Are We Approaching The "End Of Physics"? Not Even Close

"The end of physics" has been a theme that's been circulating in the parochial memosphere at odd times since the late 19th century.   And not too long after each invocation (e.g. before the dawn of quantum theory and Planck's contributions) it was found wanting and skewered. In no uncertain terms.  Somewhat like Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History" the meme almost always has embodied a typically human arrogance that we've now come to know everything we need to, or that the truly rich and varied events (or findings) have by now been exhausted.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the more recent incarnations of the theme emerged recently in a WSJ Review piece by Frank Wilczek ('Have We Come To The End Of Physics',  July 6-7, p. C2)   He basically summarizes the relevant memes as follows:

"Physicists, bewitched by mathematical beauty, are failing to solve new problems"......"High class physicists no longer care about physical reality - nor should they"...."Science is over."

The last is especially idiotic given there are hundreds of fronts on which science now advances and for which more research is needed, from CRISPR -CAS9 gene splicing, to the genetic basis for cancers and appropriate therapies, to nuclear fusion, to halting viral outbreaks, from Ebola to the next flu pandemic.  Then there is perhaps the most significant relevant physics at this time, that of atmospheric physics as it relates to climate change and greenhouse  gas warming.

But Wilczek ties the latest memes to three recent books:  'Lost in Math' by Sabine Hoseenfelder, 'String Theory and the Scientific Method', by Richard Dawid,  and 'The End of Science' by John Horgan.  As Wilczek correctly notes:

"For theoretical physicists they are kind of a reproach, since they argue that today's physics has gotten itself into a dead end."

But as usual the fallacy of composition is rife, in the cited authors conflating all of physics to what is actually practiced by perhaps 1 percent, if that.   Hence, it makes no sense to judge the research of the 99 percent from the 1 percent, say doing string theory,  multiverse conjectures or quintessence in conjunction with dark energy.  Any perusal of  Physics Today  archives over the past year would  quickly kibosh the notion that "physics is at an end". These include a host of empirically validated discoveries, which seldom make the news like string theory or multiverse speculations.  These have included:

'Dark Matter Detector Observes Rare Nuclear Decay' (July, 2019, p. 14)

Role of piezoelectric crystals for long range transmission of EM waves'.(Op. cit, p. 19)

'Heterogeneous Catalysis', Op. cit. p. 38)

'Isotope Measurements Help Pin Down The Ancient Rise Of Oxygen' (June, 2018, p. 16)

'First direct views of attosecond electron-nuclear coupling' (Op. cit., p. 17)

'QED experiment detects two distinct photons simultaneously resonant with an optical cavity'  (and with one of two electronic transitions of the same atom)  (August, 2018, p. 14)

'Use of Xenon isotopes to track volatile recycling in Earth's mantle' (October, 2018 p. 14)

'Acoustic metasurface creates quiet locations in a room' (August, 2018 p. 18)

Granted, none of these are especially 'sexy'  or exotic but all give the lie to Horgan's claim that physics has somehow become "unmoored"   from empirical evidence.

Indeed, as Wilczek pointedly observes:

"Opinions may differ on the current health of physics, but no reasonable person can dispute that it has been a hugely successful enterprise"

Correctly noting that without the revolutionary  breakthroughs in 20th century physics - namely quantum theory and relativity - we'd never have seen or used nuclear power, lasers, rockets (such as the Saturn V moon rocket), GPS technology, cell phones or the quantum computers now coming onto the scene.  In other words, without physics our civilization would still be at the level of the Victorian horse and buggy phase.  

Seeing the vast spectrum of current physics research in the PT issues cited above, one quickly comes to the conclusion that Horgan's contention that "physicists' time is past" and "they should do something else instead" (ibid.) borders on the imbecilic. And if physicists acceded to Horgan's wishes who would expand our current frontiers say of climate research, or the prediction of  the next asteroid strike or coronal mass ejections - with the potential to reduce our civilization to Dark ages' life quality?  I mean, seriously? 

