Higgs rumors vs. the rumor

In the article “The Higgs Discovery, http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4772 “, Peter Woit wrote, “Reliable rumors couldn’t wait, and they indicate that the experiments are seeing much the same thing as last year in this year’s new data: strong hints of a Higgs around 125 GeV. The main channel investigated is the gamma-gamma channel where they are each seeing about a 4 sigma signal.”

This is a rumor which tries to announce the Higgs discovery before anyone else. Then,

In the article “New Data on Elusive Particle Shrouded in Secrecy (by DENNIS OVERBYE,  June 19, 2012  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/science/new-data-on-higgs-boson-is-shrouded-in-secrecy-at-cern.html?_r=1 )”,  it reported two statements from the authorities of LHC.

“’Please do not believe the blogs,’ Fabiola Gianotti, the spokeswoman for the team known as Atlas, after its huge detector, pleaded in an e-mail. “

“’Our final Ichep results will not be even seen by the collaboration before the last day of June and then will require the usual final cosmetics for presentation,’ wrote Joe Incandela of the University of California, Santa Barbara, spokesman for the team known as CMS, in an e-mail. “

Are these two official statements rumor-stoppers or rumors themselves?

Then, there comes the verdict with the article “Rumor Has It: Higgs Buzz Sparks Twitter Trend (by  Jennifer Ouellette, http://news.discovery.com/space/rumor-has-it-120620.html )”, it wrote, “Just before 3 p.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 2012, the elusive Higgs boson made science history: it topped the list of trending Twitter topics via the hashtag #HiggsRumors. …

Whatever they are, the results will be announced at the International Conference on High Energy Physics, or ICHEP, in Melbourne, Australia, starting July 4 [2012]. So, you know, chillax, people. We'll know one way or the other in just a few weeks.”

Can the announcement at ICHEP stop all rumors? In 2011, the biggest rumor was announced by OPERA on the “Superluminal Neutrinos”. If an announcement of the discovery of the Standard Model Higgs at ICHEP this July, it would be the greatest rumor in 2012, as it will definitely be another OPERA fiasco.  The entire Higgs idea (field or bosons) is only the shadow of the reality, and it is described in the article “Higgs Boson, a shadow of the Prequark field, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/09/higgs-boson-not-best-idea.html “. 

Four pop-outs

In a TV interview (http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/1367 ), Jim Holt (The New Yorker, New York Times Magazine) and John Leslie discussed the following very interesting issues.

a.  How to have immortality without God?

b.  Why is there something rather than nothing?

c.  Is universe created with physics laws or with the moral laws?

These different issues are, in fact, all coming out from the center one, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” The answer is truly simple. “Something and nothing” are ontologically not mutually exclusive but mutually immanent. They are the two sides of the same coin, and this is described in detail in the article “Law of Creation, http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm “.

In fact, the evolution of this universe has four pop-outs (creations).

1. The pop out of space-time.

2. The pop out of biological lives.

3. The pop out of intelligence.

4. The pop out of morality.

While there are four pop-outs, there is only one pop-out law, and this is discussed in detail in the article “Higgs Boson, a bad idea, part seven, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/08/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-seven.html “.  Thus, John Leslie’s view that this universe was created by Moral laws is as good as the view that it was popped out with physics laws.

Take the Kuhn-loss and move on

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (the most influential philosopher of science of the twentieth century, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ ) wrote, “Not all the achievements of the preceding period of normal science are preserved in a revolution, and indeed a later period of science may find itself without an explanation for a phenomenon that in an earlier period was held to be successfully explained.”  This feature of scientific revolutions has become known as ‘Kuhn-loss’.

In the article “New CERN Results On Rare B Decays: A Tombstone To SUSY? http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/new_cern_results_rare_b_decays_tombstone_susy-90861 “, it wrote, “..., while the various Minimal Supersymmetric models depicted in the graph are close to being killed by the experimental constraints.  … 

But you can certainly take refuge in the belief that only one is the ‘true’ set of SUSY parameters, and that excluding all other sets does not make that less probable. It depends on your prior beliefs.”

The LHC data is now ruling out many SUSY (with s-particles) while many physicists are denying those facts with their “prior” beliefs. But, this kind of self-denial can never escape from the inevitable “Kuhn-loss”. 

Kuhn again said that “The decision to opt for a revision of a disciplinary matrix [new paradigm] is not one that is rationally compelled; nor is the particular choice of revision rationally compelled.” Yet, however the tortuous path that science must take, there is no way of any kind to go around the truth which sits there silently. Physics must take the Kuhn-loss eventually and face the truth squarely sooner or later. The article “LHC, the end of the old physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/lhc-end-of-old-physics-epistemology.html “ is showing a way for us to move on. 

Nowhere to run!

Most of scientists believe that  “Science is not about beliefs but is about facts and explanations.” Yet, Thomas Samuel Kuhn (philosopher of science) held a contrasting view “That we judge the quality of a theory (and its treatment of the evidence) by comparing it to a paradigmatic theory.” That is, science judges a theory not about its merits or its evidences. Science is not about facts but is about beliefs on a paradigm.

As scientific revolutions involve a revision to existing scientific belief or practice (the paradigm), science in general ignores and discredits any revolutionary ideas. Kuhn's view is that during normal science scientists neither test nor seek to confirm the guiding theories of their disciplinary matrix [paradigm]. Nor do they regard anomalous results as falsifying those theories.  … Rather, anomalies are ignored or explained away if at all possible. It is only the accumulation of particularly troublesome anomalies that poses a serious problem for the existing disciplinary matrix. A particularly troublesome anomaly is one that undermines the practice of normal science. ... A widespread failure in such confidence Kuhn calls a ‘crisis’.

