Schrödinger's cat. The probability expresses the statistical chance for the cat. There's nothing more to say about it. There's something wrong with Schrödinger's theory if this is a necessary implication.
I'd also like to point out that the "mystery" of Schrödinger's cat comes down to the Copenhagen Interpretation, that I follow strictly on the observation point only, of having to be observed for something to exist. Schrodinger's cat goes clearly against this, even as an indirect observation. I therefore think that the whole of this line of thinking (Schrödinger's cat etc.) is flawed. It's almost embarrassing how mistaken it seems in regard to the huge interest.
Schrödinger's cat can also be set up with a rat, by requirement of the ladies, slightly sedated and laid under the guillotine. So when this condition of the atom triggers, the guillotine blade falls and decapitates the rat, rendering it certainly and clearly dead, with its head chopped off and thus leaving the rat in 2 pieces. This may be a better demonstration of the experiment.
So to lecture Gerry and Bruno on the solution to Schrödinger's Cat that is already widely commented before their book, The Quantum Divide:
that concerns several factors
* The status of the laboratory
* The status of the experiment
* The observation issues, direct observation, indirect observation, indirect observation as consequence (my philosophy/invention)
* The status of scientific realism, instrumentalism, operationalism into physics
It clearly takes my solution, the cat/rat surely//most/ likely killed within a second by design of trigger, as described by Schrödinger himself.
I have switched it to rat to remove a psychological obstacle.
The guillotine also surely kills, severing the cat/rat into two parts, removing other disturbances to the situation.
The last is this "insistence" on a weirdly put situation on observation that seems "apart" in the first place, but we understand, and place the "telepathy"-wave-collapse with modern equipment to go, inside/under psychology as investigation. That should be better, along with other aspects of Cognitive Psychology.
Over Problems with Schrödinger's theory and other - New Angles
It's with pleasure that I note that "Branching with Uncertain Semantics: Disc. Note by N. Belnap and T. Müller, published by BJPS lies in line with my writing and that they may have been reading this writing of mine. The future should be exciting!
It's certainly time for the "wave theory" to be demolished as expressing "wave" forming from the future in opposition to my own common sense sentiment that the past shapes the future. Thus, the "wave" of future possibilities is shaped by the past/history! This has been expressed earlier/above by the rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation, except for the one point and the rejection of Schrödinger's (et al.?) theory.
In opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation, I hold that one needs to always take into account the 3 necessary factors of matter, energy and mathematics. If you don't have matter and energy, there will not be any reality where your mathematics can apply. Thus, mathematics can't, whatsoever, be seen as more fundamental than reality itself, ie. matter and energy, perhaps along with space and time and some other.
Take the note, please, that energy is also matter, just split up in very tiny particles that also have a very tiny (physical) mass. So, by common knowledge, the particle/wave duality of the photon enters. The physics feels very fragmented at times and I'm still awaiting the Master Work in one series of volumes on it!
On Standard Model and the Future of It
Assertion: Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms. Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.
A suggestion for revision of the Standard Model:
 |
| The Standard Model (L. F. O.-L.) |
As the Z and W bosons are not included above, this is the status on them (3):
Status for the Z and W bosons is that they are under investigation, that it's too early before "ruling them out" because I find this call unfounded for scientific verdict until making a safe call (acc. to my senses and from the scientific discussion overall).
The Special Section for the Particles under Investigation:
 |
| The Investigation Section to the Standard Model |
That data should come in by the method as always in science: that a bubble chamber can or should yield a film or something and that measurements by magnets/magnetic fields should also yield technical data and mass (by MeV, fx.) and so on.
Also see further below for my explanation of why the Graviton and Higgs' Boson are impossible to find, whatsoever, unless they are defined to completely eclipse or be (with) other particles, changing its variable. This goes in particular for the Higgs' Boson.
Remember that light passing by the sun and emitted by Mercury is a "corner-stone" in Einstein's data-set.
Aether Aesthetics and a More Credible View on Gravity by Strong and Weak Interactions
Assertion: The space and possibly everywhere is held in a background uniform space that extends to the edges of the Universe, its gravitational system I'd like to call the Neo-aether that is consistent with Michelson-Morley experiment and functions in a more sublime way that we are yet to discover the full extension of. Einstein's theory effectively describes some of the nature of the Neo-aether.
I just like to say that I support the aether theory, if not exactly for a fluid, but I guess most theorists hold that the "fluid" is not a fluid as such. Rather, it's more about undetected phenomena connected to gravity yet not being any graviton.
An alternative view to aether can be this: in a unified picture of physics where the strong and weak magnetic forces are combined, one may achieve a calculated picture that equals what we perceive as gravity, but without adding any new particles and only asserting properties to mass in general, that is, "monades", the most basic constituents have a gravity/magnetic property to them and that is all. Job's done! This is all there is to describe because we have simply reached the bottom level there is to describe whatsoever!
Let me point out again that magnetism has north and south poles and thus reflect earth gravity, but on a micro scale. So this post is now also an update on my view on aether!
So let me be clear: I'm open to both of these views and that I intend to investigate these magnetic calculations first. I'm not sure on the approach for (new) aether, MM-compatible, other than for the fact that I see it logical in the extension of Einstein's RT. But I must point out that the aether research program now looks weak as one is yet to determine any property of it (apart from pure physical space). I've been in the hope one can find or identify a kind of new ocean, one that is "plastic" in nature, has some kind of an unknown physical property and is subtle and that matter just represents a function opposite to it by making gravity definite. Further than this is hard to describe other than the fact that I think it is an aesthetic property of the Universe.