I suspect much of the problem - such as for Mr. Horgan (and I believe much of the general public) - is that physics' "fancy" mathematics irritates them, galls them - because well, they can't do it!  Most of the public - even those who read Scientific American- probably halted their math courses at Calculus, if they even took that.  And from what I've read in a few education journals, barely 1 in 1000 Americans ever see the inside of a physics lab in connection with a college level General Physics course.   So it is little wonder there is an existing impatience with theoretical physics and its "gibberish" equations and material.   No one - least of all any upstanding American (with an opinion on everything else)  - wishes to be made to feel like a  dummy when confronted perhaps by a tensor equation, e.g

ds²   =  g _mn dx ^m dx ⁿ

   = g ₁₁ dx₁²    + g ₂₂ dx₂²    + g ₃₃ dx₃²    + g ₄₄ dx₄²                           

+   2 g ₁₂ dx₁ dx₂  +   2 g ₁₃ dx₁ dx₃ +   2 g ₁₄ dx₁ dx₄

+   2 g ₂₄ dx₂ dx₄  +   2 g ₃₄ dx₃ dx₄ +   2 g ₄₁ dx₄ dx₁

+   2 g ₄₂ dx₄ dx₂ +   2 g ₄₃ dx₄ dx₃

Hence, Wilczek's reference to the late 20th century's  articulation of the so-called 'Standard Model' is germane.  As he notes it "reached a very high plateau"  and also offered "well tested equations for the behavior of ordinary matter under ordinary conditions "    Also, acknowledging that "the theoretical framework of the Standard model was in place by the 1970s."  It also "predicted and enabled spectacular discoveries such as the Higgs boson".

As for Horgan and his contentions, I had dealt with them before, pertaining to an article appearing  last year under the banner 'Serious Doubt On Serious Earth' in the WSJ Review section (p. C12, Oct. 20-21).   It dealt with two books, one by the late Stephen Hawking ('Brief Answers to the Big Questions') and by Martin Rees ('On the Future').   What I showed in an October, 2018 post is that Horgan basically didn't know what he was writing about. 

Frank Wilczek, by contrast, mostly does know what he's writing about  Especially in ending:

"The plateau we've reached is a good place to be. In fact, physics is especially exciting these days, because we're learning how to use our understanding of 'ordinary matter' to make machine assistants...that will amplify our thoughts, do useful things."

Well said, but let's also bear in mind there will always be a major role in physics for theoretical research which may not deliver anything with "nuts and bolts"  - or  sensors- say to make lives more comfortable and convenient.   

To get an idea of the sheer expanse of pure research merely  in astrophysics, check out the papers in the link to  this Astrophysical Journal issue below:

• Number 2, 2018 February 1

Even if you are unable to grasp the content in the specific papers, it is instructive to peruse the span of topics just from this single issue .

Is Stephen Hawking Serious About the 'God Particle' Destroying the Universe?

One thing we can say about Stephen Hawking: He's never at a loss to come up with a new way to scare the bejeezus out of complacent humans. Just three years ago he warned of an invasion of advanced aliens that would likely imitate the arrival of the European conquistadors who decimated native peoples in the New World in the 15th-16th centuries. Only this time modern humans would occupy the place of those technologically unsophisticated groups and become fodder for the aliens. It got many people to start thinking that we may have to worry a bit more when we send powerful signals into space - either intentionally or unintentionally.


Most recently, Prof. Hawking has warned that the Higgs boson — or so-called God particle — has the potential to destroy the universe, as reported by the Sunday Times .  This seems even more terrifying than the alien threat because the latter was localized for our own species and corner of the cosmos- as opposed to snuffing the whole 'enchilada'. But when one reads between the lines one quickly realizes Hawking is stretching the bounds of practical scientific prowess and feasibility.

The putative basis of his warning is actually highlighted in more detail in the foreword to the book Starmus, 50 Years of Man in Space.   Therein, the theoretical physicist wrote that if accelerated to high energy levels, the Higgs boson could cause space and time to collapse — and we’d be caught unawares. From the preface:

“The Higgs potential has the worrisome feature that it might become megastable at energies above 100bn giga-electron-volts (GeV). This could mean that the universe could undergo catastrophic vacuum decay, with a bubble of the true vacuum expanding at the speed of light. This could happen at any time and we wouldn’t see it coming.”

