LAURA KNIGHT-JADCZYK AND JOE QUINN
Since the 9/11 attacks, no book has provided a satisfactory answer as to WHY the attacks occurred and who was ultimately responsible for carrying them out - until now.
"Scientists working at the world's biggest atom smasher plan to announce Wednesday that they have gathered enough evidence to show that the long-sought "God Particle" answering fundamental questions about the universe almost certainly does exist."
Almost certainly? Is that anything like a definite maybe?
I mean spending all this money to find out if a particle exists, what will this mean or what can it be used for...then what?
D.L. Hotson explains ( [Link]) the Higgs Boson this way:
“But the Standard Model [of particle physics], currently in use, is a theory for massless particles. Incorporating mass throws the Standard Model into chaos, producing infinities which have to be fudged away, and an unobserved entity, the unlikely Higgs Boson, has been invented to “endow” particles with mass in some unspecified manner.”
In essence, all this means is that the Standard Model of particle physics as it is presently configured can only work if you put in a fudge factor to make it work. As Hotson explains in his papers, physics went terribly wrong back in 1934, when they ignored and discarded two solutions to Dirac's Relativistic Schrodinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom. Ever since, instead of physics becoming simpler with less entities and less complexity, the opposite has occurred. A treatment with Occam's Razor says its wrong, since fudging is definitely not making anything any simpler.
D.L. Hoston's 2 Other Papers:
Part 1 - [Link]Part 2 - [Link]
I just downloaded, printed and twice read thru Hotson's above linked paper.
Not being a theoretical physicist the first several pages were beyond me but when he got into the philosophy of fudge factors, his making fun of "sacred cows" made a lot of sense.
Now you might say, "How can you know if he made sense or not if you do not understand the first parts of the paper ? ?" and that's a reasonable question to which I can only reply, "Read the paper, I think you'll enjoy it, see what I'm getting at -- and -- maybe come away with some better understandings."
I just downloaded Parts 1 & 2, here's the text from a sidebar on pg. 1 of pt.1:
The Hotson "family business" is English literature. Mr. Hotson's father and uncle had Harvard Ph.D.s in the subject, and his late uncle was a famous Shakespeare scholar.
Mr. Hotson, however, always intended a career in physics. Unfortunately, he could not resist asking awkward questions. His professors taught that conservation of mass-energy is the never-violated, rock-solid foundation of all physics. In "pair production" a photon of at least 1.022 MeV "creates"
an electron-positron pair, each with 0.511 MeV of rest energy, with any excess being the momentum of the "created" pair. So supposedly the conservation books balance. But the "created" electron and positron both have spin (angular momentum) energy of h/4p.
By any assumption as to the size of electron or positron, this is far more energy than that supplied by the photon at "creation."
"Isn't angular momentum energy?" he asked a professor.
"Of course it is. This half-integer spin angular momentum is the energy needed by the electron to set up a stable standing wave around the proton.
Thus it is responsible for the Pauli exclusion principle, hence for the extension and stability of all matter. You could say it is the sole cause of the periodic table of elements."
"Then where does all this energy come from? How can the 'created'
electron have something like sixteen times more energy than the photon that supposedly 'created' it? Isn't this a huge violation of your never-violated rock-solid foundation of all physics?"
"We regard spin angular momentum as an 'inherent property' of electron and positron, not as a violation of conservation."
"But if it's real energy, where does it come from? Does the Energy Fairy step in and proclaim a miracle every time 'creation' is invoked, billions of times a second? How does this fit your never-violated conservation?"
"Inherent property' means we don't talk about it, and you won't either if you want to pass this course."
Well, this answer sounded to him like the Stephen Leacock aphorism:
"'Shut up,' he explained."
Later Mr. Hotson was taken aside and told that his "attitude" was disrupting the class, and that further, with his "attitude," there was no chance in hell of his completing a graduate program in physics, so "save your money."
He ended up at the Sorbonne studying French literature, and later became a professional land surveyor. However, he has retained a lifelong interest in the "awkward questions" of physics, and with Dirac's Equation has found some answers.
e-Maill: d[email protected]
=======================
From kust this I expect you might be able to see that this work is a lot of fun to read. How correct it might be I cannot begin to debate . . .
. . . other such are taken up by Nassim Haramein, who has provided the very interesting and entertaining YouTube seen at this [Link]
That said, I have no real basis upon which to base any conclusions about this talk, I just found it interesting and might well watch it a couple more times to let things get better seated in my mind, then see what shakes out.
The concept of a "God particle" doesn't ring true with me as it seems a notion rather embedded in physicality while, for instance, the Cs speak of themselves as being, " . . in no way physical," and a "particle" as I reckon one is a "physical" item, whatever that might actually mean. So the whole notion God particles throws up huge question marks.
Perhaps Ark might care to weigh in briefly . . .
Definitely worth watching Nassim. I own his vids - luv them. Even though the link is to a vid that was only a short session, there's enough there to get the gist of the cosmology he's put together and having such good success with. Of course, his extended lectures are much better, in my opinion.
I know what Duncan O'Finioan thinks about the CERN project, and it is unprintable here.
It would be more appropriate to call it the "godless particle."
I am sure that everyone who hopes that our entire concept of God can be reduced to a particle will be very happy to celebrate this "breakthrough."
I, for one, plan to celebrate the US Declaration of Independence on that date.
Proof? This article looks like a collection of conjectures! Why not wait to hear what those who are actually working on the experiment have to announce?