Comments on: We (Apparently) Found the Higgs Boson. Now, Where the Heck Did It Come From?

By: tini

tini — Sat, 27 Oct 2012 15:47:14 +0000

how can particles in the first exist without weight

By: Mario E. de Souza

Mario E. de Souza — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:14:46 +0000

The Standar Model Higgs boson does not exist. Please, go to http://www.primons.com to see why.

By: Evan O'Dorney

Evan O'Dorney — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 04:54:19 +0000

The comments labeled “Evan O’Dorney” are not by the real Evan O’Dorney.

Which makes it quite likely that the comments labeled “Terence Tao” are not by the real Terence Tao.

By: Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor)

Amos Zeeberg (Discover Web Editor) — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:30:46 +0000

Thanks for the comments, Terence and Evan. Will keep my eye out for video from the symposium—sounds good.

Christina, the Big Bang is a solid theory that’s been confirmed by lots of experiments, and considering that CERN just confirmed existence of the long-predicted Higgs boson, now’s probably not a good time to criticize the theory around that, either. I think we’ve gotten enough of your own ideas about cosmology in the comments.

By: [probably not the real] Terence Tao

[probably not the real] Terence Tao — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 05:12:55 +0000

Christina – you really need to stop making incoherent comments that undermine the serious work being done in this domain. Evan is being nice by constructively giving you some advice.

To the curious – I will be conducting a symposium at UCLA on Aug 3rd that relates the Prime Number Theorem to how particles interact with the Higgs field. It will be taped and posted about a month later.

By: christina knight

christina knight — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 13:43:16 +0000

In my model the space-time geometry possesses a complex hierarchical structure that comprises twelve dimensions—nine space dimensions and three time (the extra time dimensions arise as a consequence of the stratum specific variation in the constant c). Furthermore, this structure is divided into three strata, each of which has its own four-dimensional structure (with 3 space and 1 time dimension)and stratum-specific parameters—with variations in the gravitational constant G, the speed of light c, and the Planck constant.
It is the relationship between the intrastratum and interstratum velocity of a particle to the intrastratum velocity c as measured in the topmost stratum, that determines whether the particle has mass (as it oscillates through the tristratum structure). There is no need for a Higg’s field to impart mass to particles, and it was not the Higg’s that was recently observed by the LHC. The massive particle that was observed was produced through contraction of the aforementioned tristratum structure and the tristratum influence of special relativity (each stratum having a relatively slight variation in the constant c). The contraction of the strata is only brief so the particle can only exist for a brief time.

By: christina knight

christina knight — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:32:34 +0000

Evan, you would be right that…”end condition for universe A is also the beginning condition for universe A+1…..” if the 2nd Law is absolute. It is more likely that the universe is capable of recycling its thermodynamic waste (the entropy produced by the end of ‘universe A’) at the termination of universe A’s collapse phase, converting it into high quality energy at the onset of oniverse A +1′s expansion onset. This is accomplished as the unstable interaction of the gravitational and antigravitational forces reoccurs at the collapse of universe A producing the expansion of universe A +1. It must be this way in order to explain the apparent fine-tuning of cosmic parameters as well as the low entropy state at the beginning of our universe. The evolutionary cyclic model arises as a consequence of the unstable relationship between the anti-G force and the G force. It is this inherent instability which is responsible for the universe’s tendency to evolve greater complexity.

By: [probably not the real] Evan O'Dorney

[probably not the real] Evan O'Dorney — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:17:51 +0000

you are choosing a path that will lead to a dead end (i.e. inflation)

I have been working with Penrose to iron out his theories relating to eternal cycles which relies on a higgs boson to serve as the switch to turn on/off each cycle. It also requires a finite space (brane) which bounds the energy so that it can be converted into matter using an adiabatic process.

Each universe goes through different phases that can be predicted to a certain extent – we are now fairly certain that the end condition for universe A is also the beginning condition for universe A+1. The one continuity across each universe is the higgs boson.

Fractal geometry is also proving to be a useful tool in our analysis which seems to be a good way to predict patterns in Hawking radiation.

By: James

James — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 20:06:23 +0000

I like Christina Knight’s ideas a lot!! You think outside the box, and yet with using much of what we understand about physics and cosmology.

By: christina knight

christina knight — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 04:24:58 +0000

Evan O’Dorney, There has to be something like an antigravitational force that has a subplanck length range for space to be discrete. It also suggests a more plausible means of how the big bang could have initiated without resorting to the ‘hocus pocus’ of the so-called ‘quantum fluctuation’ that permitted an alleged, infinitely dense point of space to arbitrarily expand (perhaps it got bored). The big bang could best be explained as the reaction to the unstable interaction of the gravitational and antigravitational force at the moment of initial expansion. Incidentally, I have read some of Susskind’s work. I have only become more convinced over time that the Standard Model is woefully inadequate. However, I do appreciate your concern, and I do think you mean well. It seems to me that contemporary physics (particularly Cosmology) is a horrible mess right now. I just hope I am able to live long enough to say I told you so (although I am not too hopeful given the stubborn rigidity of the mainstream orthodoxy). I hate to say it because I despise religion, but contemporary physicists are no better than clerics at times.