreme calculation intensity needed to model the world with mathematics bumps up against the seeming ease with which the world actually behaves.

    Atoms know nothing of calculus. Empty space knows nothing about strong or weak forces. These things are “built in” to the universe and it seems like we could learn a lot by exploring just what “built in” means in an informational and processing context.

    Link to this
  25. 25. Layer_8 2:56 pm 12/15/2012

    @23 Percival

    “If the two peaks turn out to be real, could we be looking not at Higgs bosons as ordinarily conceived, but instead the place where the electroweak symmetry breaks?”

    That’s exactly what I thought. But it’s still only 68% CL for distinguishable peaks. Not a real proof at all yet

    Link to this
  26. 26. rloldershaw 4:11 pm 12/15/2012

    Hi Kento,

    I can only give you the short answer here.

    Hydrodynamics has never been handled by exact equations that follow every particle. Imagine an equation for the 10^57 ions and nuclei contained in the Sun. Totally impossible!

    So physicists have various approximations that allow one to get answers for how the individual atoms/molecules behave collectively. Thermodynamics does the same thing quite successfully.

    Personally, I think nonlinear dynamical systems theory, deterministic chaos, and especially, fractal modeling have much more to offer than “complexity” which seems to be defined differently by every person using the term.

    Also the concept of “emergence” may miss the whole point of hierarchical systems. Nothing PHYSICAL emerges from bottom to top or top to bottom. The different levels of the hierarchy exist simultaneously. Still, it is true that major physical INFLUENCES to operate top-to-bottom and bottom-to-top. Particles collectively help to determine the properties of upper level systems and upper level systems determine things like where the bulk of the particles move to.

    It is a bit complicated, or one might say complex. :)
    A very big and developing field of inquiry.

    I could offer better answers to more specific questions or comments, but thanks for the one above.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  27. 27. N49th 4:12 pm 12/15/2012

    As a non-scientist in this discussion. Quite the possible discovery.
    My apologies, still trying to get my head around what happened in Connecticut.

    Link to this
  28. 28. rloldershaw 5:53 pm 12/15/2012

    @ N49th
    If apologies were directed at me, thanks and no problemo.
    Sean M. Carroll got it right on the CT disaster: gun control is important, but far more important is identifying and helping people with serious mental issues before they go berserk and kill innocent people randomly.
    This country’s existing systems for dealing with mental illness (including addiction) are totally inadequate, and the number of people with serious mental health issues is large and growing. Time for the federal, state and local governments to get to work on this.

    @ Kento and genevehicle

    I forgot to mention that if you go to

    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    and click on “Technical Notes”
    then choose #6, “Nature’s Geometry: Modeling An Infinite Fractal System With Discrete Self-Similarity”,

    you will find a somewhat more lengthy and general discussion of modeling limitations and possibilities for the hierarchical organization of nature.

    RLO
    Discrete Scale Relativity

    Link to this
  29. 29. WilliamStoertz 7:03 pm 12/15/2012

    This is a most interesting discussion. Mr. Oldershaw’s initial response to a bit of dissing was in kind, but on pursuing the dialogue and checking out his website, Discrete Fractal Cosmology, I found it highly interesting.

    This very morning I was reflecting on the foundations of “reality” and came upon the fractal (complex) nature of basic reality which we observe around us — and this seems to hold true on all levels from subatomic to intergalactic.

    You have observed that electromagnetic wave differential equations are usually solved with complex solutions (involving “i”) and/or with sine functions. A topological implication of the solutions indicates that the electromagnetic wave is rotating in the complex plane, and manifesting in its real component vector as a sine wave.

    Let us regard the fundamental particle (quark, electron, or photon) as a vibration not only in the four physical dimensions but also in complex space.

    Then when a wide array of such particles (say electrons) are caused to vibrate in synchrony in a given physical plane, it will create a perpendicular electromagnetic wave emission, namely a radio signal.

    The perpendicular component of the wave is not only perpendicular to the physical plane of the coordinated particle motion; it is at the same time parallel to the fractal component of the source particles.

    This solution emerges from “degrees of freedom” with regard to the electrons in question. Namely, their coordinated motion is restricted, as with a mechanical flange on a rotating axle, by the planar structure of the radar antenna.

    The unrestricted dimensions of the wave motion emerging from the coordinated vibration of the particles is (1) perpendicular in the normal axis to the antenna; and (2) rotary in the complex plane.

    Therefore the wave equation for the electromagnetic wave has a linear spatial component and a complex rotary component, as observed in the integral solutions of the differential equations.

    The underlying reality of the particles in question (and all physical matter for that matter) is indeed complex — multidimensional including four space-time coordinates of motion and six more complex dimensions.

    By restricting the degrees of freedom of an extended field of vibrating particles, and causing them to vibrate in synch (as with a laser or a radio antenna), then the complex dimensions of the motion can be “purified” and collimated.

    This has future implications for higher-dimensional translation as we already observe in UFO dynamics.

    Back to the fractal nature of reality:

    It has been long thought in classical mathematics that the fundamental numbers were the real integers. However, seeing that -1 is in fact a product of i squared, we may conclude that the real plane (line, space) is in fact not simply a “line” but in fact the projection of complex space (i squared).

    This indicates that complex dimensions are more basic and fundamental, both mathematically and physically, then the real numbers and the physical projections of space-time.

    In other words, the fundamental reality, both in mathematics and physics, is not linear (spatial) nor digital (integral) but rather is fractal (complex).

    In the Renaissance, the successful scientists managed to transcend alchemy and witchcraft by limiting their observations, experiments and theories to the four real dimensions. This has been highly successful, leading to our present state of science, technology and prosperity.

    However, from the early 19th century, science and math has come to a logical impasse which could only be solved by such constructs as the quantum wave equations, relativity theory, and fractal mathematics.

    This is a harbinger of a major paradigm shift. Science, in effect, has now come to the point of diversifying, transcending the classical four-dimensional model of reality, and returning to the older, more original, and more ubiquitous (but tricky!) ten-dimensional math and science which had been intimated upon by the old astrologists and alchemists.

    The higher-dimensional reality is indeed the true reality, as we are discovering more and more. However, this expanded and comprehensive view of science was not respected by scientists for the last 500 years or so, with the consequence that such propositions or theories were dismissed as hocus-pocus or mumbo-jumbo.

    Experiences and observations with ESP, UFOs and quantum physics do indicate a component of reality which goes outside of our “box”; however, up to now governments and scientists have for the most part been attempting to deny these as hallucinations or wishful thinking.

    The human brain has two hemispheres — the left lobe handles logic and language, which are linear, rectangular and circular, while the right lobe deals well with music, art, emotions, and complex wave forms.

    I have found that, with my right hand, I can make circles and squares more easily, while, with my left hand, I can draw epicentric circles, spirals, and other complex shapes more smoothly.

    We may surmise that the left brain operates primarily in the real plane (space) while the right brain operates in fractal space.

    This is one reason why fractal art is so pleasing to the artistic senses, and also reflects nature so well.

    Mathematics is well known as the “Queen of the Sciences”, and justly so. It has long been supposed that the real integers are the most pure and basic units (building blocks) of mathematics, consequently number theory is “The Queen of Mathematics”.

    Recently a solution was presented to the problem of prime numbers of the form a2 + b2 = c2. The proof of the previously unproved theorem is essentially a two-dimensional space projection. This indicates that even in number theory a higher dimension must be invoked to grasp the basic nature of real integers and primes in particular. Prime numbers, in other words, have complex constituents — which may seem messy, yet ultimately beautiful.

    When we reassess our mathematical theory from the standpoint that, not the integers, but the fractal subdimensional components are in fact the underlying basis of the mathematical system in its entirety, and then expand the mathematical tree in all its branches based upon fractals, we find to our surprise that real numbers, Cartesian coordinates, classical geometry, analytical geometry, algebra, trigonometry, complex numbers, logarithms, statistics, combinatorics, topology, differential and integral calculus, tensors, and on up are all a subset of fractal mathematics.

    Each expression of mathematical theory is obtained by limiting (restricting) one or more of the degrees of freedom of the canonical equations for a field of particles or subunits.

    The unified field as a whole is a set of particles (mapped by points) which are coordinated and unified under some principle, expressed by a mathematical field equation.

    An example of this is the ten-dimensional tensor equations of Einstein’s general relativity theory.

    Relativity derives from centering upon the central subjective body or entity at the core of a unified field, within which and relative to which the space-time coordinates are all determined with the unified field.

    Fractal (complex) motion manifests on a microscopic (particle) scale in the form of rotating articulate vectors rotating in the complex (10-dimensional) space and particular to each particle and point within the unified field.

    Macroscopic effects are manifest on a visible and tangible level when the complex components are restricted and several vector components are allowed to burgeon on a macroscopic scale.

    Life is inherently a fractal event and process. Cell division and nuclear expression clearly manifest in a fractal form, as evidenced by trees, blood vessels, and many other visible and obvious forms of fractal structures.

    The Fibonacci sequence, for example, evident in organic systems, is a subset of a rotation in the complex plane expressed at intervals in the physical dimension.

    Art is pleasing to our eyes, ears and souls for the very reason that it harmonizes with our basic fractal nature, being living beings living in a fractal world.

    This is but a thin microtome slice of the vast new paradigm of complex higher-dimensional reality, expressed most completely to date by fractal mathematics, whose implications, like the proverbial iceberg, we are but dimly beginning to see emerge from the nebulous fog of centuries of scientific denial (for good and necessary purposes, yet denial nevertheless).

    Link to this
  30. 30. rloldershaw 10:57 pm 12/15/2012

    Ummm, well, General Relativity is not 10-dimensional theory. General Relativity is a 4-dimensional space-time theory.

