Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 121 of 305 (665240)
06-10-2012 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by zaius137
06-10-2012 12:26 PM


Re: W and Z
Do not herald a theory that makes a pseudo prediction about a clean unification prediction and then crashes and burns on a prediction like the Higgs.
In other words, you have no response ti Son Goku's argument that the Higgs is inessential to Big Bang cosmology. But you are going to pretend not to concede the point by criticizing particle theory.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 4:47 PM NoNukes has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 122 of 305 (665249)
06-10-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NoNukes
06-09-2012 6:35 PM


Bozo Boson
NoNukes my friend
An ape my age has long since lost the ability to shuck and jive
quote:
Then do so. Stop the shucking and jiving.
Stop evading questions or points made by others. Continuing to insist that the absence of the Higgs means that the BBT is what I expect you to do. But let's not pretend that you haven't been provided with reasons to the contrary. I have yet to see you address any of those points head on.
You made a specific complaint regarding problems with the analyses that do not show quantified red shifts, but I have yet to see you address my posts demonstrating that you were wrong in the only case you have yet identified.
I need a bit of help on exactly what I haven’t addressed yet?
Please be explicit and please not blitzing here..
In the meantime I discovered this
A new announcement was made today concerning a major scientific discovery. The discovery of the Bozo Boson by an obscure armature scientist. The scientist, just known as Bozo, is being put forward as the next Nobel Prize in quantum Physics. When his picture showed up in a scientific journal, he was instantly recognized as the world famous Bozo the Clown.
No one ever suspected that the Worlds most famous clown was a Quantum Physicist in his spare time.
Quote:
quote:
YUP being a clown is my day job, at night I collide proton anti-protons. Occasionally I discover new particles but more often I discover new joke material
When Bozo was asked about the announcement that CERN scientists have discovered the Higgs Boson, he replied:
quote:
Heck, if I knowed that they were a gona allow such folk to make things up I could’a saved em 50 billion bucks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2012 6:35 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 06-10-2012 4:35 PM zaius137 has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 123 of 305 (665253)
06-10-2012 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by zaius137
06-10-2012 4:15 PM


Re: Bozo Boson
I need a bit of help on exactly what I haven’t addressed yet?
Please be explicit and please not blitzing here..
quote:
I see you are ignoring sonme critical questions:
I addressed this problem as smearing the data remember?
I saw claims of "smearing the data", in your messages and some of the papers to which you linked. Nowhere have I seen any demonstration that this alleged "smearing" exists or is a problem.
So what's the definition of "smearing the data" and how is it an issue?
The paper you cite criticizing Hartnett is not even a paper (it is a commentary) and is below peer review. How is it that I provide the more reasonable arguments and all you can say is Ain't no quantized redshift. It is because if quantized redshifts are real the Milky Way is near the center of the universe. Indeed, we are a special creation in God’s site.
Yup, it's a commentary, by an expert in the field. It's hard to find recent peer-reviewed papers debunking quantized redshift; the vast majority of astrophysicists aren't interested in wasting time addressing crackpot ideas.
It seems to me that Dr. Bridgman provided a valid and powerful criticism, peer-reviewed or not. Do you have any response?
I take it you have no response?
From Bell & McDiarmid.:
  • Why did they perform a one-dimensional analysis of a 3D dataset? Dr. Bridgman's comments, at which you scoff, applies here.
  • Why did they not use statistical techniques to estimate the significance of the sample? Parts of Fig. 5 look like peaks near the predicted values, parts look like troughs near the predicted values, parts look like peaks far from the predicted values. Visual evaluation of such data is notoriously suspect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 4:15 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 4:52 PM JonF has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 124 of 305 (665254)
06-10-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by zaius137
06-10-2012 12:26 PM


Re: W and Z
Except that the Higgs is missing, (I have very good reasons to say this).
We've seen your reasons. They involved quoting someone saying that the data in favor of the existence of the Higgs does not "quite yet" constitute an "ironclad discovery".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 5:06 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 125 of 305 (665255)
06-10-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by NoNukes
06-10-2012 2:34 PM


