Article finished at 2am on 30 Nov. (7.3 MB PDF file, 63 pages, downloadable here.) Also hosted at http://rxiv.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf, the General Science Journal, and (with some extra material) as the brief mail-order paperback book, Quantum Gravity and the Standard Model, ISBN 978-1-4709-9745-8, which is being listed on Amazon for those who want to help ensure a warmer global future (by turning trees into paper).
Dr Tommaso Dorigo comments on his post Higgs Expectations:
“… in order to really prove that our understanding of electroweak symmetry breaking is flawed and that there is no Higgs boson we would need a much, much more solid evidence than a mere “95% exclusion”. I would not be satisfied with anything less than a 99.9% exclusion (over three sigma) across the full mass range.
But I do not honestly believe that we will ever get into such a situation. I do believe, in fact, that the particle is there, and that it will be found very soon! So stay tuned and place your bets if you haven’t already. Time is running short.
We avoid the usual electroweak symmetry breaking problem, by changing electromagnetism from U(1) to a massless SU(2) gauge theory (which works out correctly, yielding Maxwell’s equations from the Yang-Mills, because charged massless vector bosons can’t propagate asymmetrically), so that SU(2) becomes a complete electroweak theory. (This is fine for the weak bosons, while the apparent discrepancy between weak isospin charges and fractional quark electric charges disappears with a vacuum polarization model, which predicts that 1/3 or 2/3 of the electric charge energy of quarks is present as strong colour charge.) U(1) is not abandoned altogether; it is dark energy, which also predicts gravity. The mass of SU(2) weak bosons is then produced by the Glashow-Weinberg mixing of U(1) gravity with SU(2) electromagnetism. Instead of a electroweak symmetry being broken to yield Nambu-Goldstone “Higgs” bosons, the weak interaction emerges from a simple mixing of SU(2) electromagnetism with U(1) gravity. I’ll try to get a briefer paper done, ready to replace the Higgs boson.
Update (7 December 2011):
“Then Koide went some steps beyond and considered quarks and leptons with substructure, so that lepton mass quotients could predict the Cabibbo angle too, even if this is a mixing between quarks.”
{(sqrt(M_e)+sqrt(M_mu)+sqrt(M_tau))^2} /( M_e + M_mu +M_tau) = 2/3
The key factor of 2/3 in the Koide relationship is the fractional electric charge of the up/charm/truth quarks, which arises from a mixing effect. It’s the 2/3 electric charge of up/charm/truth quarks that’s so interesting. The -1/3 charge of the down/strange/bottom quarks is very easily predicted by analysis of vacuum polarization for the case of the omega minus baryon (Fig. 31 in http://rxiv.org/pdf/1111.0111v1.pdf). It appears that the square root of the product of two very different masses gives rise to an intermediate mass (see http://nige.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/koide-formula-seen-from-a-different-perspective/ for the simple maths) that the Koide relationship implies a bootstrap model of fundamental particles (akin to the bootstrap concept Geoffrey Chew was trying to develop to explain the S-matrix in the 1960s before quarks were discovered). The square root of the product of the masses of a neutrino and a massive weak boson may give an electron mass, for instance. This seems to be the deeper significance of the Koide formula, from my perspective for what it’s worth. All fundamental particles are connected by various offshell field quanta exchanges, so their “charges” are dependent on other charges around them. This means that the ordinary approach of analysis fails, because of the reductionist fallacy. If your mathematical model of rope is the same for 100 one-foot lengths as for a single 100 foot length, it leads to customer complaints when you automatically send a sailor the former, not the latter. It’s no good patiently explaining to the sailor that mathematically they are identical, and the universe is mathematical. If the Koide formula is correct, then it points to an extension of the square root nature of the Dirac equation. Dirac made the error of ignoring Maxwell’s 1861 paper on magnetic force mechanisms: the chiral handedness of magnetism (the magnetic field curls left-handed around the direction of propagation of an electron) is explained in Maxwell’s theory by the spin of “field quanta” (Maxwell had gear cogs, but in QFT it’s just the spin angular momentum of field quanta). Maxwell’s theory makes EM an SU(2) Yang-Mills theory, throwing a different light on the Dirac’s spinor. It just so happens that the Yang-Mills equations automatically reduce to Maxwell’s if the field quanta are massless, because of the infinite self-inductance of electrically charged field quanta, so SU(2) Maxwellian electromagnetism in practice looks indistinguishable from Abelian U(1), explaining the delusions in modern physics.
