Alpha Numeric has run away with his tail between his legs, so it seems, so who's got the cahunas to challenge the latest evidence that the standard model is blatantly wrong?
I am pretty sure in another post of his, he suggested that he does frequent other forums and actually has a life outside of the forum, so he won't necessarily be on call to your every beck or whim. If he's decided not to respond to you, that might well be down to feeling like a discussion just goes around in circles with you. After all an example of logic would be, "why attempt to supply evidence to contradict something that is clearly pseudoscientific?" (this is just a generalised statement not necessarily aimed at your current post or thread, or you in general)
AlphaNumeric is not a moderator. As for your supposed ‘latest evidence’, the actual mods of AE&C will have no hesitation in sending your delusional fantasies to Pseudoscience or the Cesspool where they belong. This may or may not happen before AN exposes you, yet again, for being a woo-woo crank.
No, he's talking about some new data from FermiLab, I think, which suggests that the higgs sector of the standard model is larger than what was expected. It doesn't ``completely overturn the standard model'', as I can show you a book of 1000 pages full of tables which are numbers predicted and measured using the standard model. The fact that it's taken 40 years to find even one discrepancy in the predictions of the SM should amaze people. Anyway, what he fails to understand (as usual) is that this is a well-understood option, which is actually predicted by supersymmetry, which gives us the minimal supersymmetric standard model, which is exactly the standard model, plus some new higgses, plus everyone's supersymmetric partner. It's likely that AN didn't see his thread as worthy of a response.
Here's Dr. Mabuse's post from Higgs Boson disparity is "beyond what could be explained by the Standard Model" BTM: You can't have a standard model for quantum theory and a standard model for gravity and announce that everything is just dandy in modern physics. There's that nagging little thing that wont go away no matter how much you try and sweep it under the carpet! Can anyone enlighten "lover man"?
Why can't you have two models which explain two different things? The point is that, one discrepancy in the Standard Model doesn't invalidate the whole theory. Firstly, no one expected the SM to be the end of the story. My advisor told me once ``I stopped working on the Standard Model in 1975 because it was already figured out.'' He switched to Beyond the SM physics (which is the subject of my Ph.D.) and never looked back. That being said, the SM is still taught in school, and will still be taught for the rest of human history. Why? Because it works. Suppose that I want to know how a muon decays. I can calculate the muon's lifetime using only the SM. And I can actually measure that at an experiment. And you know what? The calculation matches. To several decimal places. We measure the utility of scientific theories by what we can calculate. If the Standard Model is good for calculations, and it predicts the outcomes of experiments, how can we say it's wrong? The obvious answer is that ``Well, I can design an experiment that shows a violation to the SM''. But the fact that deviations are measured in a single experiment in no way invalidates the past 40 years of testing, wherein no deviations were measured. Any new physics has to be consistent with what we already know, so clearly the corrections to the SM processes which we have measured have to be small. Secondly, the fact that gravity cannot be quantized is not a failing of the Standard Model. The full quantum theory of gravity is needed to explain the dynamics immediately after the big bang (~10^{-40} s), and that's it. By and large, quantum gravity is irrelevant to any experiments you can actually perform. Reread that last sentence again, because it's important. The implication is that it is perfectly fine to have two theories which describe two different objects. I fully expect you to put your fingers in your ears and tell me I'm wrong. That's fine. But here's a challenge, explicitly and publicly. You seem to know what you're talking about, so this shouldn't be much of a challenge. Any one of the tasks below is a good homework assignment for a graduate level particle physics class. The collection of all of them could be published in a real journal, I have no doubt. (Probably someone has already published them, though.) So, if you really think you know something about physics, which you surely do, here : Explain to SciForums what experiment measured the deviations to the SM. Here's a link. In particular, you should explain what was measured, the SM prediction, and how the two differed. After establishing a bona-fide violation of the SM, you should now show how the two higgs doublet model rectifies the problem, giving a rough (order-of-magnitude is fine) estimate to the expected correction to the measured process, for reasonable choices of parameters. You should also comment on any other expected experimental deviations (electro-weak precision data in particular), with their expected orders-of-magnitude. Finally, you should tell me why this model hasn't been observed before, giving rough (order-of-magnitude) estimates of the contribution to SM processes. Here's a thread I started for you to do it. Now, I fully expect you to fail. Would I be able to get all of these things right? Oh probably, but it would take me a few weeks. The point I want to make is that you don't even know what you don't know (eg: unknown unknowns), so what right do you have to tell me I'm wrong?
wow what a giant of a man. joan baez's cousin as well Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 34: 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
No, not a conspiracy. That would imply that the mainstream had some knowledge and understanding of their collective groupthink. It isn't the case at all. Myself and a large number of professional scientists can 'see' the confusion more clearly than those dedicated to the orthodoxy.
I was never a moderator and where did I run away? I barely cross paths with you given I think you're a waste of bandwidth. For what? I've never seen you present a coherent or even vaguely informed view on anything. I think you're a pretty dim uninformed easily fooled gullible idiot. Nothing I've seen you post has in any way had any effect on my views on any area of science. Precisely. I went into the thread, scrolled quickly through it, saw you had replied to CSS and thought it wasn't worth the time. CSS you didn't make me 'run off with my tail between my legs', you didn't even manage to make me think you were worth the effort of replying to. You completely overblow my views of you, you weren't scary, you were insignificant. And you still are. I know cranks love to think that they are the centre of my world because they shake my 'faith' in science but none of them do. I don't reply to you because you're so low on my radar I often don't even notice you.
The question still remains: who's going to respond to stimulating and challenging topics within the Astronomy, Cosmology forum? There's a host of new articles and reports which deserve discussion imo. Nobody good enough anymore? :shrug:
Suddenly changed your tune there CSS. I thought I was going to eat humble pie and you were wondering where I was? Now it seems that isn't the question, now that I've pointed out that I wasn't 'running away', I never gave a shit in the first place. Sounds like you've eaten all the humble pie before I had the chance Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Let me know when you have said something worth reading. You've not managed it yet. At least we were good enough in the first place. I don't for a moment think that my attitude towards people like you is going to make me worthy of a moderating position and I don't want one. Moderating is more than just knowing answers to questions, its about dealing with people and putting in the time and effort. I've mod'd on other forums before and even if I hadn't invalidated any possibility of being a mod by treating people like you with mild contempt I wouldn't want to mod an active forum like this one because I wouldn't be able to do it justice. If I were a mod I'd not be able to say some of the things I say and while I've had my wrist slapped a few times by mods for being a little too blunt I think its healthy for an active forum to have a person or two who doesn't pander to the idiots as much as might be expected from someone with infinite patiences (or 'moderator' under their title). I'd end up banning half the posters in physics or pseudo if I got given a ban hammer.