Re: W and Z
NoNukes my friend
In other words, you have no response ti Son Goku's argument that the Higgs is inessential to Big Bang cosmology. But you are going to pretend not to concede the point by criticizing particle theory.
Son Goku has yet to protest about this but I believe my argument was a "missing mechanism" for several processes in universe evolution, like the electroweak epoch. Son noticed this and proposed the Technicolor hypothesis. This is kind of a save for a logical string of processes leading to the appearance of mass in the universe. If I am wrong in this, I am sure Son will correct me.
Now what is your question again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2012 2:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2012 5:10 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 126 of 305 (665257)
06-10-2012 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by JonF
06-10-2012 4:35 PM


Re: Bozo Boson
JonF my friend.
I take it you have no response?
I simply do not accept the authority of a commentary over peer review in this case. I believe I answered all other objections and corrected the misunderstanding of several misused quotes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by JonF, posted 06-10-2012 4:35 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by JonF, posted 06-10-2012 7:59 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 127 of 305 (665258)
06-10-2012 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Dr Adequate
06-10-2012 4:39 PM


Re: W and Z
Dr. Adequate My friend
We've seen your reasons. They involved quoting someone saying that the data in favor of the existence of the Higgs does not "quite yet" constitute an "ironclad discovery".
Not quite all my reasons, my personal reason is as follows:
It is my opinion that the ranges that are now being touted by CERN have already shown no results except some lepton activity (which is now the fading hope).
As I had mentioned before the smaller accelerators already covered the lower energies (114Gev-150GeV), there was a little excitement around (145GeV). That one never panned out; telling me that the boson will never be found. By the way I believe Stephen Hawking will be 100 dollars richer in November.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2012 4:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2012 6:16 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 135 by Taq, posted 06-11-2012 3:30 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 128 of 305 (665260)
06-10-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by zaius137
06-10-2012 4:47 PM


Re: W and Z
Now what is your question again?
I did not ask you a question. I made an observation about your participation here.
Son Goku has yet to protest about this but I believe my argument was a "missing mechanism" for several processes in universe evolution, like the electroweak epoch.
An argument that has been addressed.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 4:47 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 129 of 305 (665264)
06-10-2012 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by zaius137
06-10-2012 12:26 PM


Re: W and Z
The current Standard model has long passed the promised simplicity
zaius137 - can you please point me in the direction of where the Standard model, as you describe it (or indeed any science) ever promised you simplicity ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 130 of 305 (665265)
06-10-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zaius137
06-10-2012 5:06 PM


Re: W and Z
As I had mentioned before the smaller accelerators already covered the lower energies (114Gev-150GeV), there was a little excitement around (145GeV). That one never panned out; telling me that the boson will never be found.
I believe that tigers don't exist. I've already looked under my bed.
Does this have any relevance to the topic, by the way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 5:06 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 131 of 305 (665267)
06-10-2012 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by zaius137
06-10-2012 4:52 PM


Re: Bozo Boson
I take it you have no response?
I simply do not accept the authority of a commentary over peer review in this case.
Don't accept the authority. Address the challenge. But you have no response because you're just paper-bombing. You have no understanding whatsoever of the math of "quantized" red shift.
I believe I answered all other objections and corrected the misunderstanding of several misused quotes.
You haven't answered or even addressed a one of 'em. But I certainly understand why.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 4:52 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 132 of 305 (665272)
06-11-2012 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by zaius137
06-10-2012 12:26 PM