The above is now more or less in oblivion and remains here more like a matter over "beauty and physics", that has no particular (scientific) value, absolutely.
My Successful Prediction of Mini-Black Holes by CERN Experiment
Concerning the Large Hadron Collider, LHC, it's my belief there will be absolutely no possibility of baby-black holes! If the smallest building blocks really are the photons then in LHC we'll see greater emission of photons from the collisions.
Note: The reason is that it takes Supernovas to make them and they are HUGE in the sense of Universe. They are in fact far bigger than our Sun which is our heaviest object in our Solar System. I don't think it's possible even to generate the power needed for such an experiment (to actually create Mini-/Baby-Black Holes). You could put 10 nuclear power plants right beside CERN and still the energy wouldn't match the assignment. I don't think there is possibility for such things in our Earthly lives!
On Big-Bang, Natural Laws, Asymmetry and Symmetry
I guess it's a common view to consider the Big Bang "a generative mechanism for the pattern of natural laws of the Universe". I still find the mind and the phenomena elusive, though, like if it's relevant here! It may be necessary to look to the moments after Big Bang to solve the riddle of the reason for matter to exist in particles, atoms, as they do, i.e., solving the question of the Higgs boson particle. It's also worth mentioning that unless there's formation of new matter from the absorption of photons, something I think there isn't, the matter in atoms is lost forever once it's dissolved. This is seldomly pointed out by physicists. Also, the absorption of photons into existing atomic structures brings increased excitation and perhaps weight and this fact, I think, adds to the Photon theory, ie. photons are the smallest building blocks in nature, universe.
On the Complexity of the Standard Model and Particles in Nature
I also like to mention that particle physics is far more complex than being just the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose writes in his book, The Road to Reality - A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, p. 628, about the pions, kaons, lambda, sigma, omega-minus, anti-protons, anti-neutrons, "vast hordes of particles whose existence is so fleeting that they are never directly observed, tending to be referred to merely as 'resonances'", 'virtual' particles and 'ghosts'. There are also mentioned numerous other "theoretical" particles by other theories.
It's just a quirk of mine, but I'd like to have the Charm and Strange quarks renamed as this, Charm gets the name Control and Strange gets the name Random. Does this make sense? Is it possible to prove the characteristics of control and randomness in the two quarks?
Note: I now think it may be that the Standard Model can be (relatively) completed! As analogy, Psychiatry has been in a haze concerning its diagnostication system and I think it's likely to make this finding in Physics as well.
On Impossibility of the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson
Concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' Boson:
I think it's clear at this stage that the Graviton and the Higgs' boson are blown out the window and are not to return to the world of physics ever again.
Why? Because they need to show that the photon is relevant to both of these concepts when it's hard in the first place to show the definite particle nature of the photon. Thus, photon necessarily must have both of these properties by which are hardly ever conceivable to prove, as separable particles apart from the photon itself!
It's clear however that the photon has "graviton" and "Higgs' boson" properties before we start out simply because "graviton" is to explain why particles are drawn to other objects, especially planets, and "Higgs' boson" is to explain why particles have mass whatsoever which all(?) have. It's therefore a kind of cheating to add "false particles" or "false names of properties" when they do not add explanatory force. The "mystery" of the (basic) particle of photon remains and also the mysteries with how mass and gravitation arise in the first place. Simply adding two names isn't very constructive in the general work of physics, I think (as mass and gravity are already in place).
I acknowledge that the Fermilab has set a confidence level for the finding of the Higgs' boson to 95%, but I'm sceptical of how they get there and if their work is more than mere "string theory work".
It's definite though, that the photon has both properties of mass and particle nature since it is affected by gravity (fx. from Mercury passing by the Sun). Yet the problem arises when you are to identify the graviton and the Higgs' boson, separately from the photon itself!
The URL to Fermilab and the Higgs' boson: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/Higgs-mass-constraints-20100726-images.html.
On the Bending of Light(-Streams as Photons) by Electro-Magnetic Field, a Very Strong One
I think I'll state here right away that is, in fact, possible to bend light with a very strong, electro-generated magnetic field comparable to light from Mercury passing the gravity field of the Sun, like in the classic example of Einstein Relativity Theory.
Remember the lev-trains of the Japanese and their magnet experiments where they lift an object up only by the use of electromagnetism and draw a sheet of paper underneath, between the lower and the upper physical bodies.
You should also have in mind the relatively small size of the photon and the power of the electromagnetic field because I think it's fairly feasible.
Now, how this is done? At least for the calculation, it's fairly known how much pull the gravity of the Sun generates and the Planck's Mass(?) of the Photon should also be possible to consider. Then it's just to add the numbers and calculate what it takes to bend light. I also think this can be done in the classroom!
Wikipedia on magnets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnets!
The calculations are up to you to make, but at least for now, I remain optimistic (partly because I've seen it demonstrated in our classroom while finishing upper secondary school having the physics class. Rather this than any negative demonstration I can recall or heard of). Thus, kill the negative notions you read about on the internet!
