Comments on: Milestones for the Tevatron and LHC

By: The LHC, the Tevatron, and the Higgs Boson | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Wed, 27 Jul 2011 21:38:02 +0000

[...] few weeks back I wrote about the remarkable milestones passed by the Tevatron and LHC, and prognosticated that if there was ever a time when new [...]

By: Kabir Mustapha Yar’adua

Kabir Mustapha Yar’adua — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 22:35:47 +0000

Suppose the Higgs is not found come 2012, what will that mean to the standard model?

By: george briggs

george briggs — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:56:26 +0000

zoltan, my address is 37 broadripple dr,princeton,njo8540 phone 609 924 o755

By: george briggs

george briggs — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 16:46:40 +0000

The briggs fermiboson (not boson) should really be called briggs – lisi- weatherall fermiboson, to give credit to everybody involved

By: Zoltan J Kiss

Zoltan J Kiss — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:34:50 +0000

Hello George, you will agree with me that no event would mean no time and no time would mean no event. But what is the physical basis of time?
There is only one answer to give:permanent mass-energy transformation and energy-mass re-transformation with a quantum entropy left-over of the balance all around, composing as I call it the quantum membrane.
I vote for the Briggs-boson and you will find my email address in my web-site (just a click on my name)

By: george briggs

george briggs — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:45:15 +0000

I know I’m a terrible nuisance, but how about briggs fermibosnon to go along with higgs boson?

By: george briggs

george briggs — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 15:27:54 +0000

hi zoltan. i’m not sure i understand your physics yet. I’m trying to get folks to realize that there are only two entities yet to be found, dark matter and fermibosonic matter, and they are not point particles and probably can’t be detected by the LHC. only two other physicits,Lisi and Penrose seem to comprehend and i AM TOO UNKNOWN and too old, 87, to change things

By: Zoltan J Kiss

Zoltan J Kiss — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 10:42:13 +0000

Accelerating Hydrogen is especially dangerous, as I see it, since the acceleration intensifies its neutron process, which is otherwise of infinite low intensity (the reason we cannot measure it). At speed level close to the speed of light the neutron collapse of the Hydrogen will be infinitely intensified. Closer and closer and more and more. The neutron collapse of the Hydrogen of infinite intensity will need proton expansion energy but that is limited with the Hydrogen proton. Strong interrelation will work and there will be an energy demand developed of infinite intensity.
I do not know how we can call it. But this is an energy intake, like the neutron radiation of infinite intensity.
Hi george, in my understanding, weak force is electron blue shift, the red shift load of the neutron collapse.

By: george briggs

george briggs — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:43:51 +0000

for the life of me, I can’t see how the studies of neutrinoes (and weak force particles) is going to give us any insight into the stable particles, and their masses, that need to be explained today. I think study of E8 symmetry could give us an answer, albeit very anthropic, I admit.

By: george briggs

george briggs — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 15:42:06 +0000

I don’t think my idea of a fermibosonic entity is so crazy, since Lisi thinks he has already found it as E8 symmetry matter (see sciam for jan this year). Fermibosonic matter is broken down into equal amounts of ordinary matter and dark matter by the strong electrogravitational fields of primordial black holes, It has zero net mass itself. Hi zoltan, we worked for the same co.

By: Sean Peters

Sean Peters — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:06:24 +0000

Extremely entertaining comments today. It’s regrettable, though, that it’s becoming a lot harder to distinguish the true crackpots from the mere trolls. Makes for a fun read all the same.

By: Zoltan J Kiss

Zoltan J Kiss — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 09:49:09 +0000

As I see it, looking for the Higgs boson is a mistake.
“Particle-based” physic gives no solution to our energy crisis today. At the same time the “Event-based” direction is not an acceptable way for today’s physical science.
Do they really think that “the last particle ” as such exists? It would automtically mean Universe is with an end.
We may measure a “particle” as result of the measurement of an event, function of the intensity of the event itself – but most importantly the intensity of our measurement. Both, function of the time system (or time flow).
Time to wake up!

By: george briggs

george briggs — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:55:04 +0000

i’m relieved. I wonder what you think happeneg at tha big bang? I think we had a big burst of radiation but no transfer of mass from the previous universe (see penrose’s “cycles of time”)). that came later, with the growth of galaxies, transfering matter in the form of fermibosonic entities of E8 symmetry (see papers by Lisi)

By: Anadish Kumar Pal

Anadish Kumar Pal — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:03:05 +0000

It seems that on earth there is an inertial lock which prevents particles to behave exactly as they behaved moments after so called ‘big bang’. You can refer to my research and await a formal detailed disclosure. So LHC would not be able to exactly recreate conditions the conditions as expected. Doomsday fearing persons may take heart, it may not be possible for LHC to gobble up the earth, after all.

By: george briggs

george briggs — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:28:33 +0000

more on john $12: what to do with the LHC when it shows us no new physics? sell it to the power companies for superconductor field testing. It could be very useful there – maybe even pay for itself!

By: george briggs

george briggs — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:37:45 +0000

I find johns comment most interesting. I am predcting no higher energy point particles will be found, but we will keep trying until we create a black hole which will feed on fermibosonic matter left over from the previous universe, destroying earth in a process that appears to be two colliding galaxies to obververs alive in that era.

By: John

John — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 19:19:50 +0000

OhDear: we played all the tricks we could to get the government to keep the Tevatron alive a bit longer. And when I say tricks, I don’t mean anything dishonest – you can’t really get away with that sort of thing in physics. There is always someone willing to shoot you down. But the machine will turn off for sure on Sept. 30, even if a big discovery is made at the Tevatron.

I guess the point of my post is that with the increase in energy an the huge increase in integrated luminosity at the LHC, the time is now, if ever, to make new discoveries, if they are waiting for us. You can call it hype if you want but it’s the simple truth. There’s never been a more exciting moment in this field in my career, for sure.

Now, if we *don’t* make a big discovery in the coming weeks, or within a few months, then the nature of the new physics which lies ahead must be quite subtle, or there may not be new physics for us to find. We’ll perhaps quadruple our sample by the end of 2012, but we won’t get another factor of 50-100 for sure, so in a sense, this is the year where we have the biggest chance for seeing something new.

If there is nothing new – just a Standard Model Higgs boson, which we know will take another few years of data collection – then we will enter a strange and difficult time for high energy physics. Some of us call it The Nightmare Scenario. It will be awfully hard to convince anyone to build an even higher energy collider, for sure…

By: chris

chris — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:04:53 +0000

Oh Dear,

it has happened too often lately. HEP-ex people are a bit too nervous and hype-prone for the last couple of years.

i don’t see these comments in such a negative light. they remind us all that scepticism is a basic necessity for science that should never be thrown overboard.

By: Evil

Evil — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:27:23 +0000

There are rumors going around that CMS also sees the same excess as CDF….

By: OhDear

OhDear — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:14:28 +0000

Statements like

“the recent CDF/D0 4-sigma fiasco.”

and

“is it true that the “recent excitement” at the Tevatron was a trick to try to convince the US government to continue funding Fermilab?”

really disappoint me. I know one should not expect reasonable opinions on the internet, but the degree of hostility and suspicion is shocking. There is no fiasco, there is simply an intriguing result which could not be reproduced. It could be due to many things. Regarding Phil’s suggestion of a conspiracy, consider what you are suggesting here. Hundreds of people would have to be in on it- do you really think all those people, who have spent their lives training as scientists, would conspire to fabricate results?