Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 11:49 PM
359 online now:
Coyote, dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (4 members, 355 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,310 Year: 23,916/21,208 Month: 1,881/2,468 Week: 390/822 Day: 50/66 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Black Holes Don't Exist
zaius137
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 106 of 174 (742254)
11-18-2014 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Son Goku
11-18-2014 6:45 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
quote:
Well isn't it clearly disprovable? (I only used provable because you used it) The standard model predicts clear effects for the Higgs boson related to decays in channels of other particles. If these aren't observed then it is disproved. Isn't that scientific?

The Higgs is never directly observed (it blinks from reality before it can be observed, at least that is the claim).

quote:
The standard model predicts clear effects for the Higgs boson related to decays in channels of other particles.

Does the tail wag the dog here?

The effect is observed before the cause, the cause can not be disproved (it is a assumption of particle/field). That my friend is religion not science, if you want to claim faith in the cause, that is your prerogative (and burden).

quote:
Correct = What is observed in experiments.

I would add what is observed in reality, not what we interpret reality to be.

quote:
The standard model does not involve virtual particles. No quantum field theory does. Virtual particles are not a component of quantum field theory, they are a pedagogical device used to describe quantum field theory in popular or undergraduate textbooks.
However they are not really a part of the theory. Quantum field theory does not predict the existence of or involve virtual particles. I can give a few references for this if you want.

Where is QFT without virtual particles (or whatever you want to call them)? Here is a classic “straw man”. You have me holding my breath for the details.

By the way the Higgs seems to be a virtual particle or (too short lived to be seen, if you like). So in a sense a real particle is predicted by QFT and a virtual particle shows up in experiment.

quote:
The standard model does not involve super-symmetry. I mean, literally, the standard model is not super-symmetric. This makes me think you don't really know what the standard model is. In fact recent observations, due to not observing super-symmetric partners, have disproved super-symmetry and upheld the standard model.

I am not defending supper-symmetry or the propping up of the Standard model.. Please give me your take on the following, no quantum double-talk is acceptable.

The first realistic supersymmetric version of the Standard Model was proposed in 1981 by Howard Georgi and Savas Dimopoulos and is called the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model or MSSM for short. It was proposed to solve the hierarchy problem and predicts superpartners with masses between 100 GeV and 1 TeV.
As of September 2011, no meaningful signs of the superpartners have been observed.[17][18] The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is producing the world's highest energy collisions and offers the best chance at discovering superparticles for the foreseeable future.
After the discovery of the Higgs particle in 2012, it was expected that supersymmetric particles would be found at CERN, but there has been still no evidence of them. The LHCb and CMS experiments at the LHC made the first definitive observation of a Strange B meson decaying into two muons, confirming a standard model prediction, but a blow for those hoping for signs of supersymmetry.[19] Neil Turok at Perimeter Institute concedes that theorists are disheartened at that situation, and that they are at a crossroad in theoretical (and particle) physics, calling it a deep crisis. He described the LHC results as "simple, yet extremely puzzling" and said "we have to get people to try to find the new principles that will explain the simplicity".[20] (wiki)

quote:
I gave you a paper in a previous thread that demonstrated this is no longer the case, i.e. that 170 orders of magnitude error is from the 1970s when QFT calculations could not be done as accurately.

Please in your own words…. summarize this. So I do not have to endure the agony again.

quote:
The Higgs mass is an input parameter, same as the electron mass. Now, I too would want a deeper theory to explain why this mass, just as the standard model doesn't explain "why this charge for the electron". However this isn't an unusual problem, it's just that the standard model has input parameters like all other physical theories.

Thank you for a simple honest answer about the input parameter. There is yet to be definitive proof the particle found was a Higgs. The Higgs mechanism is still unproved, only theoretical constructs exist. Further, you know my objections to the particle/field hypothesis. I still claim it is not falsifiable, thus not formal science.

Personally, I would never include the mass of a electron in the same sentence as Higgs mass (it seems to add excessive validity to the Higgs).

quote:
The fourth problem is a problem, but it is one every theory of physics has, the need for input parameters.