Re: W and Z
I agree the Quantum field theory has made amazing predictions such as the discovery of the Higgs Boson, its exact mass and particle interactions.
Let me be very explicit about this:
The electroweak theory has two compoenents:
1. The electroweak force that interacts with matter, because matter carries an electroweak charge. The basic electroweak force consists of the three A bosons and the single B boson interacting with various matter (fermion) particles.
At some point in the universes history the electroweak force separated into the elecromagnetic force and the weak force. The bosons were than the two W-bosons, the Z-boson and the photon.
2. The mechanism for what separated the force. There are several proposed mechanisms. The Higgs is just the simplest mechanism and in fact a lot of physicists do not think it is correct. Even if something like the Higgs is discovered at the LHC, there will be years of analysis to find out if it is the basic Higgs or some of the more complicated versions that have been proposed. The basic idea is that some field (whose particles must have no spin, that's practically the only thing we know for certain), settled down, that is went to zero energy. However, unlike most fields, even at zero energy it still had its charge "switched on", this lead to empty space constantly having an electroweak charge, which separated the electroweak force.
Now, only the physics in 1. is relevant to the Big Bang and all of this physics has been matched to experiment. We are currently debating 2., however no matter what is going on, 1. works out the exact same.
You will never catch me criticizing Einstein’s field equations because they seem to work regardless of how bad the theoretical framework is that utilize them, namely Big Bang and the Quantum field theory.
Quantum field theory does not use Einstein's field equations.
An after the fact theory can always be shown to hold some transient truth but a real predictive theory holds consistently to reality.
The electroweak theory matches the detection rates at the Tevatron and CERN for over 2,000 different particle interactions across huge range of energies. Every single prediction holds at well over the 95% confidence level. How is this a "transient truth".
It has been proposed that the quantum interactions we observe are mere shadows of a deeper reality.
A proposal means nothing on its own and there are several issues with theories that propose such a "deeper level", like Bell's theorem and the Kochen-Specker theorem.
The current Standard model has long passed the promised simplicity and has become a patchwork of inconveniences.
Promised simplicity? Who promised this?
What inconveniences do you mean?
Do not herald a theory that makes a pseudo prediction about a clean unification prediction and then crashes and burns on a prediction like the Higgs.
What unification are you talking about?
Also for clarity there is the:
1. Electroweak theory as discussed above.
2. Quantum Chromodynamic, the theory of the strong nuclear force.
3. The Standard Model is the combination of 1. and 2. with extra terms to join them together.
The biggest train wreck in scientific history (the Higgs) is simply because the theorists have fallen asleep at the throttle.
What do you mean? I don't see how the Higgs is a train wreck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 12:26 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by zaius137, posted 06-12-2012 1:27 PM Son Goku has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 133 of 305 (665284)
06-11-2012 1:15 PM


Higgs news
If anyone is interested here are some direct cites that, show the decay channels that are being searched and the results.
New
Quantum Diaries
Sign in to CERN
Latest runs
CMS Physics Analysis Summaries - CERN Document Server
The total confidence stands at about 2.1 sigma for a range of 2.4Gev. There is some discussion that scientists will put forth an announcement for the discovery of the Higgs at this confidence level. This is exactly why current science is in the state it is in; the confidence level of 5 sigma should be the standard.

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Son Goku, posted 06-11-2012 2:58 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 134 of 305 (665287)
06-11-2012 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by zaius137
06-11-2012 1:15 PM


Re: Higgs news
The total confidence stands at about 2.1 sigma for a range of 2.4Gev. There is some discussion that scientists will put forth an announcement for the discovery of the Higgs at this confidence level.
Could I have an example of this discussion, because I certainly haven't heard that anybody is going to announce the discovery of the Higgs at 2.1 sigma as the rest of the physics community would never trust such low confidence results. What is being discussed is combining results from different colliders to get 5 sigma "globally". This wouldn't be the best thing to do, it would be better to obtain two separate 5 sigma results, but it's hardly an Earth-shattering collapse of scientific standards.
This is exactly why current science is in the state it is in; the confidence level of 5 sigma should be the standard.
5 sigma is the standard.
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by zaius137, posted 06-11-2012 1:15 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 135 of 305 (665288)
06-11-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by zaius137
06-10-2012 5:06 PM


Re: W and Z
As I had mentioned before the smaller accelerators already covered the lower energies (114Gev-150GeV), there was a little excitement around (145GeV). That one never panned out; telling me that the boson will never be found.
Isn't that a wonderful double standard. We DO have results demonstrating the W and Z boson and the electroweak interaction, and yet you deny that as well. I don't see how you can complain about a lack of results at a given energy when you ignore those same results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by zaius137, posted 06-10-2012 5:06 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024