The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive elementary particle that is predicted to exist by the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
That led me to inquire what exactly is the Standard Model in particle Physics.
The Standard Model of particle physics is a theory concerning the electromagnetic, weak, and strong nuclear interactions, which mediate the dynamics of the known subatomic particles. Developed throughout the mid to late 20th century, the current formulation was finalized in the mid 1970s upon experimental confirmation of the existence of quarks. Since then, discoveries of the bottom quark (1977), the top quark (1995) and the tau neutrino (2000) have given further credence to the Standard Model. Because of its success in explaining a wide variety of experimental results, the Standard Model is sometimes regarded as a theory of almost everything.
Sound a bit familiar here? Doesn't another standard model exist which tries to pass itself off as being the definitive theory on a certain topic? That thought was in my mind when I came to the next paragraph.
Still, the Standard Model falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions because it does not incorporate the physics of dark energy nor of the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity. The theory does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not correctly account for neutrino oscillations (and their non-zero masses). Although the Standard Model is theoretically self-consistent, it has several apparently unnatural properties giving rise to puzzles like the strong CP problem and the hierarchy problem.
Incomplete? Doesn't address the complete topic? Did the people who came up with the term "Standard Model" realise how appropriate their use of the term might be in relation to the fact that their "Standard Model" leaves quite a bit to be explained when someone with any knowledge approaches it? In fact, current developments are putting the Standard model of particle physics into question.
In a paper published in Physical Review Letter on December 3, 2001, theorist Dr. Michael Chanowitz at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory argues that there is currently a "lose-lose" situation for the Standard Model: the data of the electroweak theory has evolved to the point where new physics is suggested independent of whether the measurement of AbFB is correct or not. The reasoning is quite simple: If the measured value of AbFB is correct then a modification of the Standard Model is needed since the experimental result does not agree with the theoretical calculation. If the measurement of AbFB is not correct due to a statistical fluctuation or a systematic error then it should not be included in the analysis. However, when AbFB is excluded, it turns out that the predicted mass for the Higgs particle is in conflict with current experimental limits. Measurements at CERN rule out a Higgs mass below 113.5 GeV at the 95% confidence level. So even if AbFB is excluded, the Standard Model has only a few percent chance of being correct assuming that electroweak breaking is accomplished with a Higgs.
What does this all mean? One possibility is that the mass of the Higgs is below 113.5 GeV and has somehow escaped detection. This is unlikely but possible. Usually, extraordinary evidence is needed to establish a new theory. However, since the Higgs sector has not been experimentally confirmed, perhaps the inconsistencies in the data is telling scientists that electroweak breaking does not make use of a Higgs field. This would be an exciting and intriguing result. Until additional experiments are analyzed, the resolution to the above quandary remains unknown.Of course, the other "standard model" has to address historical evidence to the contrary of its assertions, which it does not. In fact,the other "standard model" misinterprets and misrepresents history. But, if one isn't willing to examine too deeply, then the other "standard model" seems plausible.
On the other hand, once it is seriously examined, the other "standard model" makes absolutely no sense at all.
But, one can say the same thing about quantum physics as well.
Thsi is a cautionary tale about scientific theories. They explain most of the evidence known for a while, but often new results force a refinement or a complete revision of our understanding.
ReplyDeleteGetting the funding for a much larger supercollider looks difficult right now, but let's hope that in the not too distant future, one will be available. There are many ideas about cosmology that simply can't be tested at present--string theory and membranes, for example.
But you appear to be making another point, something of a leap, perhaps?
Not at all of a leap Greg.
ReplyDeleteYou do say you are ccapable of reading, writing and understanding the English language?
You do claim to be able to do research?
If you can do both of those things, then you can research the actual primary sources related to the Second Amendment.
As I said, your side leave a lot that needs to be explained.
But someone as willfully ignorant as you really are, greg, is incapable of being able to know that.
Laci The Dog said..."then you can research the actual primary sources related to the Second Amendment."
ReplyDeleteOff the top of my head, I say it came from the state's constitutions.(the states that were around at that time). I could go look up the pertinent details, but I'm sure you already have that information. Now, with you already having that information, I suspect that you have a contradictory story that you'd like to tell us about. Or, are we about to have a history lesson?