The very interesting results Alejandro Rivero gives are from equation 4 on page 3 of his paper http://www.vixra.org/abs/1111.0062, which solves the Koide formula by writing one mass in terms of the two lepton other generation masses. Koide’s formula also implies (my 2009 post):
Me + Mm + Mt = 4 * [(Me * Mm)^1/2 + (Me * Mt)^1/2 + (Mm * Mt)^1/2]
where Me = electron mass, Mm = muon mass, Mt = tauon mass. I.e., the simple sum of lepton masses equals four times the sum of square roots of the products of all combinations of the masses, making it seem that if Koide’s formula is physically meaningful, then Geoffrey Chew’s bootstrap theory of particle democracy must apply to masses (gravitational charge) in 4-d. At high energy, early in the universe, tauons, muons and electrons were all represented and we only see an excess of electrons today because the other generations have decayed, although some of the other masses may actually exist as dark matter, and thus still undergoes the interaction of graviton exchange, which determines the Koide mass spectrum today (this dark matter is analogous to right-handed neutrinos). The basic physics of the Koide formula seems to be the Chew bootstrap applied to gravitation (Chew applied it to the strong force, pre-QCD):
“By the end of the 1950s, [Geoffrey] Chew was calling this [analytic development of Heisenberg’s empirical scattering or S-matrix] the bootstrap philosophy. Because of analyticity, each particle’s interactions with all others would somehow determine its own basic properties and … the whole theory would somehow ‘pull itself up by its own bootstraps’.” – Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong, Jonathan Cape, London, 2006, p148. (Emphasis added.)
The S-matrix went out when the SM was developed (although S-matrix results were used to help determine the Feynman rules), but at some stage a Chew-type bootstrap mechanism for Koide’s mass formula may be needed to further develop a physical understanding for the underlying theory of mass mixing, leading to a full theory of mixing angles for both gravitation (mass) and weak SU(2) interactions of leptons and quarks.
“… publishing a groundbreaking idea in peer-reviewed journals can be nearly impossible.”
- Louise Riofrio
Before you can get past peer review, you must convince the “peers” to listen, which is impossible if they believe in an “alternative” which has no evidence to support it (you can’t discredit something that’s not scientific to begin with):
“Scepticism is … directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one’s own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions … scientists only rarely solve their problems, they make lots of mistakes … one collects ‘facts’ and prejudices, one discusses the matter, and one finally votes. But while a democracy makes some effort to explain the process so that everyone can understand it, scientists either conceal it, or bend it … No scientist will admit that voting plays a role in his subject. Facts, logic, and methodology alone decide – this is what the fairy-tale tells us. … This is how scientists have deceived themselves and everyone else … It is the vote of everyone concerned that decides fundamental issues … and not the authority of big-shots hiding behind a non-existing methodology. … Science itself uses the method of ballot, discussion, vote, though without a clear grasp of its mechanism, and in a heavily biased way.”
– Professor Paul Feyerabend, “Against Method”, 1975, final chapter.
“The notion that a scientific idea cannot be considered intellectually respectable until it has first appeared in a ‘peer’ reviewed journal did not become widespread until after World War II. Copernicus’s heliocentric system, Galileo’s mechanics, Newton’s grand synthesis – these ideas never appeared first in journal articles. They appeared first in books, reviewed prior to publication only by their authors, or by their authors’ friends. … Darwinism indeed first appeared in a journal, but one under the control of Darwin’s friends. … the refereeing process works primarily to enforce orthodoxy. … ‘peer’ review is NOT peer review.”
– Professor Frank J. Tipler, Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?
In 2006, the bestsellers by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit “Not Even Wrong” and “The Trouble with Physics” were published, showing that superstring theory has become a dogmatic consensus, like epicycles being “defended” by less-than-objective methods. Right on cue, the world’s greatest genius behind M-theory, Ed Witten, happened to write a letter to Nature (v. 444, p. 265, 16 November 2006), headlined:
“Answering critics can add fuel to controversy.
“SIR — Your Editorial “To build bridges, or to burn them” and News Feature “In the name of nature” raise important points about criticism of science and how scientists should best respond (Nature 443, 481 and 498–501; 2006). The News Feature concerns radical environmentalists and animal-rights activists, but the problem covers a wider area, often involving more enlightened criticism of science from outside the scientific establishment and even, sometimes, from within.
“The critics feel … that their viewpoints have been unfairly neglected by the establishment. … They bring into the public arena technical claims that few can properly evaluate. … We all know examples from our own fields … Responding to this kind of criticism can be very difficult. It is hard to answer unfair charges of élitism without sounding élitist to non-experts. A direct response may just add fuel to controversies. Critics, who are often prepared to devote immense energies to their efforts, can thrive on the resulting ‘he said, she said’ situation. [Critics must never be permitted to thrive.]