Yet, although the truth and facts are sitting there silently, science can never go around them. There is no place for science to run but to face those facts squarely sooner or later. The followings are those simple facts.

1. The Prequark Chromodynamics (http://www.prequark.org/ ) simply reproduces the entire quark universe. 

2. The “Super Unified Theory” (SUT) simply gives a better (but correct) explanation for the electroweak symmetry breaking (http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutron-decay-occams-razor.html ).

3. The SUT simply provides theoretical calculations for Cabibbo angle (θ_c), Weinberg angle (θ_W ) and the Alpha (the electron fine structure constant), http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/05/higgs-boson-bad-idea-part-four.html . To calculate these three independent parameters with a single thread is either a result of the facts or a miracle. 

4. The “accelerating expansion of Universe” is a direct consequence of this SUT,  http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2011/10/nobel-prize-2011-accelerating-expansion.html .

5. “No fourth generation matter” is again a direct consequence of the SUT, http://tienzen.blogspot.com/2012/05/three-and-only-three-generations-of.html .

These facts above can never be gone around by any means.  

M war, here is peace

In the article “Krauss vs. the Philosophers, http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2012/04/lawrencekrauss.html “, Brian Leiter wrote, "Lawrence Krauss, a physicist at Arizona State University, wrote a book on the physics of how "something can come from nothing," and thought it answered the old philosophical question to that effect.   He got lots of praise from other philosophical ignoramuses, and then along came David Albert, a distinguished philosopher of physics at Columbia University (who even has a PhD in physics), who pointed out the confusions in a rather wicked, ...

Krauss, apparently not used to be called out for his intellectual limitations, had a tantrum and called Albert "moronic," ... Various philosophers responded effectively to the tantrum, ...

This is not the first time physicists have revealed themselves to be (dare I say it?) a bit "moronic" when it comes to philosophy"

In the article “On the Origin of Everything (at The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1 )”, David Albert wrote,  “Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that every­thing he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted. ‘I have no idea if this notion can be usefully dispensed with,’ he writes, ‘or at least I don’t know of any productive work in this regard.’  And what if he did know of some productive work in that regard? What if he were in a position to announce, for instance, that the truth of the quantum-mechanical laws can be traced back to the fact that the world has some other, deeper property X? Wouldn’t we still be in a position to ask why X rather than Y? And is there a last such question? Is there some point at which the possibility of asking any further such questions somehow definitively comes to an end? How would that work? What would that be like? …

… Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.”

I do agree with Albert’s arguments above.

    1. We must not take the physics laws for granted.  There is a story about how they arose.

    2. The quantum vacuum is not nothingness.

In fact, the above two issues were addressed and resolved in the article “Law of Creation, http://www.prequark.org/Create.htm “.

Physics vs. philosophy

In the article “A Little Philosophy Is A Dangerous Thing, http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/02/04/133363055/a-little-philosophy-is-a-dangerous-thing “, Alva Noë wrote, “... But notice, too, that it is not a problem that physics can solve by simply doing more physics. It's a problem about physics, after all.

And this is the hallmark of philosophical problems, which usually take the form of a distinctive and urgent puzzlement about what we take for granted. Philosophical problems arise when we are not sure how to go on, or not sure what we've been doing all along, and they arise in any domain whatsoever (neuroscience, biology, religion, politics, morality, and, of course, physics).

Can breakthroughs in physics solve the philosophical problem of making sense of the meaning of physics itself? Do the "recent discoveries" and "theoretical advances" of the last few decades enable us to frame new approaches to the question of the apparent incompatibility of common sense and modern physics,... ?”

Indeed, can breakthroughs in physics solve the philosophical problem of making sense of the meaning of physics itself? Obviously, the author did not think so.

“Philosophical problems arise when we are not sure how to go on.” That is, if we know how to go on, then we do not need philosophy at all for physics. Yet, can physics go on with only the gadget physics? The article “LHC, the end of the old physics epistemology, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/04/lhc-end-of-old-physics-epistemology.html “ discusses this issue in detail.

Topology and the final physics

In the article “25 Years of Topological Quantum Field Theory, http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4727 “, it wrote, “It occurred to me today that right about now is the time someone should have chosen as the date for a celebration of the 25th anniversary of the birth of the idea of ‘Topological Quantum Field Theory’ [in May 1987], as well as some much less well-known ideas about the relationship of QFT and mathematics that still await full investigation.”

Topology is one key point in the “Super Unified Theory” (ISBN 0-916713-02-4, Copyright # TX 1-323-231, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 84-90325). The chapter nine of the book is about “Unilogy” (page 70 – 74), a special topology for our cosmos.  That is, the topology as a key part in physics is a bit longer than 25 years. 

Yet, there are two big differences between this Unilogy and the topological QFT.

1. In topology, a ball cannot be transformed into a donut. Yet this transformation happens in nature, and this is the direct consequence of Unilogy.

2. The Unilogy led the final super unification of the final physics while the topological QFT did not provide any guideline to the Standard Model (SM) as we are still testing the SM at LHC. See the article “Predictions from Axiomatic physics, http://prebabel.blogspot.com/2012/05/predictions-from-axiomatic-physics.html “.