Said elsewhere, on Norwegian TV by NRK, "Nytt på nytt", the bending of space by gravity is smashed by the fact that one can see the Black Holes there by visual data. The Black Holes would otherwise disappear in terms of visual data if the bending of space would be true!
To crush the "space-bending" further, one can imagine a powerful electromagnetic field next to a concrete wall and sending a light beam along the concrete wall. I happen to think that only the light beam bends, comparatively!
I'm also writing this primarily for public education and quenching myths of people who cite uncertain, novice sources.
Update! "Various comments/additions"
In consideration of wave collapse as a formal departure right before psychology, this is entered: Besides, under my "Opinions on Physics" where I deal with wave collapse directly in preparation for attacking parts of the existing physics, you can still consider this wave collapse a "boomerang" move _STILL_ forming from the past and NOT some _empty_ future!
Further on the status of time and future, I think it's plausible to assert that future doesn't exist before it's lived by humanity. That is, the future is always _projected_ by probabilities and may not continue to be described if humanity dies out as the only sentient beings iffy humanity is the only sentient beings!
I'd also like to attack the Higgs' Fields for now! I see no critical difference between the Higgs' Field and gravity (str./weak nuc. forces)) fields! Also, I see no critical importance for Higgs' Field to even exist within a possible theory. That is, by a more conventional view, Higgs' Field is absolutely NOT necessary!
The latest findings of QCD, Technicolour and Gluons should be clear too: by HDM these concepts are likely to pass into history for being impossible to pay credibility to! At least, I think I can declare this now. QCD has indeed been mixing up the concepts and this has gone undetected by the investigating scientists! Fx. by confusing energy and forces, by calculations and considerations! Good? The Standard Model of Physics: 27 particles as of now, pending one finding from CERN-LHC!
I also made an additional comment to a story by BBC's New Horizon(s) where they presented "the mystery". Well, well: Some data to consider: Posted to http://www.news4jax.com/news/-God-particle-coming-into-focus/-/475880/5346918/-/1js680z/-/index.html in relation to "Gravity" _forces_ are a whole different thing than energy by photons! Forces are given by a kind of smashing force, popularly speaking and this hinges on to the extent of this "Technicolour" set-up! You can't make "forces hop out the hat" like that! To look for forces is "to look for a car _in motion_"! (Or a photon in motion...) This "forces talk" is therefore doomed to fail as well!
'God particle' coming into focus
www.news4jax.com
The forces issue in physics is really a meeting here of classical physics and these nuclear physics (all including string theory and quantum mechanics). All this has been under hard debate concerning the divide between classical physics and "new" physics and how to make it all come together!
Is it really necessary to have the Higgs-Boson to explain mass? Why can't ordinary particles have mass simply by property, that is, mass is part of their nature?
To the Cascading Effects as Gravity expressed through property of mass I may withdraw from the strong/weak nuclear forces and simply write "gravity as cascading property of mass, including ALL particles with an eV-value and thus also directing a very critical view of "force-negotiating particles, the W and Z bosons.
These bosons may also suffer "death" along with the Gluons. This as the latest!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Gauge_bosons!
This way I also preserve non-contradiction in (my) system of physic(s)!
To Facebook, Friday, 6. April, time, 23:11, To the Cascading Effects as Gravity expressed through property of mass I may withdraw from the strong/weak nuclear forces and simply write "gravity as cascading property of mass, including ALL particles with an eV-value and thus also directing a very critical view of "force-negotiating particles, the W and Z bosons.
These bosons may also suffer "death" along with the Gluons. This as the latest!
Don't steal my theory, please! And don't try to alienate me from my own words! I do find it offensive (and idiotically self-defeating from the opponent whomever this may be)!
This nullifies an earlier note under Cascading Effects as Gravity, removing Gravity from the World of physics and enter a multi-propertied mass kind, one that parallels the human capacity for doing a number of things, like singing, running, using instruments and so on!
When it comes to the W and Z bosons and how well corroborated they are or not, I do not any longer "entertain" a lying USA on everything from human rights to a current value of the Technicolour theory. I'm therefore _dead_sceptical to the W and Z bosons if they do not have references to the "outside" of this "singular business network" of deep radicalism (read: former Soviet Union equivalent)!
Concerning a possible "attack" on the W- and Z-bosons: they may get impossible to hold if you consider charges by the electron (negative charge) and the proton (positive charge). These are said to be responsible for doing a lot of things to "atom balance" and "atom interactions balances". The Proton itself consists of 2 "up" and 1 "down" quarks. I say by this, by the same notion that Higgs' Boson gets killed by the Photon notion of gravity property, that the W- and Z-bosons are now also (almost or not) blown out of the window of the World of Physics!
The matter is of course that "atom and molecule dynamics" are more complex than adding these two bosons and that matter itself is something alluring as one doesn't get that much out of fission and fusion reduction to photons and "other residue" from these reductions! Cheers!
While I still await a more definite description for the Higgs' Boson, I've been puzzling with magnetic fields and amazingly enough I have this to add (at least temporarily, for investigations to come more definitely into place, also posted to this blog a while ago, please check yourself):
Comment on "the Speed of Magnetic Field",
The theoretical impossibility for Graviton by my writing makes "the speed of the gravity field as matter of magnetism" instant, necessarily.
But the thing is, there may be two kinds of magnetic fields. One that's induced by electromagnetic forces and one that's the property of matter itself. This former may have the speed of light and the other is, as above, instant.
