Get Your Higgs On

[HysteryDiagnosis]

Written in 2008, imagine that.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gzhqr188





The notion that subatomic particles exhibit mass as a result of their interaction with imaginary Higgs particles occupying all of empty space like some form of treacle should have caused a sceptical uproar, if it weren’t for the appalling apathy of the public toward such nonsense. The ‘annihilation’ and ‘creation’ of matter is invoked when particles at particular points arise from ‘fields’ spread over space and time. Higgs found that parameters in the equations for the field associated with his hypothetical particle can be chosen in such a way that the lowest energy state of that field (empty space) is not zero. With the field energy non-zero in empty space, all particles that can interact with the Higgs particle gain mass from the interaction.

This explanation for the phenomenon of mass should have been stillborn if common sense was used. To begin, the annihilation and creation of matter is forbidden by a principle of physics. It is tantamount to magic. Second, field theory is a purely imaginary construct, which may or may not have physical significance. And third, it is not explained how the Higgs particle can have intrinsic mass but no charge and yet interact with normal matter, which has charge but is said to have no intrinsic mass. Rather than explain the phenomenon of mass, the theory serves to complicate and confuse the issue. The most amazing feature of this $6 billion experiment is the confused and illogical thinking behind it.

At the heart of the thinking behind the Higgs boson is quantum mechanics, which has a fundamental flaw — it allows effects without a cause. For example, radioactive decay is unpredictable. We do not know what causes an atom to ‘spontaneously’ decay. Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “...I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.” Quantum mechanics is not physics, whose aim is understanding.

Particle physicists would be well advised to study chemistry and the ‘London force’ between electrically neutral systems of atoms. It is a weak force, sufficient to form solids and liquids, and is always attractive. In other words, it is like gravity. The extreme feebleness of gravity can be understood as the result of tiny distortions of orbiting systems of charge within the proton, neutron, electron and neutrino.

[laconicsax]

1. Uh huh.

Tell me again why your electric universe is almost universally rejected by scientists. Why is it that plasma physicists don't advocate the electric universe? You'd think that if it were true, experts in the field would recognize it as such.

You know how a team has successfully predicted sunspots? They did it by understanding the interior structure of the sun--an structure rejected by your electric universe nonsense.

Do you realize how accurately the Standard Model predicts things? The level of precision is equivalent to a hair's width over nearly 3000 miles.

You know how gravity is supposedly too weak to do anything? Well why is it that general relativity accurately predicts all manner of interactions?

Spare us your pseudoscientific drivel. The sun is not a lightbulb, the Earth is not the ejected core of a gas giant, lightning doesn't come from space, baryonic matter only accounts for less than 5% of the mass of the universe.

How do I know this? Because while electric universe advocates are shrieking about how no one believes them, the adults have been doing real work and making real discoveries from real science.

[Odin2005]

2. Oh, it's just you.

:rofl:

[Silent3]

3. This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedemir.

Explain again how sheeps' bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[trotsky]

4. ZOMG

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Stretch them tightly around the mantle and pray they hold. n/t

[trotsky]

5. Since a hologram is a weak representation of an actual object...

it makes sense that this would have appeared on a site called "holoscience," which is clearly only a weak representation of actual science.