However, Hawking is gracious (and sympathetic of human feelings) enough to go on to aver he does not believe that this event will happen in the near future. Gee, thanks a heap, Stevie! But I'd have guessed it anyway given the magnitude of the energy needed from an accelerator (100b GeV) to make that happen. (Let us also bear in mind that the energy scale driving vacuum inflation was last seen just after the Big Bang- whereby the initial cosmos expanded from the size of an atom (about 1 fm in diameter) to several times the radius of the solar system.)

Anyway, Hawking explains for our benefit:

 “A particle accelerator that reaches 100 billion  GeV would be larger than Earth and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.”

Hmmmmmm........"larger than the Earth"...... or more than 8,000 miles long! Yeppers, I believe that would take roughly all the money that's ever been spent on nuclear weapons and their delivery systems - or about 14 trillion dollars (at minimum). So, I don't believe there's anything to fret over, since the energy demands of our population are actually increasing as the reserves are diminishing. (Frackers want you to believe they have the exception but this is mere 'snake oil' to use the parlance of Richard Heinberg)

In point of fact, such energy mastery would be more typical of the Type I Civilization once proposed by Russian cosmologist I.S. Kardashev. By his definition such a civilization would be able to wield and develop energy scales equal to an entire planet's output. (By his reckoning Earth wasn't even at Type 0.1).

(The Higgs boson was theorized by Dr. Peter Higgs in 1964. In 2012, evidence of Higgs boson was discovered by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. )

All of this interjects the question of what Hawking's next scare is likely to be: a possible collision with a mini-black hole (or one created in the CERN machine?) Or, Earth being blasted by the intense radiation of a gamma burst supernova? I am sure Vegas books will soon be taking bets!

'God Particle' Theorists Get Nobel Prize in Physics - But Pieces of Higgs Puzzle May Still Be Missing

The announcement yesterday of the award of the Nobel Prize in Physics created quite a media storm. Half a century after he formulated the theory that would change the world, Peter Higgs,  84, of Edinborough University, shared the 8 million Swedish kronor (£775,000) prize with François Englert at the Free University of Brussels.

The pair received the prize for showing how fundamental particles get their masses. Before the theory, the answer to this basic question was unknown After all, they had postulated the existence of the "God Particle" - otherwise known as the Higgs boson. It can be thought as the "glue" which holds particles of mass together.


In the parlance of The Royal Swedish Academy, the prize was awarded  for "the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the Atlas and CMS experiments at Cern's Large Hadron Collider."

What is the background here? It basically began when the two theorists produced a series of papers in 1964 that described how an invisible field that lurks in the vacuum of space interacts with elementary particles and gives some of them mass.  Now, this was still before Arno Penzias and  Robert Wilson's detection of the 2.7 K isotropic radiation subsequently traced to the "Big Bang". And hence, before the cohering process that resulted in what's been called the Standard Model.

Elaborating a bit: this so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the above denotes a specific matrix, or more exactly a group. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/looking-at-groups.html

In the case of SU(2) we describe it as the "special unitary group" which has the form:

S =

(a.........-b*)
(b..........a*)

where a*, b* are complex conjugates and we have (aa* + b*b) = 1. Thus the elements of SU(2) are the unitary 2 x 2 matrices with DET (determinant) = 1. These groups thus define the behavior of a specific class of subatomic particles. Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.: SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks:

 SU(2) x U(1)

associated with the electro-weak force.

One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism, and it demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

Last year, theory evidently transmuted into reality when the discovery (thanks to the large hadron collider)  was announced at CERN. As I noted (in a July 4 blog post), Dr. Rolf Heuer, director general of CERN, while referring to the new discovery as "a historic milestone"  nevertheless cautioned that it was too soon to know for sure if the new particle (coming in at 125 billion electron volts) is actually the long sought particle. (Also, was it a unique Higgs, or just one of several?)

The problem? The culmination of analyses of over 800 trillion proton-proton collisions over the 2 years leading up to the announcement generated a quandary. When buttonholed,  the physicists admitted they  actually knew little. The CERN results were mostly based on measurements of two or three of the dozen different ways, or “channels,” by which a Higgs boson could be produced and then decay. Worse, there were hints that some of the channels were overproducing the Higgs while others might have been underproducing. In either case, false positives or false negatives, one had to look askance at the initial results.