However, the electromagnetically induced field by electromagnetic generator may also have the nature of "ball-on-ball-principle" and thus be instant too. This is yet to be determined, to my knowledge, at least!
(I just mention the book of Stathis Psillos that's named "Causation and Explanation" (2002), not that I bother to cite the very page or anything right now, only to say that "I know about it".)
To this text, "If you use all the physics that we know now and you do what you think is a straightforward calculation, it's bad news," Joseph Lykken said at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston on Monday. "It may be that the universe we live in is inherently unstable and at some point billions of years from now it's all going to get wiped out. This has to do with the Higgs energy field itself." (by for example http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/19/172422921/if-higgs-boson-calculations-are-right-a-catastrophic-bubble-could-end-universe ), I say this:
"I can write the same thing, i.e., "all is going to be wiped out", but on the basis of heat-death for life, that life is unsustainable with such small future heat in the Universe! So that the opportunities may diminish to these low conditions, unsust. for life. But one more thing, this is a mere speculation from my side to the discussion, I do not bother to predict extinction for Universe "in a matter of Billions of years [Earth time]"!
And this is not for idiots either. That is, there's no need for depressive hysteria over a matter such as this and that "Billions of years" is an incredible time of span, usually unfathomable for people when "it's to be lived hypothetically" and not simply appear in some physics calculations! Cheers!
The discussion of the Higgs' Boson also, more crucially than other, enters a discussion of /the/ unified future-physics that we are to face in the months and years to come!
Status for the Z and W bosons is that they are under investigation, that it's too early before "ruling them out" because I find this call unfounded for scientific verdict until making a safe call (acc. to my senses and from the scientific discussion overall).
That a bubble chamber can or should yield a film or something and that measurements by magnets/magnetic fields should also yield technical data and mass (by MeV, fx.) and so on.
Two pictures that are copyright-marked have now been uploaded and that these two represent how /I/ want the Standard Model to be presented in the future, particle fixed, similarly to the Table of Elements.
Relating to J. Beringer et al. (Particle Data Group), Phys. Rev. D 86, 010001 (2012), I feel obligated to give these points of views, that the development progresses and I'm ready to meet with it, supplying greater force of explanation:
By chapter 9., pp. 120 and onwards to 136.
Quantum chromodynamics are here set by new measurements by new standards. That conventional methods have been used to obtain the new numbers and that QCD moves forward by these, in being serious, and that the former colour-notions have been destroyed too, I've been giving my support to. I see no use for "colour-reactions to outer forces onto atoms in a QCD experimental set-up." That QCD is to never to appear again in the World of physics like that, regardless of future PDG publications.
By 15. Grand Unified Theories (rev.) pp. 209 to 218.
Comment on "Grand Unified Theory", that String Theory gets replaced by 3 space dimensions + 1 time dimension, answering Smolin on this point and that I remain conventional/traditional and "scientific realist" for the Standard Model, reducing it to about 27 particle types, removing "Gluons" by Colour-QCD, removing Graviton and Higgs' Boson on logical grounds of mass properties best seen with the photons (light from Mercury past the Sun), replacing top and bottom quarks on grounds of the atom masses of fx. Hydrogen molecule and upward into the Baryons or Mesons class, removing the W and Z bosons on explanatory grounds, or placing them anew too into the Baryons or Mesons classes.
That I /stay/ with a particle-oriented GUT, not string theory at all, that has caused much trouble and little explanatory efficiency in my opinion.
That I let supersymmetry/asymmetry questions remain unanswered for now, in being too far off in the sense of use because I simply haven't bothered too place myself with the knowledge "this far out" in the theoretical Universe. These notions are interesting, however.
Technicolor pp. 1475 and onward to 1483.
Comment on Techni-colour. The report says: "Techni-color searches for a color-octet techni-ρ constrain its mass to be greater than 260 to 480 GeV, depending on allowed decay channels. Similar bounds exist on the color-octet techni-ω." Note on US Am. "color", that Techni-colour remains destroyed and that the physicists, those who bother, have moved "down" to a bottom line, and begun supplying conventional measurements and data, by magnetic fields-detectors and possibly other.
Physics note in addition to my views on the Report by Particle Data Group:
I dispute and have tacitly done so already the way of the (magnetic) detection for the top- and bottom-quarks and that this may have consequences for their standing in the World of physics. If USA has been silent about this, they fall guilty to one type of scientific dishonesty, well knowing that the testing may have gone out differently...
Another peculiarity: By my view the particle "Strange" may be re-named "Residue". And "charm" usually much bigger than listed, but for now unknown to me how to confirm this by the conventions, that is, this is a deeper suspicion (relying on a former 3/4 quarks view).
Strong Nuclear Force Replacing Gravitation Force
Some further words on my idea for Gravitation Force as property to mass by all particles (combinations included, Earth being one instance), all the way down to the photons:
I suspect or hold as strongest contender the Strong Nuclear Force for being the originator to new Gravitation Force and that the 4. conventional force as gravitational force by this becomes void, that writing gravitation force (other than "popularly speaking") has no longer meaning the in the World of physics. Thus, also, the search for Graviton has come to an end, because this particle can't be separated from the photon particle and therefore can't (necessarily) exist (unless very creative/exotic explanations). So let's assume that /only/ strong nuclear force makes former gravitation force (or effect, indeed) a fact, that new calculations may now come to exist in the World other than merely 1. I can only imagine the wild mathematics at this point in time.