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteAnd you don't seem able to recognize a pun.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteI asked you a question before and never saw an answer from you.
For what reason do you assert that the founders wanted the Second Amendment?
Yes, this illustrates how mankind thinks they know it all and occasionally realize that they are sadly mistaken.
ReplyDeleteI had an interesting experience a few years ago. According to standardized test scores, I am in the top 1% of the population in terms of intelligence or academic performance or however you want to look at that. For quite a time I thought I was pretty smart. And then something occurred to me. The more I learned, the more I realized I didn't know. In fact the more I learn the more ignorant I feel.
To state it another way, we don't know what we don't know. People go about thinking they have a pretty good bead on life. And in some respects they do. In many others, they are clueless and don't even know it.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteAre you really using the uncertainty in particle physics to justify gun control? Just a note: I am an atheist, an engineer, and a scientist. Explain your answer in detail, please.
Moonshine7102,
ReplyDeletePerhaps he's worried about the multiple universes hypothesis. After all, that's one explanation for the behavior of single photons of light sent through a two slit diffraction grating. We just don't know what those bullets are doing when they go downrange. . .
Wow, you people are pretty stupid.
ReplyDeleteI'm using the fact that the Standard Model in physics while appearing to explain phenomenon, when examined closely leaves a lot to be explained.
Likewise, the Second Amendment standard model, when scrutinised does not properly address the real historic significance of the Second Amendment.
Why all the talk about standing armies and civilian control of the military if the second Amendment is about gun ownership?
But, you all prove that the simple answer works for people who don't have any depth of knowledge of the topic.
And Greg, you atre too fucking stupid to make punn.
I am an atheist, an engineer, and a scientist.
ReplyDeleteBut, you are obviously not someone with any legal or historical education which is why you miss my point.
You so fucking smart Moonshine7102, you figure it out and tell me.
ReplyDeleteGreg, you are a complete dumbshit.
GC wrote:We just don't know what those bullets are doing when they go downrange.
ReplyDeleteToo damned often your side doesn't, until it kills or injures someone like a school kid or an Amish girl on her way home or a woman out walking her dogs or a terrified 3 year old inside his house.
We can't even get consensus here from your side that they SHOULD, whether it is someone objecting to a school inconveniencing a target shooter by getting in his way --- clearly popping the occasional target is SOOO much more important than educating an entire community;s children, that it should extend to his shooting bullets that cross his property line to neighboring property.
How dare anyone expect to be safe within the boundaries of their land or homes, if it will inconvenience gunners.
Because what gunners write here suggests that at least some of them want their use and carrying of guns, their preferences and rights, to be more important than the rights and preferences of anyone else.
ended too soon
ReplyDeleteIt is the attitude described above that Laci was addressing. There is a lot of failed or inadequate thinking, either from cherrypicking only the parts of history they want to believe, or failing to acknowledge legitimate philosophical concepts which contradict what they want, or just plain bloodymindedness over measures which would make everyone safer including themselves.
Laci The Dog said..."Why all the talk about standing armies and civilian control of the military if the second Amendment is about gun ownership?"
ReplyDeleteThat's because the founders believed that a standing army in times of peace were dangerous to liberty and that control of the military should not rest with the military itself.
Without a standing military, how does one protect himself, his state and his country? You have armed citizens that would voluntarily form a militia and organize themselves. They would elect their own officers and would train themselves to protect their community (like a way cool neighborhood watch).
The Second Amendment was a restriction on the Federal government from prohibiting the states to form militias and a restriction on the Federal government from infringing on the rights of the people to own arms.
When the Constitution was proposed, it didn't include a Bill of Rights and that didn't sit well with the states, who had already had their own Constitution. The states were concerned about an overreaching federal government. The Second Amendment came from the militia and arms related clauses of the several states. The militia and arms related clauses of the states were based on the viewpoint of Mason. Mason's views on the people being armed suggests that he was probably Protestant.
Laci wrote:
ReplyDelete"Likewise, the Second Amendment standard model, when scrutinised does not properly address the real historic significance of the Second Amendment.