“Scientists in this type of situation would do well to heed the advice in Nature’s Editorial. Keep doing what you are doing. And when you have the chance, try to patiently explain why what you are doing is interesting and exciting, and may even be useful one day.
“Edward Witten
Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive,
Princeton,
New Jersey 08540, USA.”
The next letter on that Nature page (from genetics engineer Boris Striepen) stated: “How and why did our public image change from harmless geeks to state- and industry-sponsored evil-doers worthy to be a target? More importantly, what do we do about it? And how do we communicate more effectively what we are doing, why we are doing it and what the opportunities and challenges of modern science are?”
Answer:
- Gregory H. Canavan, The Leadership of Philosopher Kings, Los Alamos National Laboratory, report LA-12198-MS, December 1992.
Above: in the 1970s, state control planned to nationalize everything and control everything from the top, including scientific research and production. This was opposed by the campaigns like “Beware of the Elephant” (this advert is from The Guardian 9 Aug 1974 p5), which warned of the dangers from state control. Stalin admitted in his own book, Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, that the basic laws of nature are the same in free capitalist countries and socialist dictatorships, leading to stagnation, hubris, corruption, and other symptoms from the bloated, short-sighted elephant of state control unless the leadership is continuously fighting wars or innovating (Stalin pressed forward with nuclear power and space rockets and public criticisms were tempered; the bankrupcy of the USSR in the 80s when Reagan and others set up Star Wars/SDI and W-79 neutron bombs to negate the Soviet SS-20s and Warsaw Pact tank superiority, effectively ended the USSR dream of world domination so criticism of the regime’s short-sighted hubris became harder to censor out and dissent became more openly fashionable). Hubris also has tragic consequences for science (e.g. Lysenkoism in Stalin’s time, or eugenics in Hitler’s), just as they do for political economy as is now being well demonstrated by the socialist era debt problems of Greece and other Eurozone economies. But our point concerns the destruction of science by this same mechanism of short-sighted dictatorship by the media-loved band of “mainstream” superstringers who don’t have a falsifiable theory or even address the fundamental data that needs explaining. Other analogies abound in Health Physics nuclear quackery political-expedience limbo, and CO2-rich hot-air.
Ex-NASA climatologist Dr Roy Spencer ends his latest Climategate 2.0 blog post:
“But when only one hypothesis is allowed as the explanation for climate change (e.g. “the science is settled”), the bias becomes so thick and acrid that everyone can smell the stench. Everyone except the IPCC leadership, that is.”
Like the Emperor’s New Clothes, when the word goes around that the leadership is faulty, nobody dares overthrow the leader, or they bungle it. It’s precisely like the situation of Stalin or Hitler, who have got to the top by having a private army of bodyguards and propaganda chiefs, so that people like Delingpole can be pushed down by Dr Goebbels, aka the BBC’s biased “elite documentary maker,” Sir-Lord-God-Nobel Haw Haw of the Regal Society of Pseudoscientific Quacks, dedicated to the “laudable” politically-correct challenge diverting our limited funds in a time of austerity from saving human lives in drought and famine hit areas of humanity, to instead line the pockets of swindling carbon credit traders. The claim that democracy would allow the people to overthrow a scientific dictatorship of quacks funded by political expediency is laughable and is well disproved by all examples of scientific corruption in history, from the injection of false Aristotlean physics into medieval Christianity by Thomas Aquinas, to 11-dimensional superstring M-”theory” (which contains no theory, merely a vacuous framework in which 10500 different metastable vacuum states can sit, all of which contain the same faulty spin-2 graviton framework assumption).
Everybody can smell the stench from this piece of vile pseudophysics with its Gestapo response to critics, its abuse of the peer-review system for censorship of criticisms, and its patiently false “greenhouse” assumption which relies on the implicit assumption of an invisible non-existent glass ceiling to prevent water vapour from becoming cloud cover. The liars of the mainstream lyingly call critics “climate change deniers”, when climate change is natural: the argument is about whether the earth is a “greenhouse” that is super-sensitive to CO2 injections or not; the case for NOT being the earth is NOT a greenhouse. If the earth were a greenhouse, there would be no oceans (71% of surface area) and no cloud cover which varies in direct response to CO2. In fact, if you pump in CO2 and you increase cloud cover, which reflects back more sunlight into space, keeping the surface cool. This is negative feedback, totally ignored by all IPCC models, which make the same collective politically-correct mistake of assuming that the greenhouse effect is true (where IR-absorbing water vapour is unable to form clouds, and so has only a politically-correct positive feedback). In a greenhouse, water vapour is prevented from rising to from cloud cover that cools the greenhouse, because of the implicit glass ceiling (i.e. the falsely assumed lack of buoyancy of sunshine IR-warmed moist ocean surface water vapour).