A bit of a poor article (And note too, please, that Copenhagen Interpretation has been taught in plain university physics entirely up to very recently): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_nuclear_force.
Of course, the decimation of Copenhagen Interpretation incl. before arriving to this conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation .
Cascading Effects as Gravity - Countering Newton's 1. Law as applicable for gravity fields, traditionally expressed, "gravity fields".
I'd like to make a further comment on a force-counter-force example by a university physics book, General Physics Vol. 1 - Mechanics, relating to Newton's 1. Law, F = 0 (as speed, v = constant).
It says that for a satellite in orbit around the Earth there's a force and counter-force from the Earth to the satellite and vice versa (and that the 2 forces are absolutely equal (mathematical expression: absolute values) yet opposite ways.
What I find, is that the satellite necessarily has to pull with it's mass, m, figuratively, as its "gravity" value and that Earth "gravity", with its mass, m, figuratively, pulls the satellite similarly.
Thus, it must be said that maybe not Newton's 1. Law should be applied (like with Zeno's nonsense of walking the distance from Sparta to Olympos or something) to "gravity" fields because there are other and better considerations to make such like the fact that g(Earth) pulls as given by its "gravity" field and the satellite pulls by its (very small) "gravity" field and that, consequently, the satellite needs to be adjusted to a steady orbit (toward the globally curved escape-"gravity"-hollow sphere surrounding the Earth.
I also contend/think that this yields humanity a better and more plausible physics, given that we "surrender" "gravity" straight to the particles/collected particles as one body (for example the "gravity" point of any satellite), beside mass as property.
The particles get 2 properties, mass and (strong force) "gravity", while we get better physics.
The book: Norwegian language - "Generell fysikk (for universiteter og høyskoler) Bind 1, Mekanikk, Universitetsforlaget, 2001 (3. opplag 2010), J. R. Lien og G. Løvhøiden (ø = oe = o (straight, conversion conventions to English)).
In English: General Physics (for univ. and colleges) Vol. 1, Mechanics, Universitetsforlaget, 2001 (3rd print 2010), J. R. Lien og G. Lovhoiden.
Warning 2: I am much stronger now, academically, and you can look up the destinies of Wave Collapse and Technicolor for my authority, as well as check the oil and gas prices after my New Crust Formation Theory. Is it revolution? Maybe not, but some people say that life has become "full". This must be positive. Beware.
The latest contributions into the quantum physics have proven not entirely useful.
Keeping the bosons apart, if not only the one group, the photons, by my view, there are six groups "by the big map", and they are named "up, down, charm, strange, top, bottom".
We still, the World of physics, face a review of these quarks (and other particle physics) and we need to admit fundamental problems in analysing the splitting by accelerators of only one particle, the available proton. Neutrons too, are to my knowledge, hard to obtain for splitting/fission experiments. These are hard facts that we may never be able to overcome in doing physics.
Despite the technological barriers to perfect insights, there is much work remaining to provide a range of particles by the scopes above the quarks, and confirm the actual range of mass, eV, for the quarks as well, by the best standards.
At the same time,
one needs to realise that the quarks are limited upward to the size of the protons/neutrons. There is no other solution outside this because it provides implausible physics to work with. By any case, "these alternative physicists can work it out themselves" and try to convince us too, who are in fact most appealing and doing the most work.
Thus,
charm/strange - both by protons/neutrons
top/bottom - only neutrons of what I can find
up/down - only protons, possibly
As reminder:
one needs to include the He(+) cores, Helium ions, Alpha-radiation, for identifying the top and bottom quarks, as well, as, by consequence,the usual, up/down, (charm and strange) quarks for the experiments.
(Also, take note of positive pole detectors and negative pole detectors.)
However, I DO NOT QUESTION THE USE OF THE STANDARD PARTICLE MODEL FOR PHYSICS. It is to remain with us forever, as much as the Table of Elements in Chemistry.
This comes in the afterquake by the removal of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. Consequently, it also holds no authority anymore.
Historically, the Atom (At) quarks have been signalled with At, subscript 1, superscript 1, in line to one-another, and another superscript + for signalling overall + - value of the Atom (At) core.
By
L. F. Olsnes-Lea
(Dr. Phys. outside subversive politics by Norway)
Final note: the latest numbers from the Data Particle Group are not within my reach at the moment. (They are, of course, all set to highest seriousness. Any corruption is on them, in case they ridicule themselves.)
On my part: I move (the correct) top and bottom quarks back into my revision of the Standard Model while maintaining my honour and glory in the field of Physics (forever)!
The main attack here by my Revision of the Standard Model has the following targets to start: Gluons (QCD), W and Z Bosons (force bosons) and finally the Higgs Boson and connected ideas.
Other: to strengthen the hardness of the Model in terms of credibility and to kill nonsense. To streamline the theory field that has connections to the Standard Model. This means to question these other particles, also these that I've now placed back in, the right top and bottom quarks by the correct mass inside the "model-Hydrogen-proton-neutron" mass, crudely being ONE, 1.
So to the above:
The standing of the Hydrogen atom is definite in physics.
As opposed to the noble gases, Helium, Neon and Argon, Hydrogen is reasonably, highly reactive, but takes laboratory-handling.