    I strongly believe, based on a whole lot of observational evidence and rigorous empirical testing of General Relativity, that all one needs for an excellent first approximation to the entirety of nature’s hierarchy is 4-dimensional space-time and discrete fractal scaling.

    Electromagnetism and quantum mechanics make very good use of i in modeling EM phenomena and atoms, but I still think the underlying geometry of nature is approximately 4-D. This will probably be refined by the slightly more sophisticated modeling of fractal geometry, but I would bet the farm that the approximate topological dimensionality of nature is 4-D space-time.

    When theories require higher dimensionality, I suspect that they have not captured the essence of nature and have to add extra-dimensions to make up for their limitations.

    I have considered scale as a 5th dimension, and this might permit an especially elegant mathematical formulation of Discrete Scale Relativity. However, scale would be something of an oddity as a dimension, since it appears to be discrete.

    I have so far concluded that 4-D conformal geometry with discrete dilation invariance is the best option for Discrete Scale Relativity.

    RLO
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  31. 31. WilliamStoertz 12:46 am 12/16/2012

    Thank you; a very polite and informative response. I believe that the good world we are trying to construct begins with considerate dialogue. Conflicts begin with a breakdown of diplomacy.

    My “Unified Field Theory” was critiqued by a Russian scientist, Dr. Yuri Kulakov, as “Another one of those humanistic theories.” Yes, indeed, the domains of the unified fields of which we speak embrace not only scientific reality but also the human society.

    Indeed, the word “field” is used variously to describe force (vector) domains and alternately to denote realms of scientific and other academic endeavor.

    Human relations must necessarily be included in any bona fide “unified field theory” for several reasons:

    1) Consciousness affects matter.

    2) Human political or pragmatic decisions certainly affect the fate of the natural world on all scales.

    3) Human intelligence, reason, and consciousness is a subset of “natural phenomena” and ought therefore to be described by any comprehensive theory or model.

    4) Human beings will shortly step off the planet to other planetary bodies and even star systems, raising the issue of “What kind of civilization are we exporting?”

    5) Science is not value-neutral but value-implicit.

    Thank you again, Dr. Oldershaw, for your polite and educational message on the Scientific American “Comments” blog of December 14, 2012 (for me, today is Dec. 16th, as I am in the Orient).

    Link to this
  32. 32. m 7:14 am 12/16/2012

    @rloldershaw
    Personally i think you ask to much of a system, that has emergent fractal patterns, which simply put is, I have a leg, it also has 5 little legs on it. Nothing on this planet or universe is fractal, except in the smallest subset. And i can find any number of coincidences in a small subset.

    Fractals in nature, sure, but these SHOULD NOT be classified as fractal, there is an end and a beginning. No fractal as far as im aware can have a start and end, thats why they live in the mathematics world to explain a concept and not a reality.

    The reality is life, which shows limited fractal properties to 3 orders at most… is just a simple biological repeating solution the minimises energy expenditure on recreating a form.

    It would be better to define nature and life as an object orientated format, incorporating 3rd order fractals at most.

    Link to this
  33. 33. vinodkumarsehgal 8:07 am 12/16/2012

    WilliumStoertz (@29)

    Leaving apart mathematical formulations and “i” for the time being, what is the underlying realty of complex space in physical terms at ground level?

    Mathematically, between any two integers, it is possible to introduce infinite fractal nos. But what is the realty of these fractal nos.? Each of the fractal no. can be again treated as whole integral no. within which again infinite fractal nos. can be introduced which can again be treated as whole integral no and so on. As such, at deeper level, there is no realty of fractal nos. in physical terms at ground level. Similarly there is no realty of complex no. like “i” at ground level.

    Whether fractal nos or complex nos., these may be intermediate mathematical stages in the expression of physical realty but per se may not be the indicator of any physical realty

    Link to this
  34. 34. vinodkumarsehgal 8:50 am 12/16/2012

    @Kento ( 24) and rloldershaw(26)

    “One thing that has always puzzled me is the seeming disconnect between the complexity of the math used to describe the physics of the universe and the actual processes themselves.”

    Yes I agree with you that on occasions, there have been seeming disconnect between mathematical equations and physical realty. Mathematical treatment , however elegantly it may point towards some realty, is not of much use and substance if at ground physical level there is nil existence of realty. In such cases, either there is nil realty at physical level or we are unable to understand and comprehend the realty at our mental level.

    GR, which is treated as one of the most important cornerstone theory of Physics, indicates and describes about “distortion” of space-time but in abstract, pure and complex mathematical terms only. Even after about 100 years of enunciation of GR in 1915, we are unable to understand the underlying ground realty of distortion of space-time in physical terms. This is one of burning example of disconnect between mathematical treatment and physical realty. Without commenting upon the power and correctness of GR, following possibilities emerge out in these situation:

    i) We are unable to understand and comprehend the physicality of “distortion” of space-time with our mental faculty of reason and perception

    ii) Our current knowledge of physicality of space is not up to standard to understand the realty of “distortion” of space in physical terms

    iii) GR may be a wrong theory and despite complex mathematical formulation, no change takes place in space-time physicality.

    Most of Physicists may not relish the possibility iii) above since like all human beings, they are also captives of the mental weaknesses to which ordinary human being are. Certain ideas are very much sacrosanct to our mind and GR is one theory which is very much sacrosanct with most of the Physicists.

    Candidly speaking, I don’t know which of the above possibility is correct.

    Link to this
  35. 35. WilliamStoertz 10:34 am 12/16/2012

    @vinodkumarseghal (33 & 34)
    This has been a very interesting discussion, taking off from the question of the Higgs boson(s) to an examination of “underlying reality”. I believe that, more than ever, the phenomenon of the Higgs particle raises such issues. Likewise, in our time, dark matter and dark energy pose wholly new challenges to be answered.

    I had a discussion yesterday, and continued today, with an old friend about “lattice quantum chromodynamics”. This seems to dovetail with your comments regarding the theory of relativity and my earlier observations re the “unified fields”.

    Another friend of mine (an American empiricist) holds that we cannot talk about anything which we cannot measure or directly observe. He dismisses the Higgs boson and the quantum wave equations on this account, as being purely speculative. I, however, am not of that school…

    Einstein approached the curious experimental results of Michelson-Morley, and by means of a protracted thought experiment, deduced a system of models and formulations which have proved astoundingly watertight and incontrovertible right up to this date, a hundred years down the road!

    Now, the question you so well raised addresses the issue of the “underlying reality”. Many commenters in the above evolving discussion have questioned why the mathematical solutions for fluid hydrodynamics in such a simple system as a bottle of water are so vastly complex, way beyond the physical reality we so easily hold in our hand.

    It is likely that the futuristic quantum computers will be much more apt at handling this kind of physical problem, because they “automatically” calculate over a wide field domain of complex vectors without doing any actual calculations.

    Very likely nature itself uses the same method as the overall, instantaneously integrated quantum waveform describing the entirety of the system — i.e., they are in fact one and the same, identical.

    So, now, to address the issue of the “underlying reality” in terms of a simple system, two stellar systems in uniform relativistic motion relative to one another, in which a light ray is transferred from A to B.

    The stars are, of course, real. How about the photon? Is a photon something “real”? Well, it certainly is real, but as a “physical entity”, it is rather like our Higgs boson: We can’t say it is really there, whether it is a particle or a wave, and what properties it has, until we observe it.

    Observing that two photons manage to cross the entire universe, travelling over 13 billion light-years, neck-a-neck, without getting the slightest bit ahead of one another, we would have to conclude that they cannot be particles with a finite velocity, but rather a wavefront which is mathematically defined, i.e., a quantum wave.

    From the standpoint of the photon, no time has elapsed. Star A continues in an everlasting “now”, as does star B. The two stars are receding at 90 percent of the speed of light. Yet the photon emitted from A is ejected at full light speed, and the same reaches B at full light speed. Why is this?

    The time-space coordinate system is particular to each subjective body — both A and B. Each has their own reference frame. The light ray obeys the laws of A in traversing its coordinate system at light speed, and obeys the laws of B in intercepting B’s reference frame at light speed.

    The space-time coordinate system of each (A and B) is a parameter of the unified field adhering to each star (A and B). Both stars have individual unified fields, and at the same time there is an overall unified field enveloping both of them.

    Einstein postulated that there is no “ether”, which means that we cannot attribute any physical particles to the medium intervening between the two stars, which would “carry” the light ray.

    In other words, it is not any physical medium (“ether”) which conveys the light beam, but rather the quantum wave, which obeys Einstein’s relativity principle.

    Mathematically, the laws regarding quantum waveforms and relativity must both be obeyed simultaneously, and we see that here they are indeed.

    In other words, the “essential reality” of the photon is none other than the quantum wave function itself. Nothing else.

    And this is exactly what corresponds to the observed reality, both for quantum wave mechanics and for relativity theory. There is no contradiction here.

    So, as to the “underlying reality” of the particle, if we speak of a photon, and presumably a Higgs boson too, we cannot speak of the Higgs field as if it were a material substrate, any more than we can speak of the “ether” intervening in the space between the distant receding star systems.

    Space there is, after all, which none of us doubt. But we are not stating that the space is “filled” with anything material. Any Higgs field must be an attribute of the unified field pertaining to that particular subjective body and its enveloping space (which is in fact nearly infinite, at least to the edge of the expanding universe).

    The principle by which the Higgs boson seems to “materialize” momentarily (albeit invisibly and intangibly) before decaying into two photons or two Z particles, is likewise subject to the principle of relativity. There is no violation here.