The upshot? There may not have been a real Higgs discovered but a spurious 'mirage' imitating some of its properties but more a confection of the data than based in reality. Also, assuming a genuine signal or find, it may not have been unique but only ONE of two or three different Higgs bosons. Much like the case of the neutrino, which was once believed to be one entity only, but we now know is THREE: the electron neutrino, the tau neutrino and the muon neutrino, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/solving-neutrino-puzzleand-matter.html


By March 15 of this year the issue appeared settled, to the extent that at least that ONE Higgs had indeed been  found,  when CERN's brain trust stopped dithering and announced that the particle described in July 2012 was, in fact, a Higgs Boson. Spokesman Joe Incandela said in a statement issued March 15 :

“The preliminary results with the full 2012 data set are magnificent and to me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is,”

 To make this final determination, the dataset was analyzed to see if the quantum properties of the boson discovered in July matched the properties that are currently predicted by physics. After tests in two different detectors, it was confirmed that the particle possessed those properties

Ben Allanach, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge University, said:

"This is the recognition of a triumph for fundamental physics that will stay in the history books for millennia to come. I am thrilled about the prize, and Englert and Higgs both deserve it well. I cannot over-stress the importance of the discovery. The mass mechanism that the Higgs boson is a signal for has had a huge impact on particle physics over the last 50 years. I think many of us felt that it had to be correct, although we were willing to let data dissuade us."

Maybe. But it would still be nice to finally also settle the issue of whether the putative discovery is unique, or if other Higgs bosons may be lurking in the vacuum. To that end further experiments using an upgraded Large Hadron Collider may be called for. Unfortunately,  the LHC is  currently closed down for repairs. But the team is working on making it faster and more powerful. By then, the final questions may be settled at last and we can then know the extent to which the Standard Model needs to be revised.

Congressman MORON BROUN: "Science is from the Pit of Hell!"

"YEEEESSS, I'M THE ONE THAT INVENTED THE BIG BANG THEORY, EVOLUTION AND EMBRYOLOGY! FROM THE PIT OF HELL!"


 Yes, another Confederate congress-ass cum yahoo - this time from JOH-JUH. He is Rep. Paul Broun, a Republican (which I can believe) and a "medical doctor" (whose patients I am truly sorry for ...if that is so) who recently yapped at a Sept. 27 Sportsman's Banquet that "Evolution, The Big Bang Theory and Embryology are ALL lies from the Pit of Hell".

And to make it crystal clear, this bozo added:

""And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught from understanding that they need a savior"

Errr.....no. Evidently they like you need something more tangible: COMMON SENSE and intellect!

Incredibly, this jackass sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. No, seriously! And for that, we all ought to be concerned because the fool has essentially tabbed the basic core of modern science has having been gestated within a fantasy bogey land existing only in his febrile mind.

Let's take the Big Bang Theory first! It's been essentially confirmed with the discovery of the 2.7K isotropic microwave radiation (by Penzias and Wilson, in 1965) and for which they won a Physics Nobel Prize.  Is Broun therefore asserting the Nobel Prize Committee was put together in the "pit of Hell" to award a Nobel Prize for the Big Bang's consummate discovery? If so, he needs to resign forthwith from his committee.

The Big Bang is also supported by the recent detection of the Higgs boson. How or WHERE does the Higgs enter the picture? The so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:


SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the above represent different matrices

Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.: SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks, SU(2) x U(1) associated with the electro-weak force. One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. WIth the Higgs discovery, this temperature T_qb has been identified and with it the epoch and the mass -conferring mechanism post Big-Bang.

Then again, the observed cosmic expansion and the Hubble constant (H _o ) associated with it allows us to compute the age of the universe itself, from the putative beginning in the Big Bang. Currently, we have  H _o ~ 70 km/ sec/Mpc, where Mpc denotes ‘megaparsec’ – and each parsec has 3.26 light years.

