Is the Higgs boson real? There are not many news since they 'found' it

Not suicide dumbass. Homicide.

You can only kill so many people before someone returns the favor.

Yeah but returning the favor might be sending their daughters to have my babies.

>In this moment I am Euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing, but from my own intelligence.
Play an original character next time.

That isn't actually Higgs Boson. That's like saying your cat is Hilter when it only looks like Hitler (then some mudslime immigrants come along and try to kill it).

Nothing from the LHC can be verifiable until there are more than one LHC-sized or larger facilities that can do the experiments themselves. The very nature of the LHC itself may be interfering and giving these false positve results. We simply won't know until something just as big is made and things are tested.

It may as well be hand-waving and rain dancing for all it matters.

>Is the Higgs boson real?

It's "real" in the sense that the observed data passes their statistical criteria for concluding that the particle exists.

Here's what they did:

They ran a bunch of trials using a procedure that was theorized to produce a Higg's boson.

Then they searched the data from the trials and they found those that had a qualifying "missing" mass. (A "missing" mass is a mass they know must exist, but they can't positively identify which particle(s) it belongs to.)

Then, they ran a statistical analysis on those "missing" masses. The mean and variance of those "missing" masses turned out to be within the requirements to conclude that the mass "must" belong to the Higgs boson. (Actually, the data was collected in terms of energy, but conceptually you can view it as mass using E=mc^2.)

In other words, the Higgs boson "exists" to the extent that you "believe" in the physics theory of the experiments they conducted, and that you agree with the statistical criteria for deciding that the collected data was consistent enough to warrant concluding that the missing mass "must" have come from the Higgs boson.

> decays into a pair of photons
> The particle almost certainly has spin-1

>they did not discover Higgs' scalar boson, but actually discovered the vector boson predicted by Tooker (me.)
>The particle almost certainly has spin-1, in agreement with my prediction (vixra.org/abs/1302.0037)

>the Landau-Yang theorem exists so [math] H_{J=0}\not\to\gamma+\gamma[/math]
>implying theorems are never overturned by new data
>also implying there are no decay amplitudes that go through unallowed intermediate states to produce novel realized final states

If it had spin-0 they would have reported it by now.

Would you be satisfied by a model-independent exclusion of Spin-1 and Spin-2?

milesmathis.com/higgs.pdf
milesmathis.com/higgs2.pdf
milesmathis.com/higgs3.pdf

>milesmathis.com/higgs.pdf
>milesmathis.com/higgs2.pdf
>milesmathis.com/higgs3.pdf
And I though the previous one was low quality....

milesmathis.com/twink.html
we have is a gigantic wall of dogma, policed by a truly stupendous number of self-appointed cops. Behind this wall are theoretical physicists doing all the "thinking" But this thinking has devolved into the sort of ridiculous ad hoc pie-in-the-sky. Nothing has to make sense anymore But no one is embarrassed by this. Anyone who is old-fashioned enough to expect science to make some sense, contain some logic, be consistent, or be verifiable in any way is immediately shouted down -a naive creature whose career and funding obviously doesn't depend on accepting everything he is told.
we have an entire subclass of PhD's who have nothing better to do than patrol the internet and the world, attacking anyone who questions the authority of the standard model. For instance, someone like Marilyn vos Savant publishes a book that expresses some doubt about a mathematical finding, and she is immediately attacked personally by thousands. These people do not attempt to address the issue she hasaid. They erupt in outrage and offense that someone not in their club would express a mathematical opinion. strange, not just because it is undemocratic but because it is unscientific. If she is wrong, it should be statable in a few logical sentences. Outrage is unnecessary.
no theorist ever finds any experimental data to be negative data. The theorist just tweeks the theory to contain the data and moves on. The theory can usually be tweeked in a very small way, one that is almost invisible. But a theory that is so easily tweeked didn't have much content to begin with. If it was not falsified by negative data or predictions, then it was not falsifiable.
They have to race ahead and make ridiculous estimates, and then get offended when people question or disbelieve those estimates. They create a really fantastic amount of unsupported dogma, and then disallow anyone from taking a close look at it. That is not science. It is religion.