    The fundamental “reality” of the Higgs field, as likewise the putative “ether” which was supposed to carry the photons (which are in fact not actual physical particles but mathematical quantum wave forms which materialize when intercepted and observed) is in fact mathematical.

    Higgs bosons are transcendental, in that they momentarily appear in the physical realm just long enough to decay into other particles. Their basic essence is a mathematical function.

    As with all fundamental particles, they are in a sense vibrations in complex space, the vector components of which freely move in and out of the physical, observable space, but spend “most of their time” in the unreal dimension (complex space).

    The ultimate reality, if we will call it that, is thus mathematical, which is upheld by both quantum theory and relativity theory.

    Thus this version of “unified field theory” is capable of conceptually uniting both relativity and quantum mechanics, and it applies very nicely to both interstellar photons and to the Higgs bosons inferred from the CERN experimental data.

    Link to this
  36. 36. genevehicle 5:01 pm 12/16/2012

    @m (32)
    I Just looked at a graphic of the Mandelbrot set on Wikipedia. Check it out for yourself and then tell me it isn’t a fractal. Perhaps a technical definition of a fractal requires an infinite amount of iterations, but that would only be achieved after an infinite amount of time. (By the way, the simplest form of Oldershaws’ SSCM is in fact infinitely recursive)
    What you have to keep in mind is that the universe isn’t a “thing”, it’s a “process”. Even now realty continues to unfold. Every instant is brand new. That matter and energy is organized in a nested structure (sub-atomic particles come together to form atoms which come together to form molecules which come together to form…stars…galaxies…a universe) is a given, and as such, can be viewed as fundamentally “fractal-like” -if it indeed exhibits, like other fractals, some degree of self similarity.
    Now, use your imagination and picture what a 4D (or maybe a 5D) fractal would look like. Let me know what you come up with because my mind isn’t built for it (no ones’ is really). However, we may not need to “imagine” what it looks like at all. Maybe all you have to do is look out the nearest window…..or in a mirror.
    Look, maybe the multi-verse is an infinite (or perhaps very large) set of nested singularities. (my opinion) Self similar, right down the line, and thus accelerated expansion is simply everything “falling” away from an ever-more distant event horizon. Each universe exhibits the same self similarity, and does so chaotically (fractal-like), producing incredible variety in the process. Part of that variety, of course, are little chunks of itself that become aware that they are little chunks of itself and thus the whole ball of wax is self aware…through us -through Williamstoertz, through Oldershaw, through all the guys and girls juggling Hadrons at Cern (God bless ‘em)….and yes Mr M, through you too.

    Link to this
  37. 37. jtdwyer 6:24 pm 12/16/2012

    WilliamStoertz – I agree with your discussion indicating that no material ‘ether’ fills space, but there does seem to be some physical energy that permeates the vacuum. Since we only detect the presence of energy by its effects on matter, there is only sparse matter in the effective vacuum of space that might indicate any inherent kinetic energy source. However, the initial thermal radiation emitted in the early universe is detectable as the distant, redshifted cosmic microwave background radiation. There is also lesser known cosmic background radiation at other frequencies, including infrared and x-rays, but there are many foreground sources of radiation at those frequencies, making the background difficult to distinguish from the foreground. Since the initial EMR produced by the exceedingly hot hydrogen plasma of the early universe is thought to be responsible for the CMB, subsequent emissions of more disperse hot material in the expanding universe more likely produced less background energy emissions that have not been redshifted as far as microwave frequency band. In other words, even the vacuum energy of space likely contains energy that, interacting with even sparse matter in the vacuum, emits some background radiation.

    Even disregarding any acceleration of universal expansion, the continuing physical expansion of dimensional spacetime can only be the product of some energy source.

    More directly, it has often been observed that even a vacuum chamber produces particle-antiparticle annihilations as a function of virtual particle manifestations. This phenomenon is referred to as quantum fluctuations.

    I suggest that there is a significant undetected background energy source that permeates the vacuum of dimensional spacetime. I further propose that it is the varying density of this vacuum energy that physically corresponds to the abstract geometry of spacetime in GR that describes the effects of gravitation using dimensional coordinates of some undescribed physical aspect of spacetime.

    In other words, the potential energy of mass and the kinetic energy of the vacuum interact to locally condense both matter and vacuum energy. It is the physical gradients of vacuum energy density that affect the motions of material objects.

    In this case, gravitational effects cannot exist in the absence of vacuum energy. While material mass is crucial in its interaction with kinetic vacuum energy, there is not likely any quantum gravitational effect – only the critical property of particle mass.

    I suggest that this explains the apparent weakness of gravitational effects in comparison to the forces of matter – gravity is not a force of matter requiring the exchange of force mediating particles. Gravitational effects are more properly the product of the interaction between vacuum energy and mass-energy.

    Conversely, in the absence of its condensing interaction with matter’s potential mass-energy, vacuum energy disperses in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, producing the expansion of spacetime.

    I suggest a test of this hypothesis. If gravitational effects are produced by vacuum energy density gradients, they should correspond. In that case, I expect that the rate of vacuum quantum fluctuations should vary in some unknown proportion to gravitational effects – as a function of elevation or altitude on Earth, or in orbit, for example. Since I can’t predict the proportion between the indirect product of quantum fluctuation rates to gravitation, some exceedingly sensitive measurement apparatus would likely be necessary to identify its variation.

    Link to this
  38. 38. rloldershaw 7:00 pm 12/16/2012

    In science there is a simple way to pick out the rare diamonds from the tons of coal (idle speculation, bozo theories, erudite rubbish, highly fashionable pseudo-science, mental dithering, etc.)

    The rare “diamond” theories can make definitive predictions AND they can PASS definitive predictions. The “coal” cannot do this.

    LONGER VERSION:

    What theoretical physics desperately needs is a return to the rigorous traditional predictions/testing step in the scientific method. This predictions/testing step for winnowing the wheat from the chaff is literally the sine qua non of science. It is extremely successful and cannot be short-circuited.

    Definitive predictions are:

    1. Feasible – what good is a prediction that cannot be tested?

    2. Prior – “predictions” made after the testing is done (retrodictions) are useful but should not be confused with true predictions.

    3. Quantitative – Highly unique qualitative predictions are possible, but quantitative predictions are much more dependable.

    4. Non-adjustable – what good is a prediction that is so plastic it can be adjusted to fit any mass, or measured parameter? Theories with a zillion different versions are worthless.

    5. Unique to the theory being tested – non-unique predictions leave us without a definitive answer.

    The postmodernists will tell you that theoretical physics is so advanced and sophisticated, and the problems being pondered are so difficult, that definitive predictions are no longer possible. This is patently false. The failure to generate definitive predictions is not due to the intractability or maliciousness of nature. Theoretical physics has just not found the correct path to the simple paradigm that offers a unified and comprehensible theory which can make and pass definitive predictions.

    Discrete Scale Relativity has made at least 14 definitive predictions. Five are already verified, or are strongly supported and will in all likelihood be verified soon.

    RLO
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  39. 39. RSchmidt 8:58 pm 12/16/2012

    @rloldershaw, “Would RSchmidt care to discuss the details of the substantive science involved?” sure would. Did you think that the search for the top quark was equally, higgledly-piggledly? That search was done with the same reasoning based on the same model. It also produced results right where everyone expected them. But according to YOU. This is some fraud. I guess it is too bad we didn’t have your leadership during the hunt for the top quark because we would have discovered nothing then. Well I guess there is a reason they don’t ask halfwits their opinion and why those same halfwits are left to spew their tired and neglected B.S. in the comment section of a science news magazine. I realize you think your opinion is crucial to this area of science. Too bad no one of substance seems to agree.

    Link to this
  40. 40. brodix 9:39 pm 12/16/2012

    Since there seems to be lots of speculation on various topics physics related, I thought I might add my own rather simple-minded insights; I think we are looking at time backward. The present isn’t moving along a temporal dimension from past to future. Rather the changing physical configuration of what exists, turns future into past. To wit, the earth doesn’t travel some fourth dimension from yeserday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. It’s just that logic is based on causal sequence, so we try to model it in our theories. Of course, the sun still appears to move across the sky from east to west.
    This makes time similar to temperature, ie, an effect of action, not like space, the basis for it. We could just as easily use ideal gas laws and the conservation of energy to create “volumetemperature,” as we use the speed of light correlate measures of duration and distance to create “spacetime.” The problem is that duration is not a vector. It doesn’t transcend the present, but is the state of the present and its actions between the occurrence of measurement events. Such as the wave receding and building between the peaks used as reference.
    Lots of other problems as well. Such as using a constant speed of light to describe an expanding universe. If space is actually expanding, what frame of reference is responsible for the speed of light? Otherwise it’s not expanding space, only an increased amount of stable distance.
    When mass turns into energy, it creates pressure. Think explosion. Logically then the opposite is true; When energy turns into mass, it would create a vacuum. They can’t find any dark matter in the halo of galaxies, but there is lots of unexplained cosmic rays, radiation, etc. Could it be that gravity is not just a property of mass, but the effect of energy turning into mass? Fusion powers stars, could it also create gravity? The outermost stars on the edges of galaxies have little to no heavy elements. Could they simply be the initial stages of this process?
    Not trying to tell physicists what’s what, but having followed the subject for several decades, I’ve become a firm believer in Ockham’s Razor.
    By the way, if redshift is simply due to light expanding out, wavelike, when it escapes from mass, making redshift an effect of distance, that cosmic background radiation would be the solution to Olber’s Paradox; The light of ever more distant sources, redshifted off the spectrum. The James Webb telescope should be able to see if these are just fluctuations in the CMBR, or the shadows of ever more distant galaxies. Time will tell.