Dr Roy Spencer, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/11/climategate-2-0-bias-in-scientific-research/:
“In the case of global warming research, the alternative (non-consensus) hypothesis that some or most of the climate change we have observed is natural is the one that the IPCC must avoid at all cost. This is why the Hockey Stick was so prized: it was hailed as evidence that humans, not Nature, rule over climate change. [Actually the climate is always varying so there is 50% chance of rising temperatures, 50% of falling temperatures. This reduces the statistical value of correlations of CO2 and temperature when you take account of the fact that there is a 50% chance of a spurious, coincidental correlation.]
“The Climategate 2.0 e-mails show how entrenched this bias has become among the handful of scientists who have been the most willing participants and supporters of The Cause. These scientists only rose to the top because they were willing to actively promote the IPCC’s message with their particular fields of research.
“Unfortunately, there is no way to “fix” the IPCC, and there never was. The reason is that its formation over 20 years ago was to support political and energy policy goals, not to search for scientific truth. I know this not only because one of the first IPCC directors told me so, but also because it is the way the IPCC leadership behaves. If you disagree with their interpretation of climate change, you are left out of the IPCC process. They ignore or fight against any evidence which does not support their policy-driven mission, even to the point of pressuring scientific journals not to publish papers which might hurt the IPCC’s efforts.
“I believe that most of the hundreds of scientists supporting the IPCC’s efforts are just playing along, assured of continued funding. In my experience, they are either: (1) true believers in The Cause; (2) think we need to get away from using fossil fuels anyway; or (3) rationalize their involvement based upon the non-zero chance of catastrophic climate change.”
Michael Mann’s hockey stick curve was faked to show constant temperature until CO2 began rising. IPCC/NASA gurus on the Horizon BBC2 “Science under Attack” propaganda film claimed that humanity emits 7 times more CO2 than nature, when in fact natural sources of CO2 emit 30 times more (even the IPCC 4th assessment report lists in its un-hyped small print that humanity’s emission is 29 Gt of CO2 from all fossil fuels etc, compared to 771 Gt from all natural land and ocean emissions). It’s well within the natural climate fluctuations of CO2, and the scare-propaganda relies entirely on censoring out the evidence of natural variability by tricks like switching temperature proxies at 1960 and 1980 so as to try to produce a hockey stick curve.
Before 1960 they use tree rings as the major proxy, which is false because tree growth is sensitive to cloud cover and rainfall, not particularly CO2 levels. From 1960-80 they used temperature station records near expanding “heat islands” like industrial factories and cities. After 1980 they used satellites which can’t tell the temperature under the cloud cover where all negative-feedback from cloud cover actually occurs. No prizes for guessing that the satellite “temperature data” didn’t properly include negative feedback from the extra cloud cover resulting from the extra evaporation of water due to rising CO2. They’re complete fanatics, who don’t donate a single brain cell to objectivity, let alone half a brain!
- Dr Roy Spencer, ex-NASA climatologist, http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-my-initial-comments-on-the-new-dessler-2011-study/
This quotation is the smoking gun: Dr Roy Spencer’s latest paper was shot down by peer-review, then he was contacted by a “critic” whose paper is in proof, and is claiming that cloud cover doesn’t have negative feedback (i.e. cancel out CO2 injection effects on climate, the entire AGW scam) simply because the mainstream model doesn’t include cloud cover. If ever there was a circular argument, this is it. It’s a groupthink “ends justify the means” delusion, where they think they can safely suppress the facts because “making the environment cleaner” is an unassailable objective, never minds the diversion of funds from lifesaving charities into carbon trading scams. Stalin didn’t personally murder 40 million in collectivization of farming in the 30s, instead like Hitler he deluded himself with false “science” into believing that it was well-intentioned. The biggest danger is “well-intentioned pseudoscientific dogma”: the “safe” belief that it was necessary step on the road to global communist utopia, likewise Hitler gassed 6 million “safe” in his eugenics pseudoscience belief he was ethnically “cleansing” humanity genetically Yeah, right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Nobody will ever get through to people like Al Gore, they’re all completely deluded and have invested all they have in a pseudoscience politically-expedient belief system which devalues objectivity.
