Is the Higgs particle a process?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by BdS, Dec 22, 2015.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    In actual fact its your delusions running free...you know,Santa Claus, Jesus, Shiva or whatever.

    You're the one doing the ranting and raving and preaching sweet baby jesus.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    This is a science forum, not a pulpit for your mythical nonsense.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    No its you preaching coming and posting NO GOD in every single one of my threads, the evidence is there for all to see...

    Paddoboy the dictator and hater of freedom...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Bds, the flamer and pusher of nonsense. Let me state again, this is a science forum, and any anti science bullshit you like to post, will certainly get the result that you desire. If that's dictating, then so be it.
    I'll try the same tactic and go preach anti god stuff at church next week and see where it gets me.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    Please do, and you will realize how calm, patient and loving they are, because your best effort is not even is not even on par with their subconscious knowing. You think you are above the common folk, dont you? That you can dictate to them the opposite of what they already know is obvious... that's why you married one after all, isn't it?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2016
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    yeah sure, just as we see today all over the world...tolerance, love understanding etc: Oh the fucking irony of it all!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You are joking of course? No, I suppose you aint. Sad.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    Back to science: This maybe interesting......

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.07616v1.pdf

    abstract:
    We explore several perturbative scenarios in which the di-photon excess at 750 GeV can potentially be explained: a scalar singlet, a two Higgs doublet model (2HDM), a 2HDM with an extra singlet, and the decays of heavier resonances, both vector and scalar. We draw the following conclusions: (i) due to gauge invariance a 750 GeV scalar singlet can accommodate the observed excess more readily than a scalar SU(2)L doublet; (ii) scalar singlet production via gluon fusion is one option, however, vector boson fusion can also provide a large enough rate, (iii) 2HDMs with an extra singlet and no extra fermions can only give a signal in a severely tuned region of the parameter space; (iv) decays of heavier resonances can give a large enough di-photon signal at 750 GeV, while simultaneously explaining the absence of a signal at 8 TeV

    conclusions:
    The di-photon excess can be explained by a scalar singlet coupled to gluons and electroweak vector bosons through effective dimension 5 operators. We showed that a large enough cross section and consequently the diphoton signal is obtained if either (i) the scalar is produced through gluon fusion, or even (ii) if the singlet is produced entirely through vector boson fusion. One possibility to induce the dimension 5 couplings is through loops of vector-like fermions. Depending on the electroweak gauge quantum numbers of the fermions, one also expects signals in WW, ZZ and Zγ resonance searches with cross sections that are comparable to the observed γγ signal. Some scenarios are already constrained by 8 TeV resonance searches in the WW, ZZ and Zγ final states. The prospects for detecting resonances in these channels at the 13 TeV run of the LHC are in general excellent. If the couplings of the vector-like fermions to the singlet are of O(1) and their charges are not exotically large, several copies of vector-like fermions are required to induce large enough effective gluon and photon couplings. The effective couplings decouple as vW /mf , where mf is the mass of the vector-like fermions. We expect these fermions not to be far above the TeV scale and potentially within direct reach of the LHC at 13 TeV. In the context of two Higgs doublet models, both the heavy scalar H and the heavy pseudoscalar A can in principle produce a diphoton signal. If the second Higgs doublet is the only new degree of freedom beyond the Standard Model, we find that the signal cross sections are typically orders of magnitude below the observed excess. Adding charged and colored degrees of freedom (e.g. in the form of vector-like fermions) allows for large enough gluon and photon couplings to the second doublet in order to explain the data. However, in the doublet case the new physics contributions to the effective gluon and photon couplings decouple as v 2 W /m2 f . Therefore a very large number of additional degrees of freedom is required in order to induce large enough couplings, rendering an explanation in the context of a 2HDM less plausible. An alternative possibility for the diphoton excess is that it is due to a cascade decay, pp → X → Y (→ γγ)Y 0 . The heavier resonance, X, can either be produced through gluon fusion, or through Drell-Yan production. The searches for dijet resonances at 8TeV place strong constraints on the allowed parameter space of the models. If X decays predominantly to dijets, then generically Br(Y → γγ) needs to be above 10−2 . This may be a challenge in models that address naturalness, but can be avoided in ad-hoc models invoked to explain the di-photon excess.
     
  10. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    OH! now you want to got back to science? STFU! You are not capable of do any science...
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    rpenner said:
    The above opinion was supported by demonstrating that multiple naked assertions are contradicted by empirical facts that can be verified trivially in 6th grade physics and astronomy resources or tertiary sources like Wikipedia.
    1) no nucleus is well-modeled as a planetary system but a model of neutrons orbiting about a proton-rich core makes particularly little sense in light of Coulomb repulsion 2) young and main sequence stars are not molten but gaseous as are the hydrogen clouds they form from 3) planets are not ejected from stars in defiance of conservation of angular momentum and conservation of energy but rather co-form from the same original hydrogen cloud with stellar winds sweeping the hydrogen and helium away from all but the most massive and furthest away.