Again: What did Archimedes say? Give me a lever long enough and a place to put it, so I may move the world. QFT says, give me enough free parameters and fields to put them in and I will describe the universe.

quote:
This is nonsense. For an idea to be correct it doesn't have to apply to everything.

No, just reality…


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 6:45 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 2:23 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 107 of 174 (742257)
11-18-2014 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by NoNukes
11-18-2014 8:31 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
quote:
Zaius137 comment implies that a theory must be 'unprovable' in some new realm. That's not necessarily true.

Now, maybe I was not clear (that never happens just for the record).

A theory must be falsifiable… or else it is a tautology or classified in religious terms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 11-18-2014 8:31 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 2:33 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1075
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(1)
Message 108 of 174 (742268)
11-18-2014 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by zaius137
11-18-2014 1:08 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
The Higgs is never directly observed (it blinks from reality before it can be observed, at least that is the claim).

That's the case for most subatomic particles aside from the proton, the neutron, the electron and photon and a few of the pions and force carriers.

The vast majority of subatomic particles are not directly detected. Although as the years go on they are.

For instance the pions were originally detected via their effect on the decay channels of other particles, now they have been directly detected.

Does the tail wag the dog here?

The effect is observed before the cause, the cause can not be disproved (it is a assumption of particle/field). That my friend is religion not science, if you want to claim faith in the cause, that is your prerogative (and burden).


Of course the cause can be disproved. The preliminary tests of the Higgs can only detect it via its decay products, then, as with other particles, eventual direct detection.

I can understand you saying that you don't believe it until it is directly observed, but I don't really understand why it is a "religion".

What I think is that current observations are consistent with a Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism has survived the first round of observations. It has to survive more, as most physicists will tell you. Again I don't see what is religious about this.

Speaking of which, what is your explanation of the increase in Tau lepton production and photon production around 126 GeV?
The Standard Model says it is due to Higgs decay.

Where is QFT without virtual particles (or whatever you want to call them)? Here is a classic “straw man”. You have me holding my breath for the details.

Where is it? I'm not fully sure what you mean. Quantum field theory does not involve virtual particles. You can read accounts of this in graduate quantum field theory books like:
Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras, Rudolf Haag.
The Quantum Theory of Fields, Volume I, Steven Weinberg.
Quantum Field Theory, Claude Itzykson, Jean-Bernard Zuber.

I'm not really sure what saying "quantum field theory has no virtual particles" is a straw man of.

I am not defending supper-symmetry or the propping up of the Standard model.. Please give me your take on the following, no quantum double-talk is acceptable.

That's a discussion of the MSSM or the minimally super-symmetric standard model, created in the 1980s. This is a different theory than the standard model, created in the 1970s.

Most physicsts, even Georgi himself, did not think the MSSM was correct. I have never said the MSSM was correct. I have been talking about the standard model.

They have similar names in the English language, but they are vastly different theories with completely different particle species and decay rates.

Please in your own words…. summarize this. So I do not have to endure the agony again.

Well since I have explained in detail to you before, I will summarise briefly. When you calculate the vacuum energy in the standard model you get the observed value for the cosmological constant. It's a toy model that gives a value 170 orders of magnitude off, not the standard model itself. (The calculation is done using steepest-descent methods on the Path Integral.)

I have previously linked to a paper which goes through this calculation and obtains the correct value at the end.

Further, you know my objections to the particle/field hypothesis. I still claim it is not falsifiable, thus not formal science.

No actually, I don't. You've never stated them, just that you object. We've seen field states decay into particles, fields coalesce into a particle and fields produce particles. What part of the concept is untested or not falsifiable to you?

Again: What did Archimedes say? Give me a lever long enough and a place to put it, so I may move the world. QFT says, give me enough free parameters and fields to put them in and I will describe the universe.