    Link to this
  41. 41. RSchmidt 9:50 pm 12/16/2012

    @brodix, the forward movement of time is an illusion created by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Time appears to move forward because events cannot be, undone. At the quantum level time does appear to lose its vector and instead resembles a boiling pot of water.

    Link to this
  42. 42. RSchmidt 10:24 pm 12/16/2012

    @genevehicle, “Sure, it’s out-there alright, but still….I find it somehow aesthetically pleasing. And, always keep in mind that most of the major scientific revolutions started somewhere way out on the fringe, or at least, all the really cool ones did. (my opinion)” Wow, that’s all I have to do, create a hypothesis you find pleasing? Nice not to be burdened by evidence or the scientific method. If only the world was just as demanding, we would have fine art instead of physics, beautiful paintings instead of technology. Rloldershaw seems to think that physics is a glorified Rorschach Test. Wake me when he has a mechanism. Until then he is even more guilty of the crimes of which he accuses real physicists. Fact, the Top Quark was predicted and then discovered. Fact, the Higgs was predicted and then discovered. The standard model has made numerous predictions that have been validated. That is the strength of a good theory. But I guess if you know a few good card tricks you can convince children that you have an even better theory.

    Link to this
  43. 43. rloldershaw 10:35 pm 12/16/2012

    No human in the entire history of this planet has ever observed a “quark”. The so-called evidence for “quarks” is based entirely on secondary or tertiary normal decay products and it is INFERRED that they decayed from “quarks”.

    Likewise the scattering experiments that are interpreted as scattering by unobservable “quarks” have other interpretations, but theoretical physicists desperately wanted “quarks” so they ignored other models.

    After Gellman-Mann introduced the “quark” model as a fictional accounting device for particle family structures, physicists looked everywhere from the deep ocean, to the Moon, to outer space and everywhere in between for free “quarks” with fractional charges. They found not a single one. That was a big problem. So they INVENTED confinement, which is a completely ad hoc way of hiding “quarks” inside hadrons where we can never observe them.

    Regarding the “quark-gluon” plasma “evidence”, they predicted that it would behave like a weakly interacting gas. The observational evidence says this prediction was WRONG. The plasma, much to the surprise of theoretical physicists behaved like a strongly interacting fluid, which is much more like what Discrete Scale Relativity predicts. Of course, given time the theoretical physicists “adjusted” their model to fit the new data, and now they see it as more confirmation of the “quark” fiction. Another epicycle in their Ptolemaic models.

    That’s particle physics for you: they do not study nature; they tell nature how it should be according to their Platonic fictions. And they BELIEVE! Oh yea, how the brethren believe!

    Non-players in the theoretical physics game are treated like mushrooms: kept in the dark and fed bullshi*t.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  44. 44. rloldershaw 10:38 pm 12/16/2012

    Regarding faith in the Substandard Model of Particle Physics, here is what I have said many times before but dweebs like Rschmidt never get the message.

    1. The Standard Model is primarily a heuristic model with 26-30 fundamental parameters that have to be “put in by hand”.

    2. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the masses of the fundamental particles that make up all of the luminous matter that we can observe.

    3. The Standard Model did not and cannot predict the existence of the dark matter that constitutes the overwhelming majority of matter in the cosmos. The Standard Model describes heuristically the “foam on top of the ocean”.

    4. The vacuum energy density crisis clearly suggests a fundamental flaw at the very heart of particle physics. The VED crisis involves the fact that the vacuum energy densities predicted by particle physicists (microcosm) and measured by cosmologists (macrocosm) differ by up to 120 orders of magnitude (roughly 10^70 to 10^120, depending on how one ‘guess-timates’ the particle physics VED).

    5. The conventional Planck mass is highly unnatural, i.e., it bears no relation to any particle observed in nature, and calls into question the foundations of the quantum chromodynamics sector of the Standard Model.

    6. Many of the key particles of the Standard Model have never been directly observed. Rather, their existence is inferred from secondary, or more likely, tertiary decay products. Quantum chromodynamics is entirely built on inference, conjecture and speculation. It is too complex for simple definitive predictions and testing.

    7. The standard model of particle physics cannot include the most fundamental and well-tested interaction of the cosmos: gravitation.

    Can you hear me now, Mr. Schmidt, esq.?

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  45. 45. RSchmidt 10:50 pm 12/16/2012

    @rloldershaw, “No human in the entire history of this planet has ever observed a “quark”. The so-called evidence for “quarks” is based entirely on secondary or tertiary normal decay products and it is INFERRED that they decayed from “quarks”.” wow, that is the best you got. It ain’t real cause I caint touch it. No one has ever observed a non-avian dinosaur, black hole, electron, photon, etc. Exactly what is it about direct observation that you think makes things more credible? It is kind of a joke that we are talking about quantum mechanics and you are saying it is all B.S. because we can’t observe it. Well, like they say, best to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.

    Link to this
  46. 46. RSchmidt 11:08 pm 12/16/2012

    “The standard model of particle physics cannot include the most fundamental and well-tested interaction of the cosmos: gravitation.
    “Can you hear me now, Mr. Schmidt, esq.?”, the question is, can you hear yourself? The standard model does not try to include gravity. That is why we are looking for a unifying theory. But even when we find it, the standard model will still make accurate predictions within its domain. Just as Newtonian physics continues to make accurate predictions about its domain. We didn’t throw out Newton when relativity came along and we won’t throw out the standard model when we have a theory-of-everything. Your arguments can be described as the perfect-solution fallacy. I wonder how well your own theory stands up. Please show us how your theory explains the phenomenon we see through the lens of Quantum Mechanics. What predictions can you make? What does your theory predict we are seeing or will see at LHC? And, please make sure all your predictions are easily observable. We wouldn’t want any speculation.

    Link to this
  47. 47. wildman987 12:51 am 12/17/2012

    Every working particle physicist on the planet knows there are unresovled problems with the Standard Model. That’s why it is still a model. It is a work in progress. It is likely only part of what will eventually be found to be a more descriptive and predictive theory.

    That said, it works. Pointing out that it is not the ultimate “Theory of Everything” and that there are holes is kind of like pointing out that evolutionary biologists don’t know everything about evolution. It’s a work in progress.

    Biologists aren’t in a hurry to toss evolution and particle physicists aren’t in a hurry to toss the Standard Model. They are in a hurry to improve it.
    It’s what real scientists do for a living.

    Link to this
  48. 48. jtdwyer 2:33 am 12/17/2012

    WilliamStoertz (35) – regarding the hypothesized Higgs bosons, they are thought to be the force mediating particles of particle mass. Please see
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory
    “In perturbative quantum field theory, the forces between particles are mediated by other particles. The electromagnetic force between two electrons is caused by an exchange of photons. Intermediate vector bosons mediate the weak force and gluons mediate the strong force. Many of the proposed theories to describe gravities postulate the existence of a graviton particle that mediates it. These force-carrying particles are virtual particles and, by definition, cannot be detected while carrying the force, because such detection will imply that the force is not being carried. In addition, the notion of “force mediating particle” comes from perturbation theory, and thus does not make sense in a context of bound states.”

    In the currently prevailing conditions of the universe, Higgs bosons are expected to be unstable, as they are manifested as a result of proton disintegration or unbinding produced by extremely high energy collisions necessary to overcome particle binding energy.

    While many think that a Higgs field permeates space, actively, dynamically and continuously imparting mass to selected particles, the Higgs mechanism does not describe any method of particle selection for mass allocation.

    I suggest that Higgs bosons are so difficult to find in the universe because most mass-energy is now persistently bound in the form of stable particles. Quarks and electrons were condensed in the very early universe, when its energy density was exceedingly great. Briefly, emitted particles are now almost exclusively zero rest mass photons; more massive particles are most commonly produced as a result of persistent particle decay, fusion residue or high energy particle disintegration. Persistent particles of mass were essentially all produced in the dense early universe.

    As a result, I suggest that the hypothesized Higgs field that selects particles for mass allocation was in fact the temporally diminishing vacuum energy density, and that particles have been most often ‘permanently’ configured with bound mass-energy as a function of the prevailing universal vacuum energy density at the moment of particle emission or condensation.

    Link to this
  49. 49. vinodkumarsehgal 7:01 am 12/17/2012

    jtdwyer (37)

    You have suggested varying density of vacuum space to correspond to abstract Geometry of GR. You have also suggested gravitation to result from the interaction of aggregated potential energy of matter and kinetic energy of vacuum space. According to your hypothesis, in the absence of matter, vacuum energy of vacuum space results in expansion of space. All these ideas appear quite logical and desrrve further examination

    Now I am raising some direct and penetrating queries about above hypothesis

    i) Are vacuum energy of space and vacuum ( pure space)
    synonymous? Should it mean that vacuum energy and vacuum space are two different names of the same existence. If it is so, should vacuum energy constitute the physical stuff of the vacuum space?

    ii) If vacuum space and vacuum energy are synonymous, what is the background space against which they are operating? Can any energy ( vacuum or otherwise) exist or operate without any background space?

    ii) If vacuum energy and vacuum space are not synonymous, then question regarding nature of vacuum space remains as enigmatic as it has always remained. then further query will arise — What is that which constitutes vacuum space. Kindly keep in mind, by vacuum ( pure space), I imply space MINUS ether MINUS vacuum energy

    You have agreed that ether does not exist in space but vacuum energy exist in space. So where is the difference in actuality? The word ether has been replaced with some vacuum energy.

    iv) You are quite well aware that there is vacuum energy density crises in Physics/Cosmology. The observed density has been found to differ from predicted density by an unimaginable whopping magnitude of 10^120

    Link to this
  50. 50. CarefulReview 7:28 am 12/17/2012

    RSchmidt

    “It is kind of a joke that we are talking about quantum mechanics and you are saying it is all B.S. because we can’t observe it.”