    These are not "Tit-for-tat." responses but empty posturing which is meant to sooth the poster's own ego and to distract from the complete failure to accept the burden of proof for controversial (aphysical, truth-impaired) factual claims.

    Indeed, the only thing "pathetic" is that BdS would attach his name to the complained-about claims and then fail to provide the slightest notion why his opinion on them matters. Only someone burdened with a misguided sense of being appreciated as an authority would make such claims in light of decades of research material.

    The invocation of a dance routine is there to distract us from the emptiness of BdS's reply and his attempt at irony falls flat as he never picks up the challenge to support his own claims.

    I am disheartened that such shallow rhetorical tricks are substituted for discussions of the evidence and support for material facts about the universe. I recognize our moderators are overburdened, but continually hope for the return of the time when discussion on a science-themed forum was dominated by qualified people shutting down the bloviators, crackpots and bullshit artists so that some exchange of useful ideas could rise above the noise.

    Maybe I am in my dotage reminiscing about the good old days that never really were, but I thought we used to be better.end of post.
    Apologies for reproducing your post here, I just see it as entirely appropriate.
    'nuff said. Thanks again for the wise words rpenner.
     
  12. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    And that is my e- (electrons), what you think? like clouds of rogue gas/particles/plasma that haven't been gravitationally bound yet and they could maybe roam free between the systems, but yet still binding systems together because they still contain/create forces/fields?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2016
  13. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    You can vortex that e- up and detect it like a particle or just give them directional momentum and detect them like a wave, maybe... got to think more on that...
     
  14. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    still rough ideas...
     
  15. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    hmm, but the suns photons and/or forces might be the e- too
     
  16. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,449
    Photons are not electrons. Forces are not electrons.
    An electron that absorbs a photon will gain energy.
    Moving electrons that 'hit' an object (actually interact with with the charged particles of the object) will impart a small force.
     
    BdS likes this.
  17. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    And maybe got something to do with dark energy / matter on the cosmic scale. the missing mass maybe? Like what we assume empty space is full of this plasma (the real ether) and because its less dense than any element it buoyancy keeps it at higher radius from the mass. Creating a negative pressure in space that offers no displacement resistance to matters motion through it. It can interact with itself though (repulsive). It creates a bubble around our solar system and this bubble can interact / repel with other bubbles around other systems. It can be gravitationally bound by a system but doesn't allow itself to collapse into a planet or object. Only the denser element being ejected by the sun are being caught by the planets gravity. This stuff repels itself and doesn't allow collapse, and thats why everything is not gravitationally forced together, why arent all the galaxies and all the matter together from their gravity attracting, because this stuff repels to a certain degree.

    The cosmic e-, gravity tries to force everything together (pull) and this stuff forces everything apart (push) a balance that creates the bound distance between the atoms/galaxies. Thats how atoms bind into molecules, but dont collapse on to eachother, because they are pulling and pushing at the same time. We have to force pressure on atoms and this stuff is whats causing the resistance and hence why we need to force pressure. We need to overcome the plasma's repulsion. Same as if we try to force things apart we need to overcome the atoms bound gravitational attraction. Oh wow! The greater the nuclear activity (heat) the more this stuff is inflating the bubble around the systems and forces things to expand.

    Thats how the universe in expanding, because the hotter it is the more of the plasma it creates and pushes things apart, just like things hot things expand by the atoms doing the same thing. As they/it cools the plasma looses its repulsive abilities and starts to become attactive and allows some of the plasma to collapse back to ordinary mass and energy.

    Hmm, much to think about...
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2016
  18. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    Plasma = dark energy = e-
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2016
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,449
    Plasma is the stuff in a neon light. It is neither dark energy nor just electrons.
     
  20. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    I thought it was the stuff stars are made of, remember?
    And apparently the stuff being ejected by stars.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_mass_ejection
    "The ejected material is a plasma consisting primarily of electrons and protons."
    Since we dont know what DE is its still an open debate.

    Just because I liked this post dont think I agree 100% with it yet.
     
  21. BdS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    422
    Maybe dark energy is the cosmic scaled higgs field and dark matter the cosmic scaled higgs particles.
     
  22. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,449
    There are 4 states of matter; solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Stars are made of plasma and the neon gas in a neon light becomes plasma when current is applied to it. Plasma is a material that has the electrons stripped from the atoms so that you have a mix of free electrons and atomic nuclei. Plasma can be formed from high temperatures and/or high electrical field fluctuations.
    Correct.
    The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. That indicates an energy of some kind is responsible for the acceleration. Electrons are not capable of causing the expansion of the universe - so while we do not know what this 'dark energy' is, we can say what is not and it is not electrons.
    Fine with me.
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,449
    That really does not make any sense. Just blindly guessing at answers is not going to yield results.
     

Share This Page