Well all theories of physics have free parameters. Although it would be better not to, I still don't see what is "incorrect" about them. Classical physics also has free parameters, Newtonian gravity has free parameters. It isn't just QFT that does this, so I don't see why you are leveling it against it in particular.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by zaius137, posted 11-18-2014 1:08 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM Son Goku has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1075
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(7)
Message 109 of 174 (742271)
11-18-2014 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by zaius137
11-18-2014 1:15 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
To be honest, I think you don't have a clue what you are actually disagreeing with. You purposefully say leading things with no content like:

It seems all is not well in the Higgs camp....

without ever backing them up. This nonsense about the Standard Model not being falsifiable is the latest in a line of guff where you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark.

I mean do you really think that the Standard Model is not falsifiable. That scientists at the LHC have conversations like:
Jaysus Dave, sure why did we build this massive machine, the theory isn't falsifiable.
I know Anne, I just like building big machines, lol!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 11-18-2014 1:15 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 110 of 174 (742334)
11-19-2014 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Son Goku
11-18-2014 2:23 PM


Re: Black Holed theory
quote:
What I think is that current observations are consistent with a Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism has survived the first round of observations. It has to survive more, as most physicists will tell you. Again I don't see what is religious about this.

The observation that would best aid the verification of the Higgs mechanism would be verification particle/field. I suppose the first round of observations you are referring to is the W scattering process statistics. Why are these observations always so rare, in this case I believe it was 36 events in trillions of collisions, I would like to see the statistical significance of 36 events out of trillions of observations. I bet the random events are of better statistical significance.

quote:
They have similar names in the English language, but they are vastly different theories with completely different particle species and decay rates.

No comment.

quote:
Well since I have explained in detail to you before, I will summarise briefly. When you calculate the vacuum energy in the standard model you get the observed value for the cosmological constant. It's a toy model that gives a value 170 orders of magnitude off, not the standard model itself. (The calculation is done using steepest-descent methods on the Path Integral.)

So the magnitude still remains off by an order of 170… That is crystal clear.

quote:
No actually, I don't. You've never stated them, just that you object. We've seen field states decay into particles, fields coalesce into a particle and fields produce particles. What part of the concept is untested or not falsifiable to you?

Your reasoning is completely circular, particle /field is right so that is what we observe.

quote:
Well all theories of physics have free parameters. Although it would be better not to, I still don't see what is "incorrect" about them. Classical physics also has free parameters, Newtonian gravity has free parameters. It isn't just QFT that does this, so I don't see why you are leveling it against it in particular.

It is not an objection to free parameters, it is a objection to the quality and quantity of them in QFT.

quote:
To be honest, I think you don't have a clue what you are actually disagreeing with. You purposefully say leading things with no content like:
It seems all is not well in the Higgs camp....
without ever backing them up. This nonsense about the Standard Model not being falsifiable is the latest in a line of guff where you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark.

This is not a scientific peer review, it is a discussion forum that permits different points of view. It is up to the participant to accept or object.

“you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark” That is debate with panache my friend.

Son,

I would like to review a few nuggets of your posts in this thread,

quote:
*Yes, distorting spacetime actually changes the meaning of "empty" or "devoid of mass-energy". A quantum field derives its definition of empty/vacuum/void from the spacetime around it. So initially the quantum field is in some state and it "queries" the spacetime as to the physical content of its state. The spacetime "returns" the result "that's a vacuum state". However if the spacetime changes it might return "That's a state of ten particles”.

Almost like a computational algorithm. It is kind of like a conversation between two separate individuals, not at all like the quantum universe you wish to convey by implication. So the quantum field “quarries” space-time, clearly a entity of GR. This scenario is very bizarre since there is a great controversy over what empty space really is. No criticism here, everyone is entitled to their own wild conjecture, even me.

quote:
There is something "behind" matter in modern physics and that is the quantum fields. A particle itself is nothing more than a localised excitation of these fields. The universe is indeed "full" of these fields and they do indeed span the space between stars, with the stars themselves being typically low energy excitations of these fields, like most conventional matter.