    That is not my reading of his posts. The same unobservability is true of atoms. I rather doubt that he denies their existence. Do you?

    “Well, like they say, best to be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and prove it.”

    You have proved your point with an eloquent example. Thank you.

    Link to this
  51. 51. vinodkumarsehgal 7:59 am 12/17/2012

    WilliumStoertz ( 35)

    Thanks for your quite elaborative and instructive comments on the aspect of “underlying realty” of normal 4-D space, complex space and Higgs Field.

    “The fundamental “reality” of the Higgs field, as likewise the putative “ether” which was supposed to carry the photons (which are in fact not actual physical particles but mathematical quantum wave forms which materialize when intercepted and observed) is in fact mathematical.”

    In above regard, let me highlight and draw your kind attention to one important aspect of realty with the help of a an analogy, though quite crude one.

    The word “WATER” of English language is merely a word pointing towards some physical realty but per se is not realty. The same realty can also be described many other words of different language viz Aqua in Spanish, AAB in Persian and PAANI in Indian Hindi. Underlying realty of Water lies in physical stuff of 2 Hydrogen and 1 Oxygen atoms and some bonding force which binds atoms in certain fixed fashion. Without the physical stuff of H and O atoms and physicality of bonding forces, the word WATER shall merely be some combination of some syllables and vowels of English language which can be pronounced and can also be heard.

    Extending the above logic to your concept of complex space and Higgs field, as given in above quotes, Mathematics is also a specialized language of human mind like English language. Mathematics came into existence with the advent of civilization. The way water is a combination of some syllables of English language, similarly mathematics is also combination of some whole numbers, fractions and some primary ( +, -, *, /) and secondary mathematical operations ( square root, cube etc). Per se mathematics is not any physical realty but it points towards some physical realty of existence and process. If physical realty of some existence and process are missing at ground level, mathematical formulations and equations , in whatever elegant manner they may point towards “underlying realty”, are not of much substance.

    Further mathematical description of a quantum wave form is also a specialized ‘language expression” of the realty of wave. The existence of quantum wave should not lie in mathematical description — an elegant description of some specialized language but in some other realty which either we can’t know with our present faculty Or we don’t know.

    Existence of realty does not implies that it should necessarily exist in physical form which can be measured, controlled and predicted. This is the arbitrary definition of Science. A vast arena of Nature exist in non-physical abstract form but we can’t deny about the existence about that part of Nature. For example, emotions and higher cognitive functions of mind exist very much ( can any sane individual deny their existence?) but they are not treated as physical realities the way a material object is treated a realty. Similarly, photons, wave, space and Higgs Field are also some realities but we are unable to comprehend the same the way we can comprehend a material objective. I think that this may be due to our limitation of our mental faculties

    My comments at 33 and 34 were in reference to above context

    Link to this
  52. 52. FrenchToaster 9:21 am 12/17/2012

    RSchmidt (46),

    “Exactly what is it about direct observation that you think makes things more credible?”

    One of the criteria for a theory to be classified as a scientific theory is its ability to make predictions that may be tested. If the theory’s predictions do not match (within the tests’ limits of accuracy) the ones observed in tests, then the theory is disconfirmed and is revised or discarded. This is one of the serious criticism leveled at String Theory. As it proposes entities and interactions that cannot be tested, it can reasonably be argued that while it may be an elegant theory, or a satisfyingly mathematically consistent theory, neither makes it a scientific theory.

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

    Link to this
  53. 53. jtdwyer 10:15 am 12/17/2012

    vinodkumarsehgal http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/12/14/have-scientists-found-two-different-higgs-bosons/#comment-15224

    I’m not a physicist and cannot answer all questions regarding the representation of vacuum energy density in the contexts of all theories. As I understand, VED is represented in particle physics to account for the manifestation of virtual particles’ in cosmology generally to account for expansion and especially the acceleration through cosmological models’ cosmological constant parameter. I do not expect that VED is consistent with those interpretations.

    Moreover, I’m suggesting that VED is the undetected iceberg and quantum fluctuations are the detected tip of the iceberg. I’m also suggesting that interaction with mass-energy produces gravitation as a local contraction of VED while in the absence of mass-energy interactions VED produces spacetime expansion. In this scenario, actual (including undetected) local VED within a gravitational field, such as the Earth’s, should be enormously greater than in the material void of intergalactic space.

    Sorry I can’t quantify in the correct context, but I don’t think that, for example, the VED of cosmological space necessarily corresponds to the cosmological constant parameter of established cosmological models.

    In the contexts of particle physics and cosmology and their analytical models, I would not expect agreement of especially any constant VED value. The variability of VED is central to my suggestion that it is the principle causal factor in the cosmological expansion of spacetime and its localized gravitational contraction.

    Link to this
  54. 54. vinodkumarsehgal 11:30 am 12/17/2012

    Thanks Mr jtdwyer
    Though my queries at 48 pertained to relation between nature of pure vacuum vs VED. However, you have candidly admitted that you being not a Physicist, can not address the issues, Thanks for your straight forward and frank reply instead of giving an evasive reply.

    I have well understood your concept of variable VED and its interaction with potential energy of matter leading to creation of gravitation as well as its role in cosmological expansion. You might have had also pondered over following aspects of your concept of VED

    i) What is the source of VED before or after BB. Theory of BB provides even creation of space at the point of BB.

    ii) At the point of BB, it is considered that matter and normal energy , encompassing strong, weak and e.m forces, were injected in universe in very large but some fixed amounts. Of course, with the creation of additional space, density of matter and normal energy should diminish.

    If vacuum energy is also injected in universe in some fixed quantity, its density should also continuously diminish in universe like diminishing density of matter and energy. It implies with the expansion of space, VED should behave in the same diminishing pattern like the pattern of diminishing density of matter and normal energy.

    Above inferences lead to following corollaries:

    a) VED should always be diminishing. As such, how it can be variable. Variable implies, in some regions it should be increasing while in other regions it should be decreasing. If VED has always been diminishing, as the expanding space should provide for, it will have another unexplained implication for gravitational force. As you have provided in your concept, gravitational force is a function VED and potential energy as to be determined by the mass content. Since VED of space has been continuously diminishing since BB due to continuous expansion of space, therefore, gravitational force due to some massive object should also be diminishing in the past since BB. Do you think that this could be the case? If it is so, it implies that since BB, there have continuous decrease in gravitational force due to some massive object say Sun. But, intuitively, this does not appears correct inference to me. In such case, there appears the scenario wherein either there is some hole in your basic concept of VED vs gravitation Or there is some fault in my above line of thinking.

    b)) Since VE is injected into space in some large but fixed quantity at the time of BB whose density goes on diminishing with expanding space, therefore, VE and vacuum ( pure space) are not synonymous. As such, question of the nature of physicality of vacuum ( pure space) remains as complex and enigmatic as it has always remained

    iii) Energy which is responsible for expansion of space is some entity other than VE. Had VE been responsible for the expansion of space, with decreasing VED, space expansion should have decreased but this has not appeared the case

    Link to this
  55. 55. rloldershaw 4:00 pm 12/17/2012

    Hmmm, did my last comment get “disappeared”.

    Well, about time to move on to new things anyway.

    Maybe someday Scientific American will do a piece specifically on Discrete Scale Relativity.

    Then we could have an enjoyable learning experience, and one with a more positive outlook.

    In the meantime, my email address can be found without much effort.

    Best,
    RLO

    Link to this
  56. 56. jtdwyer 7:15 pm 12/17/2012

    vinodkumarsehgal (54) –
    Consider that the expansion of spacetime diminishes the universal average VED, but gravitation locally condenses VED. There is no reason to think that local gravitational effects should diminish. To the extent that matter increases in local density in time through the development of galaxy mergers, the development of galaxy clusters and large scale material structures (i.e., the cosmic web), none of which are known to include any expanding spacetime, localized VED (associated with localized mass-energy) will increase.

    The development of large scale voids, less affected by gravitation, within cosmic web structures may contribute to increasing rates of regional expansion despite diminishing VED. Expansion that is unopposed by contraction may require less energy by allowing increasing energy dispersal rates.

    “ii) At the point of BB, it is considered that matter and normal energy , encompassing strong, weak and e.m forces, were injected in universe in very large but some fixed amounts. Of course, with the creation of additional space, density of matter and normal energy should diminish.”

    IMO, localized (galactic, for example) density of matter is not diminished, as local spacetime is not expanding.

    In the scenario I suggest, where does any “pure space” exist? As I understand, quantum fluctuations occur in all known vacuum conditions.

    I think these points invalidates all your other assertions – please let me know if you disagree.

    Link to this
  57. 57. brodix 11:15 pm 12/17/2012

    R.Schmidt,
    “At the quantum level time does appear to lose its vector and instead resembles a boiling pot of water.”
    Exactly. And at the macro level, we are just an illusion built up from that. That’s why I think temperature should be considered similar to time, as a measure of state, as time is a measure of change.
    The theoretical point being that spacetime is correlation of measures, not a causal agent. Which would remove the theoratical basis for the current cosmological model. Not to mention my other point that it assumes a constant speed of light as a yardstick to measure expanding space.