Why all the talk about standing armies and civilian control of the military if the second Amendment is about gun ownership?"
First of all, I have not read a formal rendering of the "Second Amendment Standard Model" so I am not going to comment on that. I can tell you my understanding of what the Founders stated publicly. The founders prized liberty and despised tyranny. Tyranny could come from the soon-to-be central government, local governments, select militias, foreign invaders, whatever.
To address tyranny from foreign aggressors, the Founders created provisions in the Constitution to allow the central government to have an army and a navy and to call forth State militias. In fact the Constitution even allows states themselves to call forth their own militias without authorization of the central government if they are invaded.
To address tyranny at the hands of the central government, the Founders split up the government into the three branches and even split the legislative branch in two parts. Regardless of the above, the central government could still use their control over a Federal army or select militias to effect tyranny. Thus the Founders wrote a provision (limiting appropriations for two years) in the Constitution to limit/discourage standing armies. And to discourage the central government from deploying select militias against the States, the Founders wrote another provision in the Constitution that specified the States themselves would appoint the officers of the select militias. (The idea being that officers whose allegiances are to their own States would not command the men in their militia to attack their own State under the guise of a Federal order.)
The Founders implemented those provisions in the hope that they would be sufficient measures to preclude tyranny. They also understood that those measures could fail and the last defense against tyranny was armed citizenry. Since one of the possible sources of tyranny could be the central government itself, the founders explicitly listed the 2nd Amendment.
But this is all distraction. Laci should already know and understand everything I wrote above. What Laci is going to try and do is establish a legal chain of events (legislative acts, court decisions, and executive orders) that negates the right of the people to keep and bear arms today outside of active military duty in the U.S. military.
ReplyDeleteThis is analogous to saying that a legal chain of events can redefine the right to "peaceably assemble" to only allow people to assemble for political rallies in stadiums under the authorization and control of government agents.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteEnded too soon? You never end too soon. You are many things, but no one would ever call you concise.
Now, I've said many times that I hold people responsible for their actions. I don't support blasting away without regard to what's in my field of fire.
You keep putting responsible gun owners (like me, despite your doubts) into the same group as idiots and criminals. Responsible gun owners--in other words, those who shoot no innocent person with their guns--aren't a danger to your rights.
Laci the Dog,
You made a false analogy about standard models. That term is used by many fields to discuss the currently accepted position. In physics, the Standard Model isn't dead. If the Higgs boson isn't found, there will have to be a revision, but physics is a subject that is entirely dependent on data.
Legal matters and social policy are qualitatively different. Data do matter, but so do values and the desires of the people affected.
What I don't see in many of your comments is evidence that you're rational and intelligent enough to say something without cursing and personal attacks. You fantasize about putting me in front of a drill sergeant, but many of us would like to see you try your typical approach in front of a judge.
I look back 120 years ago when the standard model was dumbed down by Oliver Heaviside, Wilbur Gibbs and Hendrick Lorentz. The "Standard Model" SU(1) was grossly botched in an effort not to include Maxwell's Quaternion Math. Only 4 of the 20 Equations can 20 Variable were included by Lorentz in particular. This is why Einstein flip flopped when it came to the existence of the Aether. Einstein also had thoughts about rewriting special relativity because proof that faster than light phenomenon was brought to bare. Tesla work convinced Paul Dirac to change his mind and through Heaviside he convinced Einstein that Tesla was correct. An energy Flux can move faster than light. Dr Wheatstone discovered that electrostatic waves as produced by a spark gap generator traveled at 1.6 (Phi) x C. The world was not willing to let go of its "Dumbed Down" foundation of the "Standard Model" SU(1) because of very powerful forces. Anyone who speaks of Telsa's / Dirac's / Wheatstone's work are defunded. You will get no grants for your work if you speak about the forbidden knowledge. It is a fact which Dr Stephen Palmer has fought against and wrote about.
ReplyDeleteI also forgot to mention Dr Lee and Yang who won the Nobel Prize for "Broken Symmetry" in 1957 should have caused the rewrite of the Standard Model ! It didn't and it was the same cabal which attempts to perpetuation SU(1) as the be all to end all.
ReplyDelete