What we find is that the Higgs mechanism is a form of spontaneous symmetry breaking. What is spontaneous symmetry breaking? It is symmetry that is broken spontaneously. Something that happens spontaneously requires no mechanism, so the Higgs mechanism is a mechanism with no mechanism. In other words, the SU(2) problem is solved by calling it a symmetry, breaking it without a mechanism, and then calling that breaking a Higgs mechanism. That is red flag number four.
Wiki tells us that “the evidence for the Higgs mechanism is overwhelming,” but this evidence turns out to be evidence that particles near the predicted W and Z masses exist. So, we are to understand that because big particles exist for very short times, this means the SU(2) gauge theory can’t be correct in predicting zero masses. And this means that the gauge symmetry must be broken, which means that the theory must be correct.
That is so circular it is dizzying. All the fake Higgs mechanism does is allow you to break something you wanted to break, without having to give a mechanical reason for the breaking. It allows you to fudge your math while giving a fancy name to the fudging. But if your gauge theory requires you bypass it with a symmetry breaking, it could and probably does mean that your gauge theory isn’t any good to start with. Normally, if you develop equations that yield false predictions—like these zero boson masses—you must ditch the math. You don’t get to nail some jerry-rigged post hoc correction to it, in the form of a non-mechanical “field mechanism.”
(2 of 3)
Owen Brown
There can be no evidence for the Higgs mechanism, since, as I just showed, the Higgs mechanism is not a mechanism. It is a spontaneous symmetry breaking, and you cannot have evidence for something that is spontaneous. All you do is say, “It happened, I had a theory for it, therefore I must be right.” It is strictly equivalent to saying, “I predict the Sun will rise tomorrow [after seeing the Sun rise everyday of your life], and I hypothesize that the reason it will rise is that it is filled with helium.” When it rises, you jump up with joy and claim that the evidence for your theory is overwhelming, since the Sun came up just as you predicted. Don’t you see that what these “physicists” have done is develop a math that doesn’t work, then said, “I predict that this math is broken and needs a fix. The fix is a spontaneously broken symmetry. Aha, here is a spontaneously broken symmetry that allows me to fix my math to any degree I want. So I must be right!”
Unfortunately, Mr. Higgs also predicted another particle, the Higgs boson. Glashow, Weinberg, and Salam probably would have preferred he hadn’t done that, since it requires another round of fudging, but these guys are good at making lemonade. They know that the odds are good that another big super-meson will be found, given enough energy in the accelerator, so they just bide their time. When a big particle is found, they can claim it. This time they are careful not to be too precise in their mass prediction, so that they can claim over a wide range of masses. Another benefit is that these particle accelerators employ a lot of physicists. So if the search is spun out another decade or two, so much the better.
(3 of 3)
Bentley Young
/thread
OP is asking in a very smug way. It's so clear that he's just trolling us or just plain stupid, as the above user mentioned.