    Link to this
  58. 58. vinodkumarsehgal 9:26 am 12/18/2012

    jtdwyer (56)

    “Consider that the expansion of spacetime diminishes the universal average VED, but gravitation locally condenses VED”

    As per your hypothesis on gravitation, gravitation results from the interaction of VE with with aggregated potential energy of matter and not vice versa implying VE DOES NOT comes into existence from gravitation. As such, I can’t understand how gravitation can condense VE. Of course, gravitation may condense matter which has totally different properties than vacuum. Aggregation or condensation is a phenomenon relevant for matter which localizes and it is irrelevant for vacuum or vacuum energy To convey my point of view, VE is more primary and fundamental than gravitation which is a secondary product from the interaction of VE and potential energy of matter. A secondary force can’t affect its primary from which it has come into existence.

    Expansion of space-time does not halts and goes on continuously implying VED should also diminish accordingly. Now assuming if mass of a particular star or galaxy remains constant over long period and gravitation is function of mass and VED, which is diminishing continuously, why diminishing VED should not affect gravitation due to that star/galaxy?

    “The development of large scale voids, less affected by gravitation, within cosmic web structures may contribute to increasing rates of regional expansion despite diminishing VED.”

    As already pointed above, as per your concept,gravitation comes into existence from VE. In view of this, gravitation should affect neither vacuum nor vacuum energy. So there should no question of development of voids ( creation of vacuum) from lower gravitation.

    “IMO, localized (galactic, for example) density of matter is not diminished, as local spacetime is not expanding.”
    Though astronomers say that local space does not expands and is only the inter-galactic space which expands and we also agree to this inference with all the reverence But can space be demarcated in compartments that some local region may not expand while wider regions may expand. Space is continuous, smooth, integrated whole ( GR is based upon this assumption) and such entity should not be demarcable and compartmentalized.

    “In the scenario I suggest, where does any “pure space” exist? As I understand, quantum fluctuations occur in all known vacuum conditions”

    I admit that I can’t visualize any region free of quantum fluctuations ( Vacuum energy). But one question remains unresolved: What is left in vacuum ( pure space) when quantum fluctuations ( vacuum energy) pops out of vacuum? Again the same question re-emerges : Is vacuum energy synonymous with vacuum? or vacuum energy is embedded in vacuum and that vacuum ( pure space devoid of any vacuum energy or ether) is some different stuff other than vacuum energy?

    Link to this
  59. 59. vinodkumarsehgal 9:49 am 12/18/2012

    jtdwyer ( 56)

    Further to 58

    An analogy came to my mind to illustrate my point of view as highlighted in 58

    An electric or magnetic field around an electric charge/magnetic pole affects matter and creates motion in matter thru mechanical force. Mechanical force is a function of intensity of field and mass of body. Intensity of Field is not dependent upon mechanical force or mass of body. Intensity of field is dependent upon strength of charge/magnetic poles. Similarly, gravitation may be dependent upon VED and aggregated mass energy but not vice versa.

    Link to this
  60. 60. WilliamStoertz 6:11 pm 12/18/2012

    In response to No.51 by “vinodkumarseghal”: Actually my post-graduate work was in the area of sociolinguistics, so I certainly concur with you as to the underlying reality not of linguistic or mathematical formulations and constructs, but of the “stuff”, the “material”, the “reality itself” which it describes. The problem here, of course, is that at the fundamental physical level, things get rather “metaphysical” — “physical” particles themselves disappear, become tenuous, or ambiguous, so that ultimately there is no “hard stuff” (nothing like little hard balls of substance), but at the core of it everything is forces and fields. So, what is that anyway? What do we have in the end, as we go deep down to the “bottom” of reality? I had said it is the mathematical quantum waves, force fields, etc. But that is actually not what I properly meant; what I actually mean is not the mathematics nor the descriptions but the “substanceless substance” of those waves or force fields.

    I see that the discussion has continued with distinguished contributors like “jtdwyer” whom I often read and follow, talking about vacuum energy density, the expansion of space, and gravitation. But what’s interesting here is that these all relate together with what we’re talking about. A vacuum, as it turns out, is not “just nothing” at all; instead, it is a field of a sort itself. So, when space expands, it is not “nothing” that is expanding, but the density of those field coordinates is thinning out.

    I really like the expression that the VED is the “iceberg”, and the virtual particles that appear and disappear out of a vacuum are the “tip of the iceberg”. That’s exactly what I mean.

    The Higgs particles is one such particle which materializes, if but momentarily, out of the vacuum when sufficient energy (123.5 or 126 GeV) is focussed on one point of space. It makes sense.

    Likewise, photons come into being when the proper energy is applied, according to their wavelength.

    A particle (electron, quark, etc.) are described as a quantum wave probability density field.

    So it is the field, and/or the wave fluctuation thereof, which cannot really be called “anything” until it materializes as an observable particle or as energy, which constitutes the “underlying reality”; the mathematical formulations, or even the linguistic description of it, such as I am very roughly attempting here in English words, are only approximations of that underlying reality using symbols as representatives of some of its parameters.

    Another commenter mentioned 4D space and higher dimensionality (that was actually in another blog here on Scientific American relating to falling into a black hole). This commenter mentioned the “higher dimensionality” of space. Of course I picked up on that, because I have been advocating that myself.

    What I’m proposing here is that the quantum field description fundamental to any particle, wave, or even space itself is not only 3D (or 4D including time), but of higher dimensions.

    It is understood (by superstring theory among others) that fundamental particles have 4 basic dimensions, plus 6 more wrapped up tightly inside them.

    Higher dimensions as we are talking about would not normally manifest in any actual space we can observe, but would normally appear as a point, namely, in the form of the particle itself; thus they would not be visible.

    However, sometimes the higher dimensions are visible as projections in physical space. For one, radio waves involve rotation in the complex plane. (Whether the “complex” or “unreal” dimensions are synonymous with “higher” dimensions, I am not clear at this point.)

    Link to this
  61. 61. rloldershaw 6:52 pm 12/18/2012

    Maybe one last dose of reality.

    So far the LHC has found:
    no string/brane exotica,
    no sparticles,
    no WIMPs,
    no supersymmetry exotica,
    no extra-dimensions,
    no mini-black holes,
    no Randall-Sundrum 5-D phenomena (gravitons, K-K gluons, etc.),
    no evidence for ADS/CFT duality,
    no colorons,
    no leptoquarks,
    no lazy photons,
    no fractionally charged particles,

    and nothing beyond the standard model, which has 26-30 adjustable parameters, and which cannot say anything about the dark matter [i.e., virtually everything].

    Then there is the 120 orders-of-magnitude vacuum energy density crisis.

    Then there is the unnatural and theoretically awkward conventional Planck mass, which bears no resemblance to anything in nature.

    Is it reasonable to just say: “Well, we have to go to yet higher energies”, and make that dodge sound credible by saying that ‘we expected this’ when in fact the pre-LHC hype about what would be found was laid on thick and the present non-results were called “The Nightmare Scenario”?

    The relevant question is: Do we keep adding epicycles to the faltering old Substandard model, or do we begin the search for a revolutionary new paradigm that can make definitive predictions, that can be experimentally verified, and that can provide simple and natural answers to fundamental problems?

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity

    Link to this
  62. 62. vinodkumarsehgal 7:44 am 12/19/2012

    WilliumStoertz (60)

    I concur your views on “underlying realty” at comment 60. I certainly like your following expressions.

    “The problem here, of course, is that at the fundamental physical level, things get rather “metaphysical” — “physical” particles themselves disappear, become tenuous, or ambiguous, so that ultimately there is no “hard stuff” (nothing like little hard balls of substance), but at the core of it everything is forces and fields”

    “I actually mean is not the mathematics nor the descriptions but the “substanceless substance” of those waves or force fields.”

    “So, when space expands, it is not “nothing” that is expanding, but the density of those field coordinates is thinning out”.

    I think Physics deals with that part of Nature which is measurable, controllable and predictable. But a large part of Nature lies beyond the ambit of these parameters. Definition and scope of “physical” and “metaphysical” is very much arbitrary. Nature which comes within the purview of Physicist is branded as physical and rest all the Nature is assigned to the category of metaphysical. However, some people have the tendency to reject all that is metaphysical implying it does not exist. But my conviction has been that metaphysical is one which has not come within the purview of Physicist either due to in-adequecy of the current “instrumentality” of Physics or limitations of our mental faculties to comprehend the realty. May be in future, some part of Nature which is currently branded as Metaphysical may get the status of Physical due to advancement in theoretical and experimental Physics and cosmology. In view of this., this is my understanding and conviction that Physics of the day has studied only a part of Nature and a large arena of Nature remains yet unexplored.

    Yes, you have rightly assigned the phrase “substanceless substance” to the underlying realty of Nature lying below measurable substance of Physicist. I again emphasize that this ‘ substanceless substance” is the realty lying in higher domains or higher dimensions and actually it the “real stuff” ( since all measurable Nature emanates from that) but somehow either not being trapped by the “instrumentality” of Physicists or our mental faculties are unable to comprehend. During the coming years, it will be a challenge before Scientists to have better and higher knowledge of that “substanceless substance”

    You have suggested that expansion of space implies diluting of density of field co-ordinates. In this regard, I have been conversing with jtdwyer. Please see my comments at 49, 54, 58 and 59. Though jtdwyer is trying to address the issues raised by me in this blogs to the best of his ability, however, somehow I am not getting complete and satisfactory response to my queries. For example, when I raise the issue of whether diminishing field on expansion of space and pure space (vacuum) are synonymous or different implying field of vacuum energy embedded in some other entity which we term as pure vacuum — our understanding ( at least mine — I admit so) face roadblock. One thing, you might have noted. During the post Einsteinian era, Physicists might have had got rid of “ether” but now vacuum energy is back in the ” guise of ether”. Similarly, absoluteness of space-time might have been over but absoluteness of the “constancy of speed of light” is very much ruling the world of Physics. So I don’t find any radical change in paradigm

    Link to this
  63. 63. @lloydcata 7:43 am 12/20/2012

    Ooops! Well, back to Aristotle…

    The ‘infinity particle’ is a creation of the human mind, and when that mind has dominion over matter the particle will appear, but you still don’t have a measuring device to define it.