The above is little use, however, without changing a lot of units and ensuring their consistency. The key initial step is to obtain the megaparsec equivalent for kilometers:

MPC(km) = (c) (86400)(365.25)(3.26)x 10^6

where c = 300,000 km/sec, the velocity of light

Then: MPC(km) = 3.08 x 10^19 km/Mpc

Now, what is usually colloquially called the "Hubble constant" is in reality the Hubble scale factor (a = 70 km/ sec/Mpc). The REAL Hubble constant (H_o) is the scale factor divided by MPC(km):

H_o = a/ MPC(km) = 2.26 x 10^-18 s^-1


then, t_o = 1/ H_o = 1/ {2.26 x 10^-18 /s} = 4.4 x 10^17 s

Which,when converted, is about 1.3 x 10^10 yrs. or 13 billion years in age.

Of course, we see here why Broun-Moron wouldn't accept the Big Bang since according to yesterday's AP story on him, he "believes the universe is about 9,000 years old as is the Earth and was made in 6 days."

Again, HOW the fuck can this fool be a member of any Science and Technology committee? Are we now into appointing blithering imbeciles? Well, given the fact that if the repukes take the Senate they intend to appoint Tom Coburn ("Global warming is a HOAX!") I guess we are.

Then there's Evolution which as a theory means it's really confirmed FACT!

For example, the theory of evolution as it applies to the elements of common descent, predicts humans and chimpanzees ought to have very nearly the same cytochrome-c protein sequence. This has been found to be the case. It also predicts that the two ape chromosomes designated 2p and 2q ought to be fused in the human to be one: designated '2'. The theory of evolution has also predicted the full evolutionary development of foraminfera and this is validated.

If Broun doesn't accept evolution, then he's flunked the most basic test for qualification to sit on a congressional Science and Technology committee.

What we need is for this turkey to have the full faith of his stupid convictions and resign immediately. If he believes science has been confected in the 'pit of Hell' he has no business sitting on ANY science -associated committee!

Let's Not Jump the Gun with the Higgs!

CERN physicists in a webcast tried to share their excitement with colleagues around the world, on their putative discovery of the Higgs. Well, can you blame them for being somewhat impatient? We're talking about a search lasting decades that's likely been one of the costliest in the history of science. We're talking of a location with its Large Hadron Collider, that was set up as THE place to dig out the Higgs boson - especially after the Superconducting Supercollider in the U.S. fell through due to lack of funding. One of the sorriest retrenchments in our history, followed by the retreat from space (and please don't get me going on the so-called "private sector" space exploits!)

Anyway, Dr. Rolf Heuer, director general of CERN, while referring to the new discovery as "a historic milestone" was nevertheless cautious in asserting that it's too soon to know for sure if the new particle (coming in at 125 billion electron volts) is actually the long sought particle. I totally agree and would suggest hypers, humpers and pumpers pipe down until further analyses are made. To be blunt, it's way too soon to be saying definitiely that THE Higgs has been found. (People may still recall how too many jumped the gun last year on the discovery of "superluminal neutrinos")

To fix ideas here, the subatomic particles are basically classified into two groups according to their "spin" - see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/07/more-quantum-mechanics-electron-spin.html

as either FERMIONS (example: the electron) or BOSONS. The Fermions are called so because they obey Fermi- Dirac statistics, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics

while the BOSONS (for example the photon, and Higgs boson) obey Bose-Einstein statistics: E.g.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_statistics

Thus, these "statistics" are critical in basically determining, or rather predicting, the extent of occupancy of the particular species of particle with reference to the energy state of the particle.

The existence of the Higgs itself is tied to the so-called "Standard Model", according to which the Higgs is the only visible (and accessible) manifestation of an invisible field called the "Higgs field".   The so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry: SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the factors defines a matrix. (Readers can review any of the past blogs on matrices, including unitary or posed as groups. See, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/05/looking-at-matrix-groups.html. )Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.:

SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks

SU(2) x U(1) associated with the electro-weak force

One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism. It demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

The problem? The culmination of analyses of over 800 trillion proton-proton collisions over the past 2 years have generated a quandary. When the physicists are buttonholed they admit they know little. The CERN results are mostly based on measurements of two or three of the dozen different ways, or “channels,” by which a Higgs boson could be produced and then decay. Worse, there are hints that some of the channels are overproducing the Higgs while others might be underproducing.