Not only in being smallest of the elements, but also found in abundance by various contexts, such as water (H(2)O), two atoms Hydrogen and one Oxygen making up the water molecule.
We also note the Deuterium-H2O and Tritium-H2O for nuclear physics.
Hydrogen is also noted for its atom mass unit of appx. 1, but plus a little for Hydrogen+1 Neutron and Hydrogen+2 Neutrons, the bases for Deuterium and Tritium Heavy Water with the nuclear power plants/a-bombs, whatever...
Further, Opinions on Physics, Revision of the Standard Model of Particle Physics:
We still struggle to fit in the top/bottom/strange/charm particles according to the limits of the neutrons and protons, as described.
I'm not against the top and bottom quarks like that, but they may need to comply with a "minimal set" of the Standard Model, the quarks, but in terms of numbers, 6, or fewer and eV-ranges, that is, we may not be looking at only one specific mass eV, this by the latest numbers by the Particle Data Group of Physics. Please see their latest report, the free one or the "professional".
Note on "connection".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_Data_Group .
The dubious other particles fall under "method, mass, detector, accelerator, source of particles, [more]", by standard physics report, much like in the school days! (Also as in Chemistry...)
So to lecture Gerry and Bruno on the solution to Schrödinger's Cat that's already widely commented before their book, The Quantum Divide:
that concerns several factors
* The status of the laboratory
* The status of the experiment
* The observation issues, direct observation, indirect observation, indirect observation as consequence (my philosophy/invention)
* The status of scientific realism, instrumentalism, operationalism into physics
It clearly takes my solution, the cat/rat surely//most/ likely killed within a second by design of trigger, as described by Schrödinger himself.
I have switched it to rat to remove a psychological obstacle.
The guillotine also surely kills, severing the cat/rat into two parts, removing other disturbances to the situation.
The last is this "insistence" on a weirdly put situation on observation that seems "apart" in the first place, but we understand, and place the "telepathy"-wave-collapse with modern equipment to go, inside/under psychology as investigation. That should be better, along with other aspects of Cognitive Psychology.
I write
Both dark matter and dark energy are answered conventionally "by some" in that these two entities lie beyond what we can reach with our "seeing" instruments like fx. Hubble's Telescope. This is all there is to it.
To "4. How do we quantize gravity?" we go by the given body that effectuates the gravity, conventionally speaking, and work our way from there. Simple too. However, the cosmological questions are still fairly hard to guess "at" and they remain beyond us for now, other than funny theory-gaming/making! Cheers!
To Cosmology:
The text of cosmology as Big Bang Theory holds the Hubble's Constant based on WMAP-data/background radiation, this grants new insights to or against The Big Bang Theory by determining the relative speed to our own planet Earth inside the Solar System.
Let me introduce "essential flat Universe" or "qualifiers for the essentially expanding Universe".
The points:
* whether all or some of these entities are moving away from us:
1. the limit/boundary of the Milky Way disc
2. the other local galaxies
3. some of the outer objects inside the Milky Way
4. whether the outer objects beyond the local group galaxies are moving away from us
5. the movement or not of CfA2 Great Wall
6. the movement or not of Sloan Great Wall
7. the status of all objects inside the two categories Sloan Galaxies and Sloan Quasars
More attacks on the Higgs Boson.
Further for the Higgs Boson:
What separates it from the Hadrons? That extreme results, i.e., more photons and more extreme Hadrons can be expected from the Large Hadron Collider? Yes, I assume!
Why do we need Higgs Boson for mass when we have mass, m, for mass, m?! Does not this follow the convention of ours, in all sciences from biology and chemistry to physics to science of politics and psychology and more, that in fact, when we see an object we give it an explanatory name, such as human being for human being, cancer tissue for cancer tissue, muscle and meat tissue for muscle and meat tissue, milk for milk, product for product, computers for computers, flowers for flowers, bones for bones, lungs for lungs, atoms for atoms, molecules for molecules... then Higgs Boson as not-Hadron but as mass, m, but not-mass-m-like-that, nooooo, mass-Higgs-Boson-only-at-special-129-atom-mass, see also your sh*t score?! What?
There's more too:
My opinion is, despite its promises to deliver on symmetry and asymmetry shortly after the Big Bang (Theory) is that this is another theory/particle by 129 atom-mass that gathers ad-hoc hypotheses just to save it.
The symmetry and asymmetry considerations are also vague or theoretically weak because the data supporting them do not exist as having any definite underlying data-set to which its supposed to belong to.
Like with Darwin's Theory. Darwin has gotten wide support from paleontology, in identifying bones of animals living before our times. In addition to finding these bones different places on the planet.
This is how we come to believe in Darwin's Theory in actually being TRUE!
The symmetry and asymmetry considerations have no such definite data-set. They are merely hypothetical entities that /may/ turn out "mathematically appealing", but providing no reality outside the mathematics.
The Standard Model of Particle Physics ("Revision 5", date: 2013-12-02)
The revision today, 2 December 2013, containing from earlier also:
Quarks
holding 6 only
Up, Down, Charm, Strange, Top, Bottom (with note on "minimal set", for possibly excluding Top and Bottom)
Leptons
holding 2/3 only
Electron / Positron
Muon / Antimuon
Tau / Antitau (with note on these two, withholding definite decision on "final" status judgment)
Gauge Boson(s)
holding one only
Photons (also under Photon Theory)
Hadrons
holding a special class category explanation
(Baryons, only a select part and only under Hadrons, being one special class of "fission"-"re-fusion" products of the accelerators, emphasising instead on the strict "fusion" products under Hadrons so that description is kept consistent and outside "useless" particles)
(holding a special class category explanation)
Fermions
holding a special class category explanation
Leptons and Quarks (6)
Protons and Neutrons being the early subatomic particles
This list reduces the Standard Model of Particle Physics to a kind of best level, providing the best and most credible explanations for the Physics everybody relates to in terms of Reality.