    Link to this
  64. 64. rloldershaw 5:45 pm 12/20/2012

    Careful and objective scientists do not say the Higgs boson has been discovered yet. That remains to be seen.

    Firstly, what has been discovered is an unstable Higgs-like boson resonance which could be a fairly boring repeat of the hundreds of other unstable boson resonances already found.

    Secondly, there are a number of anomalies within the existing data, especially diphoton rates that are too high, and the fact that no spin has been definitively determined yet.

    Thirdly, the most recent LHC results indicate differing boson resonance masses for different decay processes, which no one understands yet, and most hope will disappear somehow.

    Lastly, before the LHC came on-line, the predictions for the Higgs mass ranged from about 100 GeV to 800 GeV!!!
    After the fact of finding a bump at 125 GeV THEN they single out the predictions that conform to that result! That is not cricket in science.

    Particle physicist Jon Butterworth commented in Nature recently:
    “If one assembles the standard model without fine-tuning some parameters, quantum effects mean that the Higgs boson’s mass should grow and end up near the Planck scale. This is clearly wrong, and it hints at gaps in the theory.”

    One could well get the impression that there is something seriously amiss in the current particle physics paradigm. The Higgs Mechanism sounds like a corny just-so story and is completely untestable in any direct manner.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

    Link to this
  65. 65. debu 1:59 am 12/21/2012

    The whole modern physics is standing on two wrong pillars of understanding –one is relativistic gravity and other Bohr-Dirac version quantum physics. We have assumed many things to understand nature but nature is more diverse and dynamic . Let us suppose that dark energy is coming from somewhere and our universe is different at different locations as environment on earth. If light speed is varying as it travels. If we have an atomic model where strong and weak forces are not required. If Maxwell equation is adjusted to take care of dark energy for a single force gravity and electromagnetism. Then how we will interpret our observations. Standard Model is a model on many assumptions that may not be true. Read theories published by Durgadas Datta and think differently for a new model–a NEW PHYSICS.

    Link to this
  66. 66. debu 2:08 am 12/21/2012

    THE TWO HIGGS BOSONS ARE –ONE FOR GRAVITY AND ANOTHER FOR ANTIGRAVITY..THAT IS DARK ENERGY FOR EXPANDING UNIVERSE. Read balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path producing gravitoethertons at common boundary by annihilation and injected into both the universe as gravity and antigravity particle for further necessary action. The new two cloud model of outer negative and inner positive charge with neutrons at common center may be also explored in LHC so that the strong and weak forces are abolished . Do not worry , scattering,chemical reaction etc will be explained easily by this model also.

    Link to this
  67. 67. rloldershaw 10:40 am 12/21/2012

    More Ptolemaic rubbish with a huge dollop of crackpottery.

    I would bet the farm that this pseudo-science cannot make a single definitive prediction that is prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable, and unique to the “theory”.

    But don’t fret. Even some of the most fashionable physics theories floating around these days are also in the just-so category. Yes, it floats.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Discrete Scale Relativity
    Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  68. 68. BioSam 7:58 pm 12/21/2012

    What strikes me most in this article, “the Higgs short-lived changes into Photons”. Isn’t it also true that photons changes into electrons, positrons, leptons and the like? What if all the atoms particles work in Unison and hold together by the combined Gravitational forces and always effect, change or manipulates each particle. If the Universe was not created by the know known Big Bang Theory but always is expanding and contracting there might have being an earlier Universe before the 14 Billion years as we calculate the Age of the current universe.

    All light (stars) inorganic and organic matter lives its life and Ultimately has no other faith than to be swallowed up by a dark matter and still bigger Black holes. As we now know even in the simplest atoms, electron do behave the way we have come to discover, mostly accidently. A view among us will get the Nobel Price for a discovery, they discovered the mistake the earlier scientist made, who claimed a theorem. However, others who’s thinking might have been completely wrong, paved the road for the individuals that could figure it out and are as of today not proven wrong.

    What if electrons around a positrons and Neutrons (Quarks and the like) actually not just stay in their same orbits around the nucleolus, which is true for Superconductivity (they form Pairs) But instead Get their energy constantly rejuvenated, meaning in strings one at a time when losing momentum (weakest one) and get drawn back into the Quarks that works as Dynamo to recharge. It’s kind of like a flock of Bird to keep the Momentum going at the highest efficiency possible, they change position.
    I might be out of my mind, and defiantly No Physicist but understand and read a Lot.

    Simon Janson
    s.janson@sbcglobal.net

    Link to this
  69. 69. WilliamStoertz 9:03 pm 12/21/2012

    In reference to the discussion in comments No. 58, 60, et al., I wish to propose that vacuum energy has the peculiar property that its density does not locally diminish (i.e., it does not diminish at all!) even with spatial expansion. This would explain why local gravitational effects would not change no matter how much the universe expands. In fact, “space” itself is defined by vacuum energy density — they are in 1:1 correspondence. Thus, the expansion of the universe means more space (that is, vacuum energy) is being created. However, it is compensated for in the fact that the overall matter density is decreasing due to expansion. Plus, matter (galaxies) is disappearing over the event horizon at the observed edge of the universe. Thus, the law of conservation of mass and energy and the second law of thermodynamics are not violated.

    Link to this
  70. 70. WilliamStoertz 9:21 pm 12/21/2012

    In continuation of the above discussion regarding “vacuum energy”, continuing my comment No. 69, and in response to Vinodkumarseghal’s comment No. 62, I wish to clarify that space as such (more precisely “space-time”) is required to exist even in Einstein’s relativity theories. However, this “space” (“spacetime”)is relative (relativistic), in that it depends for definition upon the observer and his coordinate system (reference frame). So, what I am saying is that “vacuum energy”, which is in one-to-one correspondence with space itself, is likewise relative to the observer. Same with the Higgs particles. We are not filling space with any alleged “ether”. That “ether” had been wrongly conceived as physical particles with mass occupying physical locations in an absolute, universal space. Instead, we keep “space”, attribute to it relativistic properties (relative to the observer’s reference system) and any “fields” within it are non-material, to be described by tensor equations relative to the point of reference. The Higgs particle is not located at specific points in an absolute, universal space, but, like space, time, gravitation, photons, and all other particles and fields and their substrates, is relative to the point of the observer. The Higgs boson does not become a physical particle until it materializes out of the Higgs field by impinging forces of sufficient energy. Then it becomes bonded to a particular physical particle as the attribute of “mass”. In this way, we don’t violate Einstein’s relativity theory, which seems to be absolute and universal. In other words, we have not proposed any “ether”, which is specifically prohibited as the first postulate of the Theory of Relativity.

    Link to this
  71. 71. rloldershaw 11:56 pm 12/21/2012

    Here’s an idea.

    Before any layman or professional scientist belabors us with their pipe dreams, we could demand that they include at least one definitive prediction (prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable and unique to the pipe dream) by which their hypothesis can be tested.

    Neglecting this scientific requirement would result in their posts and papers being completely ignored by individuals, and especially by the media, if not summarily rejected.

    That idea would clear one hell of a lot of deadwood from the halls of science.

    Robert L. Oldershaw
    http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
    Fractal Cosmology

    Link to this
  72. 72. imbalzanog 7:30 am 12/22/2012

    “The Higgs to two-photon data shows a peak at 126.6 GeV, while the Higgs to four-lepton data (newly updated) shows a peak at 123.5 GeV” This last mass is exactly as I preannounced in year 2000, SEE:
    http://www.lulu.com/shop/giovanni-imbalzano/conformal-constants-new-physics/hardcover/product-3986813.html
    God year 2013, dear friends! g.i. ITALY

    Link to this
  73. 73. rloldershaw 4:02 pm 12/22/2012

    That would be of interest.

    Is the confomal invariance that you employ:

    1. Local or global
    2. Continuous or dicrete in terms of dilation invariance?

    Link to this
  74. 74. rloldershaw 4:03 pm 12/22/2012

    Sorry:

    2. Continuous or discrete …

    Link to this
  75. 75. gsmonks 6:29 pm 12/22/2012

    I suspected two Higgs fields would show up, and have been speculating for some time why this should be so.

    An electron shell contracts, a quanta is released, the quanta has a dual nature. A wave is release through space, there is nothing there physically except space itself, so that the electron shell itself is merely space in another form.

    Concerning space, I have had two questions for many years- How is it able to retain energy?, and, What is the true relationship between energy and space?

    A single Higgs field does not suffice. I have thought for many years that space IS a Higgs field. Or, to be precise, two interacting Higgs fields.

    Furthermore, I’ve been predicting for years now that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are macro quantum effects contingent on the scale invariance of quantum fields.

    In other words, and this is MY prediction- this is direct physical evidence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and I do not believe that those tinkering with Atlas know what they’ve got their hands on.

    Link to this
  76. 76. vinodkumarsehgal 8:30 am 12/23/2012

    WilliumStoertz (69 & 70)

    “vacuum energy has the peculiar property that its density does not locally diminish (i.e., it does not diminish at all!) even with spatial expansion”

    How it could be that VED may not change at local level while globally it may diminish with expansion? Either VED should have a constant value in the entire universe irrespective of expansion of universe or it should continue to diminish through out the universe with continuous expansion of space. Similarly Space due to its continuous, smooth and holistic whole and non physical nature ( this is the principle assumption of GR), can not be compartmentalized with some regions at local level static while space at galactic level expanding. Visualizing the expansion of space with the oft repeated analogy of expanding balloon, can some small, local regions of balloon remain static and larger regions of space expand? Though astronomers state that at local level, there is no expansion of space while at larger galactic level, there is continuous expansion. But it is not logical and scientific to choose any arbitrary assumption as per convenience.