I believe it is God… more scientific than the Higgs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Son Goku, posted 11-18-2014 2:23 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by vimesey, posted 11-19-2014 2:21 AM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 2:46 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 113 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 3:21 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 8:07 AM zaius137 has responded
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 11-19-2014 8:56 AM zaius137 has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 111 of 174 (742335)
11-19-2014 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
I believe it is God… more scientific than the Higgs.

Then bring the math.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM zaius137 has not yet responded

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1075
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 112 of 174 (742336)
11-19-2014 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
I bet the random events are of better statistical significance.

They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.

So the magnitude still remains off by an order of 170… That is crystal clear.

To be honest this is getting really stupid.

I have given you two papers proving mathematically that the standard model calculation is correct and agrees with observations.

Why do you think it still remains clear that it is wrong by a factor of 170? How is that crystal clear?

Seriously why do you think this? What is wrong with the papers?

As I said, in a previous thread in 2012, I gave you two papers and wrote three long posts explaining the standard model calculation.

This year I have explained where the old "170 orders of magnitude" quote came from to help you understand.

Yet without saying anything or providing any reason, you continue to just assert it is 170 orders of magnitude off? Not only that, it is in fact crystal clear that this is the case.

Why do you think this? What is your reasoning here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:31 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1075
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


(2)
Message 113 of 174 (742338)
11-19-2014 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
Your reasoning is completely circular, particle /field is right so that is what we observe.

What would count as proof of the concept to you?

It is not an objection to free parameters, it is a objection to the quality and quantity of them in QFT.

QFT has less free parameters than any other theory in physics. Only 19 for all of subatomic physics.

What does "the quality" of a free parameter mean?

“you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark” That is debate with panache my friend.

Saying nothing and providing no reasoning other than sarcastic remarks is panache? It's very easy to be full of panache I guess.

I believe it is God… more scientific than the Higgs.

Let's compare shall we.

Hypothesis: A scalar boson, the Higgs, couples to other particles in a manner dictated by the standard model.

Evidence:
1. CMS collaboration observation of scalar particle with mass 125 GeV and ATLAS statistical analysis to confirm particle is spin-0, ruling out spin-2 with 99.9% confidence:
http://www.nature.com/.../journal/v10/n8/full/nphys3005.html
2. CMS collaboration statistical analysis of the coupling of this scalar particle to the fermion and photon sectors demonstrating that it possesses decay properties of standard model Higgs detailed here:
http://www.nature.com/.../journal/v10/n8/full/nphys3005.html
3. ATLAS (a separate detector) collaboration statistically analyses this scalar boson's coupling to muons. Again it matches the Standard Models predictions.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0370269314006583
4. ATLAS statistical analysis of diphoton channel, new scalar particles coupling to photons. Again it matches Standard Model predictions:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1407.4222
5. CMS Collaboration statistical analysis of Z-boson decays from new scalar particle show that it possesses zero-parity to 99.9% confidence:
http://journals.aps.org/...ct/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.081803

Hypothesis: Yahweh, national god of the bronze age monarchical nation state Israel, controls the entire universe:

Evidence:

1. After the kingdom was conquered by Babylon and given freedom under Kūruš II of Persia, most of the priests of his major temple at Jerusalem thought so and wrote literature displaying that idea which survives today as the latter books of the Old Testament.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:51 PM Son Goku has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15916
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 114 of 174 (742342)
11-19-2014 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
zaius137 writes:

quote:
Well since I have explained in detail to you before, I will summarise briefly. When you calculate the vacuum energy in the standard model you get the observed value for the cosmological constant. It's a toy model that gives a value 170 orders of magnitude off, not the standard model itself. (The calculation is done using steepest-descent methods on the Path Integral.)

So the magnitude still remains off by an order of 170… That is crystal clear.

What Son Goku said *was* pretty clear - read it again. He said that the application of a decades old simplified model (rather than the actual standard model) is what gave a result 170 orders of magnitude off.

“you simply use your opponents previous response to generate the next vague leading sarcastic remark” That is debate with panache my friend.

Son Goku was giving voice to what I'm sure most people following this thread have noticed. Your posts are remarkably free of objective support.

I believe it is God… more scientific than the Higgs.