Suggested text to go:
After having declared a "war" on the "idiot" parts of Standard Model (of Part. Phys.), I have here today the best, I think, suggesting among else that Gluons and various other particles have no place in Physics, also smashing Technicolor (US name) for failure to fundamental physics description (withholding a hidden admission by USA by them redefining "Technicolor" to only the "usual" particles of mass).
It has to do with the status of "Telepathy"/"Telepathy expressed as photon behaviour, the quantum mechanics effects", I think!
It seem strange to strange to place the CERN-LHC particle of mass (on several levels) under the Higgs Boson, not only because Higgs Boson is supposed to explain mass in scalar terms, but that the bosons (photon, W and Z bosons) as group are there to mediate force/energy directly as particle. It seems most clear, therefore, that Higgs Boson "currently" falls short of its role!
Against String Theory and Dimensions Beyond 3+1
Said elsewhere, the bending of space by gravity is smashed by the fact that one can see the Black Holes there by visual data. The Black Holes would otherwise disappear in terms of visual data if the bending of space would be true!
To crush the "space-bending" further, one can imagine a powerful electro-magnetic field next to a concrete wall and sending a light beam along the concrete wall. I happen to think that only the light beam bends, comparatively!
As far as I know there are no experiments available to prove dimensions beyond 3 + 1. Rather, 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension is proven by common observation, how we relate to space and time and this means that dimensions of 3 + 1 have a high plausibility/credibility.
Note on the Nature of Radio Signals from Space and How They Fit the Big Picture
Public education. Question: how are radio signals from space or through space explained? I have an update on this and it turns out radio waves are just another part of the electromagnetic spectrum with an even weaker intensity than infra-red. Thus, just another form of emission of photons. Done!
The link to a good spectrum including sound waves and electromagnetic waves, here:
https://www.ulozto.net/!Aw7rCCUxY/sura-electromagnetic-spectrum-full-chart-jpg - One way to "SURA Electromagnetic Spectrum".
Note on my competence to this [Opinions on Physics and the Evolution web page as a whoel]: I must "warn" readers that I have been reading Lee Smolin's "The Trouble With Physics" (by Penguin Group, 2006) and Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" (by Vintage Books, 2004). I have also studied physics all the way through upper high school, 3 years, for the Norwegian equivalent of GCSE Science and I've looked carefully into Bayesian problems in philosophy (relating to the Raven's Paradox by Carl Hempel) and (the metaphysics of) Time for that matter. In addition, I have a world name from early childhood because of my contributions of intelligence!
By Terje Lea, 21.10.2009, 29.10.2009, 05.11.2009, 19.11.2009, 21.11.2009, 03.04.2010, 27.09.2010, 12.11.2010, 25.01.2011, 16.02.2011, 20.02.2011, 24.02.2011 and 11.03.2011. (Small comments: 13.08.2010, 25.01.2011 and 11.03.2011.) And up to 2017, "today".
Note: on the Bending of Light(-streams as photons) by electromagnetic field has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 15.02.2011.
Note: concerning the Graviton and the Higgs' boson, this has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum 19.02.2011.
Note: additional comment on the issue of aether as well as an alternative view has been added 24.02.2011 that has first been written on the Philosophy Now forum earlier today divided on two posts.
Note: added the rat option into writing today, 11.03.2011.
Note: added note on my competence today, 11.03.2011.
Since these other time-stamps/"time-stamps" from above, I've continued pursuing this line of writings as so often before. The writings below are from this development, all times are CET/CEST unless Blogspot manipulation (by other people).
It should be clear also that I may be considered "Ph.D." equivalent and that Norway has committed deep crimes against me, merely on grounds of intelligence, academic and scientific activities!
Some data to consider: Posted to http://www.news4jax.com/news/-God-particle-coming-into-focus/-/475880/5346918/-/1js680z/-/index.html in relation to "Gravity" forces are a whole different thing than energy by photons! Forces are given by a kind of smashing force, popularly speaking and this hinges on to the extent of this "Technicolour" set-up! You can't make "forces hop out the hat" like that! To look for forces is "to look for a car in motion"! (Or a photon in motion...) This "forces talk" is therefore doomed to fail as well!
'God particle' coming into focus
www.news4jax.com
The forces issue in physics is really a meeting here of classical physics and these nuclear physics (all including string theory and quantum mechanics). All this has been under hard debate concerning the divide between classical physics and "new" physics and how to make it all come together!
Is it really necessary to have the Higgs-Boson to explain mass? Why can't ordinary particles have mass simply by property, that is, mass is part of their nature?
BBC World Have Your Say Here's a Q and A on the Higgs Boson: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/large-hadron-collider/8952584/Q-and-A-Higgs-boson.html
And isn't "Technicolour" a blow in the air?
Wasn't the intention in the first place (by 3,5 TeV/7 TeV) to smash these pieces smaller? So that the Protons would be split to smaller bits? Then CERN presents masses on 125 GeV? What?