    “space” itself is defined by vacuum energy density — they are in 1:1 correspondence.”
    Yes, I agree that there could be correspondence between vacuum energy ( not VED which has to be defined by vacuum energy occupying certain space) and space. But my query pertained to different issue. I had raised the issue : If Vacuum energy and space are synonymous or distinct entities. In case, space and VE are synonymous ( like water and H2O are synonymous), this will imply that physicality of space comprises of VE i.e space comprises of a stuff composed of VE. THIS WILL ALSO IMPLY THAT SPACE HAS A PHYSICAL EXISTENCE ( (NOT IN THE SENSE OF A MATERIAL BODY). By physical existence, I imply any entity which has very much existence in some tangible form may be its tangible nature is not known to Science. This will be against the basic assumption of GR which assumes physicality of space to be nil. This will also raise related issue : what is the background space within which VE ( or synonymous space) resides?

    If distinct, question will arise : What is the physicality of space within which VE resides? Questions will also arise regarding nature of relation ( or interaction) between space and vacuum energy.

    “The Higgs particle is not located at specific points in an absolute, universal space, but, like space, time, gravitation, photons, and all other particles and fields and their substrates, is relative to the point of the observer”

    In your above quote, you have raised an important philosophical and spiritual issue. First about space and time. Yes, Relativity talks of relativistic values of space and time i.e values of space and time are relativistic depending upon reference system of observer. Question arises :Is value of space ( or space-time) relativistic with reference to observer only but actually it exist in some absolute existence. In other words, space ( or space-time) exist in some absolute value ( but we can not know this value due to our non-access of an absolute observing frame of reference) but relative position of frame of reference of observer gives the different observational values of space to observer.

    Alternatively, space ( or space-time) do not exist in any absolute existence and it is the observer’s observation only which not only defines the value of space but creates the existence of space ( and time or space-time).

    Above line of thinking shall be applicable upon photon, gravitation and Higgs particle also.

    Please try to appreciate the subtle but very important difference between two alternatives. In both alternatives, we face some dilemmas.

    If Ist alternative is true, it implies we are quite unaware of the true state of space and time and for that purpose of photon, Higgs particle and gravitation since space and time exist in some absolute state which can’t be known by Science since either absolute frame of observation does not exist or if it exist, its access to Science is not permissible. This will also imply that all the knowledge obtained thru observation by Science is relative, a sort of illusion and it has no true absolute worth.

    In case, 2nd alternative is true, it will imply a very observation centric existence of universe. In this case, space and time come into existence by virtue of observation of observer ( observer implies conscious observer since without conscious observer, material instruments are only intermediate stages which finally have to be observed by some conscious observer at terminal stage). Therefor, all the matter, energy, Photons, gravitation or Higgs particle i.e. entire universe shall come into existence due to observation of conscious observer only. This will lead to a state where entire universe has no independent absolute existence but it is the observation of conscious observer which brings into existence the entire universe. This alternative shall create a grander illusion than in Ist alternative.

    My above discussion may sound quite philosophical on the fringes of spiritual discussion. But fact is that we can’t escape these issues even from scientific point of view. But again I state that complete and satisfactory solution to above issues from pure scientific paradigm are not available.

    Link to this
  77. 77. vinodkumarsehgal 8:48 am 12/23/2012

    gsmonks(75)

    “A wave is release through space, there is nothing there physically except space itself, so that the electron shell itself is merely space in another form.”

    When a quanta of energy wave is released by an electron from an electron shell, there may be nothing physical as the word “physical” is commonly understood and implied in popular and and scientific parlance. But it has a very much real existence in some tangible form about whose state and tangible character we are quite unaware of.

    “Concerning space, I have had two questions for many years- How is it able to retain energy?, and, What is the true relationship between energy and space?”

    I appreciate your curiosity regarding above issues. Such issues have cropped in my mind also. I admit I don’t know the solution and I think current Science is also unaware of the answers.

    Link to this
  78. 78. iWind 12:45 pm 12/23/2012

    @genevehicle I’ve been to that “Discrete Scale Relationships” page. It’s nonsense. He argues his scientific “retrodictions” (a way of saying “I told you so! Well, I would have, if I’d thought of it” in a single word) in much the same way other conspiracy theorists argue the Moon landings were faked by misunderstanding shadows on bad scans of press photos.

    Link to this
  79. 79. rloldershaw 10:17 pm 12/23/2012

    Clearly “iwind” (idiotwind?) does not understand the role of retrodictions in science. They have a very long and highly respected role in scientific history.

    Is “iwind” also in total ignorance of the successful definitive predictions of Discrete Scale Relativity.

    Perhaps “iwind” is just a fatuous middle-school student who is eager to strike a pose?

    Link to this
  80. 80. ottokrog 10:01 am 12/25/2012

    I don’t think the qualities required for The Higgs particle to explain the standard model is there, and I don’t think they will be found.

    Neither do I think, that supersymmetry will be recognized in futuristic science.

    I know I am a pain in the butt, but I believe in a complete different approach to high energy physics in the future. My vision is that future science will engulf consciousness. The mind and the spirit will be explainable through physics.

    I have been a fan of Sir Roger Penrose for many years. He was the first scientist to say that consciousness should be found in the quantum field rather than in the brain. I am so much a fan, that I made my own theory out of the idea that consciousness might be explained through a better understanding of antimatter and multiverse dimensions.

    My idea is that antimatter is the mirror of this universe, and that antimatter might be where memory is located.

    I think that the subconscious mind and consciousness are located in multiverse dimensions in the form of antimatter.

    The original standard model predicted no mass at all. That made no sence to scientists, so Peter Higgs predicted The Higgs Boson, purely from mathematics. I think the original standard model was right, particles does not exist. The physical universe is a flow of energy from minus infinite energy to plus infinite energy.

    If you would like to know more, then you can watch a full videopresentation of my theory on my blog:

    http://www.crestroy.com

    Link to this
  81. 81. vinodkumarsehgal 8:29 am 12/26/2012

    Ottorog ( 80)

    “My vision is that future science will engulf consciousness. The mind and the spirit will be explainable through physics.”

    I am very much optimistic on your above wishful thinking. Physics deals with that part of Nature which is quantifiable, measurable, controllable and predictable in logical and objective manner. Consciousness and Mind do not fall within these parameters. Consciousness is the very subjective nature of we human beings. Study of consciousness and mind has remained the preserve of Mysticism and Spirituality of various shades and colors of different religions since millennia and that too through personal subjective means.

    Link to this
  82. 82. verdai 5:46 pm 12/31/2012

    probably.

    very good graphic.

    Link to this
  83. 83. verdai 5:50 pm 12/31/2012

    and, ummmm, no lie, you two before.

    Link to this
  84. 84. christinaak 8:39 am 01/4/2013

    Perhaps instead of two Higgs bosons they have discovered something else altogether (at least that is what I am betting on). It is becoming clear that a better model needs to be found to replace the Standard Model.

    Link to this
  85. 85. WilliamStoertz 2:47 am 01/10/2013

    We’re basically trying to figure out the cosmos, how it originated, and what it is. I think speculations is in order, because it is fruitful in generating creative, ingenious, and some efficacious hypotheses. Science after all began with metaphysics and proceeded to observation. (That, of course, is a big issue unto itself!)

    The existence of the Higgs boson is very reasonable from a number of angles, and just because it is “inferred” does not make it out of the pale as far as science goes.

    In its present state, particle physics (and even biology for that matter) have once more ventured back into a “metaphysical” realm. What is the origin of life? What is the nature of consciousness? Not easy questions at all.

    I propose that science and religion will meet. I think it’s wrong to eternally separate the two. Science and religion ought to agree. Religion is necessary for people (most people, and throughout all of history), and this will doubtlessly remain true even when we have life and the cosmos in our hands, so to speak. The findings of religion should be scientifically reasonable, likewise. Consciousness or the afterlife shouldn’t remain forever outside the realm of scientific study and even verification.

    The Higgs boson is highly interesting because it just borders on that realm where reality becomes metaphysical. If the existence of the Higgs field is in a dimension outside of the four dimensions of time and space, so be it: Let’s study it. Then Higgs particles, just like various other subatomic particles, can wink in and out of the physical realm according to various conditions of energy, velocity, ambience, etc. — let’s study that realm.

    In mathematics we have given constructive meaning to “i”, though it is “impossible” in the four physical dimensions. It is, namely, useful to postulate and also work practically with the complex plane, both mathematically and practically. (Solutions of electromagnetic field differentials necessarily turn up complex dimensions, which we do not deny, but imagine, and continue to calculate, integrate, and observe. No problem!)

    Likewise, with the Higgs field (which is universal) and the short-lived Higgs boson (which is still “inferred”), we are likewise dealing with a trans-dimensional “reality”.

    This is the “true reality”, for science, and for our human minds: There is indeed a complex realm of higher dimensionality. There is consciousness, presumably not only human but also animal and possibly even on a particle level (mind interacts with matter). There is supposed to be an afterlife. Time travel may be possible. Transcending light speed may be possible by resorting to higher dimensions.

    The Higgs particle and field, and its study, affords us a timely gateway to investigate these intriguing possibilities, ushering in the “New Age science”!

    Link to this
  86. 86. debu 11:37 am 03/7/2013

    Graviton for gravity and anti graviton for expansion–that is all. CHEERS.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X