The real agenda emerges.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:41 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


(2)
Message 115 of 174 (742350)
11-19-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:49 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
I believe it is God… more scientific than the Higgs.

Ahhh yes. There we go. Fuck all the science. I know goddidit. That is how you show all the science is wrong. One sentence. Easy, clean with no need to wast time with pesky math and calculations. Next time quit wasting peoples time and just get to this statement.

Actually, don't worry I think maybe we should just ignore you in science threads because your argument is the same in them all. How about sticking to the religion threads.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:49 AM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:42 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
zaius137
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 116 of 174 (742387)
11-19-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Son Goku
11-19-2014 2:46 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
You would think that I am the one posing a formal objection to a disagreement of predicted vacuum energy to apparent vacuum energy.

Formally it is known as the “vacuum catastrophe”. I asked Son to summarize all the minutia in formal objections, he did not, I still pose that offer.

quote:
I gave you two papers and wrote three long posts explaining the standard model calculation.
This year I have explained where the old "170 orders of magnitude" quote came from to help you understand.

No I am not reading all the papers he has cited (even if I had all the access I needed), as far as I know from the summations I have read, the problem remains unanswered except by “superfluous ontological apparatus”.

About the Higgs:

quote:
They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.

This is the true “straw man” I have seen you use time and time again. Here he is! now you pick him apart. First problem is getting to a true particle/field relationship, The Higgs is never seen as a particle… FACT. The excuse is that it appears too fast to observe…. The particle/field provides a framework in QFT to build a mathematical construct around the same. It is in all definition a speculation… Unprovable by definition.

In my opinion, the critics of the discovery of the Higgs particle will eventually win the day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 2:46 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 2:18 PM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 122 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 2:20 PM zaius137 has responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 117 of 174 (742389)
11-19-2014 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Percy
11-19-2014 8:07 AM


No black holes in QFT
quote:
What Son Goku said *was* pretty clear - read it again. He said that the application of a decades old simplified model (rather than the actual standard model) is what gave a result 170 orders of magnitude off.

What Son said was “read the paper”. Here is a brief summery of the problem from (wiki). The light it sheds on the issues is very supportive of QFT, only when it states that QFT assumptions must be limited to a particular scale. Son has implied scale does not matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_catastrophe


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 8:07 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 118 of 174 (742391)
11-19-2014 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Theodoric
11-19-2014 8:56 AM


Re: Black Holed theory
Great post... Cheers!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Theodoric, posted 11-19-2014 8:56 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 940 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 119 of 174 (742392)
11-19-2014 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Son Goku
11-19-2014 3:21 AM


QFT does not explain BH, only BS.
quote:
They are not. That's what all the statistical analysis was for last year. Several papers have been published analyzing the data statistically and shown that it is significant. Unless you can point out something incorrect in these forty or so papers, then for what reason do you think/bet random events are more statistically significant.

Here is just some quotations from your citations… very convincing.

Higgs boson to down-type fermions, with an observed significance of 3.8 standard deviations, when 4.4 are expected.

Here, we report the combination of these two channels, which results in strong evidence for the direct coupling of the 125 GeV Higgs boson to down-type fermions, with an observed significance of 3.8 standard deviations, when 4.4 are expected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 3:21 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Son Goku, posted 11-19-2014 1:59 PM zaius137 has responded
 Message 123 by NoNukes, posted 11-19-2014 2:36 PM zaius137 has not yet responded
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 11-19-2014 2:43 PM zaius137 has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1075
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 120 of 174 (742397)
11-19-2014 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by zaius137
11-19-2014 1:51 PM


Re: QFT does not explain BH, only BS.
Here is just some quotations from your citations… very convincing.

Well there you go folks. A sarcastic one-liner yet again. "Very convincing, lol", with no comment on why it is not convincing or in fact any content at all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by zaius137, posted 11-19-2014 1:51 PM zaius137 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-19-2014 4:09 PM Son Goku has acknowledged this reply
 Message 128 by zaius137, posted 11-20-2014 1:17 AM Son Goku has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017