>we have is a gigantic wall of dogma, policed by a truly stupendous number of self-appointed cops.
Please, refer to my two previous images about bait.

>Nothing has to make sense anymore
to you.

>That is not science. It is religion.
"Follow my religion instead".

I would examine the argument, but I am already skeptical of your proposition because you didn't ask
>Would be satisfied if they showed it has spin-0?

If they report that the particle has spin-0, I will likely concede that they are correct.

It's been seen out with Kanye just two days ago, nigga.

Doesn't it complete the standard model of particle physics? It's suppose to be the medium particle for mass. Mathematically it has been theorized but has yet to be observed in the natural world. It could have been generated but may take years to look through the data of the LHC.

One spin-0 particle completes the standard model in the form that doesn't have any natural motivation, but if you build the standard model based on a solid physical predicate (pic related, vixra.org/abs/1302.0037) then the SM is completed with two spin-1 particles instead of the single spin-0 particle predicted by Higgs and several others.

Well, if you would compare the spin-0 hypothesis against model-independent spin-1 and spin-2 hypothesis and the data strongly prefers the spin-0 hypothesis, I'd say the case is pretty clear.

How would you perform a direct measurement of the spin?

>One spin-0 particle completes the standard model in the form that doesn't have any natural motivation,
Yes it has, it's the pseudo-Goldsone boson from the spontaneous symmetry breaking of the SU(2)xU(1) electroweak.

>you build the standard model based on a solid physical predicate (pic related, vixra.org/abs/1302.0037) then the SM is completed with two spin-1 particles instead of the single spin-0 particle predicted by Higgs and several others.
And that's why you publish in vixra instead of arxiv....

>How would you perform a direct measurement of the spin?
I would look at allowed decay and use selection rules, but this crackpot doesn't like that.

>until there are more than one LHC-sized or larger facilities
that made me smile thank you

Phenomenology, the current predicate for the SM, is totally inferior to the predicate I use, which is conservation of momentum.

>Phenomenology, the current predicate for the SM, is totally inferior to the predicate I use
"Empirical facts, who needs them?"

oh my i almost fell for this bait. nice one dude. This is what happens when psuedo science gets in the minds of kiddies

Yeah but if you can output the empirical facts without putting them in first, that is clearly a superior theory. There is no question. Fucktard.

It's hard to find it each time because the Higgs Boson lies on a spectrum.

NO. You can't prove anything about reality with math, if your equations give a result that is in line with empirical observation then this proves exactly nothing, you can't just toss out the empiricism and rely on the math!

>I want credit

Take your meds you cretinous fag.

Yeah but you can check you math with empiricism. The standard model agrees with modern empirical results because it nothing more than a complicated curve fitting for historical results. My theory on the other hand, the theory of infinite complexity, is not an exercise in curve fitting. It predicts the structure of the standard model [math] ab\,\,initio [/math] and also shows to to pull Einstein's equation of some rather ordinary quantum formalism. One might recall that this is the problem Einstein died without solving. I solved that several years ago.

>nothing more than a complicated curve fitting

It is more than that and all around it's very commendable work by a lot of smart people, I don't want to cast invalid dispersions. I just meant that my theory is WAYYYY better. The SM is an engineer's solution to a philosophical problem and my theory is a physicist's solution. It is the kind of solution that physicists always used to say they would prefer until I was the one who finally wrote it down. After I put my name on it they all decided they druther not have their druthers.

youtube.com/watch?v=SECVGN4Bsgg

So.... maybe?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

Interesting, although I'm not sure I get your meaning since my result is proven. Perhaps you can decipher my meaning

>death sentence
>you, your family, your close and not so close associates
>stricken from history
>with no descendants, no one in the future will care that you died