The Up Quark has mass 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c(2) and 125 GeV(/c(2)) means something bigger than the Protons even, so you're considering "fusion effects" of the Protons to be the Higgs-Boson?
Some from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_boson
GeV to MeV (or Giga to Mega): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giga
For example the Up quark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model
To summarise the masses: Higgs Boson is suggested to 125 GeV(/c(2)), Proton 938.272046(21) MeV(/c2), W boson, 80.398±0.023 GeV/c2, Z boson, 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2 and (finally) the Up quark 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c2! Good?
It seems hard for Physorg to accept input to this story: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-particle-physicists-intriguing-hints-higgs.html!
I also note a former story by Physorg.com: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-endgame-higgs-boson.html!
Also a story by BBC on how the "God particle" may not exist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1695390.stm!
Sorry also, but the story above by BBC is old, it appears: Thursday, 6 December, 2001, 13:13 GMT!
An example of Physorg idiocy: By "Despite the retarded wanton for moderation here, one link: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/10/opinions-on-science-in-expression-of.html and you need to locate "Opinions on Physics" (implying also the Photon Theory). I've written more on Higgs' later and I pursue the story of CNN and BBC by number on the masses by MeV and GeV in light of 3,5x2/7 TeV! Cheers!", I get "Your message didn't pass the spam-filter (even after log-in routines by Facebook) and your message will be manually moderated"! Ahhh, if they could only manually look after themselves!
If it proves right that there's a reference on McTaggart concerning the 2-D of time of String Theory in the paper of "Branching with Uncertain Semantics: Disc. Note by N. Belnap and T. Müller, published by BJPS, then (log. implication) I think they've acted insincerely because I refuted McTaggart formally first in my writing on Time, first published in 2001!
The link to the Time argument of mine: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-metaphysics-of-time.html! The original document of mine has been hosted by Angelfire and One.com and has had the file name, Time.html! I'm not sure if I've changed the title inside the document from "Time" to "On Metaphysics of Time" because formally Time is a classic theme in metaphysics in for example Richard Taylor's Metaphysics 4th ed. (this: 1992, first, 1963)!
Making some note on the physicists on String Theory and other, like Peter Higgs and so on by Nobel.se: I list,
No list to appear because "String Theory" is absent from the Nobel Prizes and various other "not confirmed work"! Indeed, the Nobel Committee (at least for Physics), has worked exemplary!
Three comments have been posted (1000 characters limit) and one is pending (unclear why) by this URL: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-particle-physicists-intriguing-hints-higgs.html!
The Challenges to the Higgs' (All) - Killing it?
I just add the list, *The Kill List* for the Higgs':
Why the Higgs' field of the Universe when the Universe is (mostly?) "best" vacuum?!
How does Higgs' fit into the Unifying work of Physics?
Is it really necessary to have the Higgs-Boson to explain mass?
Why can't ordinary particles have mass simply by property, that is, mass is part of their nature?
Even then, why is it necessary for mass to "obtain" rather than to be as in "gravity", one form or another, i.e., explanation?
"Technicolour" isn't an alternative as it confuses "energy" and "forces"?
Wasn't the intention in the first place (by 3,5 TeV/7 TeV) to smash these pieces smaller? So that the Protons would be split to smaller bits? Then CERN presents masses on 125 GeV? What?
The Up Quark has mass 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c(2) and 125 GeV(/c(2)) means something bigger than the Protons even, so you're considering "fusion effects" of the Protons to be the Higgs-Boson?
Finally, the realism: To summarise the masses: Higgs Boson is suggested to 125 GeV(/c(2)), Proton 938.272046(21) MeV(/c2), W boson, 80.398±0.023 GeV/c2, Z boson, 91.1876±0.0021 GeV/c2 and (finally) the Up quark 1.7 - 3.1 MeV/c2! Good? Merry Christmas!
Reaction, as in the military: Add the Photon Theory by asserting (plausibly) that "Photons are the smallest constituents of all matter. I assume the other particles of the Standard Model are made up of photons. Why is this? The sun burns mass and to my knowledge it only/mostly by far emits electromagnetic radiation, consequently in the form of photons. When a nuclear bomb explodes, it converts matter into electromagnetic radiation, energy of various forms. Compared to this, I think one can throw the string theory out the window along with dimensions beyond the usual 4 (I'm not certain about this concerning Einstein's theories that I'd like to keep as it is). Also, let's assume higher intensity radiation emits more dense amounts of photons and that it declines further down the electromagnetic spectrum.
(Extra: New on photons: I think I can also hold that photons are "semi-fluid" on a hyper-level (of course). I don't know what this adds to our view of reality, but it's a possible way of reconciling the wave-particle duality.)" On top of the Photon Theory: Unifying work is going full speed ahead!
You may want to check out Slashdot org under "LHC Homes In On Possible Higgs Boson Around 126GeV", message nr. 207, and The Kill List and the Photon Theory that's added there for all the virtues they can present... Enjoy! You know, the whole thing, the "split time-units after Big Bang", the "supersymmetry" on this basis, the "symmetry" and "symmetry break and the rest", it's... *for you to decide* (incl. other mysteries of this kind)! So therefore, at this point I don't go into that, but I admit that speculation is fun and it's going to be exciting to see how the map of science develops!