The upshot? There may not be ONE Higgs here, but two or three. Much like the case of the neutrino, which was once believed to be one entity only, but we now know is THREE: the electron neutrino, the tau neutrino and the muon neutrino, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/solving-neutrino-puzzleand-matter.html

All we can say now is stay tuned!

"The God Particle": How Big a Deal?

Well, the latest news (e.g. WSJ, today, 'Physicists Close in on a Universal Puzzle', p. A6) is that the particle colliders at CERN (using the LHC or 'large hadron collider;') are "closing in" on the fulsome-named "God particle" (actually the Higgs boson). This is based on claims that the last few weeks have seen "an excess of events around 125 GeV" - that is, giga-electron volts of energy where 1 eV = 1.6 x 10^-19 J so that 1 GeV = 10^9(1.6 x 10^-19 eV) = 1.6 x 10^-10 J.

But when all is said and done, how big a deal is finally detecting the Higgs, really? Well, we are told that the Higgs us the only particle that the Standard Model of cosmology (and indeed, physics) says should be there ..as in exist...because it "ties together all others" and describes (or would using the Standard Model basis) how all other particle interact.

Elaborating - this so-called 'Standard Model' is generally defined as the symmetry:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1)

where each of the above denotes a specific matrix, or more exactly a group. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/04/looking-at-groups.html

In the case of SU(2) we describe it as the "special unitary group" which has the form:

S =

(a.........-b*)
(b.........a*)

where a*, b* are complex conjugates and we have (aa* + b*b) = 1. Thus the elements of SU(2) are the unitary 2 x 2 matrices with DET (determinant) = 1. These groups thus define the behavior of a specific class of subatomic particles.

Spontaneous symmetry breaking would therefore resolve this combination into constituent parts, e.g.: SU(3) associated with the 'color force' of quarks, SU(2) x U(1) associated with the electro-weak force.

One possible symmetry breaking (quark -boson format) is:

SU(3) x SU(2) X U(1) -> SU(3) + SU(2) x U(1)

which would occur at a particular ambient temperature (T_qb) for the universe at some epoch (E_qb) in the past. In the foregoing, the synthesis of SU(2) and U(1) into the locally gauge invariant electro-weak theory requires a mechanism which confers mass to three vector bosons while leaving the photon massless. This 'mass-giving' mechanism is called the Higgs Field or Higgs mechanism, and it demands the existence of one or more massive, spin-0 bosons otherwise called Higgs bosons.

The problem is, of course, that the Higgs boson remains hypothetical until formally detected (and confirmed!). Because it is hypothetical only, the Standard Model cannot be said to be complete. Therein lies the hype and the hoopla. Obviously also, since no one knows a priori what the mass of the Higgs might be, it must be hunted indirectly with ginormous collision machines such as the LHC.

But to show how commentators and even physicists can be led astray, one need only read from the WSJ piece (in synch with the earlier noted "mechanism" to leave the photon massless, that if the Higgs was found it would:

"help explain why some objects in the universe - such as the quark- have mass,.....while other objects - such as photons, the constituent of light, have only energy."

But is this really true? Consider that from very early in the last century the phenomenon of "radiation pressure" was known to exist, and it had to arise as a result of some finite (albeit tiny) mass of the individual photons. The very first experiment to detect radiation pressure was performed by the Russian physicist P. Lebedev in 1901, but the real effect was smothered by the '"radiometer effect". (This is the one associated with toy radiometers which possess one side of their rotating vanes black, which absorbs incident radiation and thereby experiences a slight push from the adjacent air-gas.) Unless a vacuum is quite good, it can swamp the real radiation pressure effect. Moreover, such specious radiometers always revolve the wrong way from what a genuine radiation force would produce.

By 1923, Gerlach and Golsen ('Zeitschrift fur Physik', Vol. 15, pp. 1-7) produced the first "clean" measurement of radiation pressure using a vacuum better than 10^-6 torr (where 1 torr = 1mm of mercury at 0 Celsius, and standard atmospheric pressure is 760mm of Hg). Their experiment was basically a test of the relationship:

c = W(1 + rho)/ F

where c was the (already established speed of light, or c = 2.998 x 10^8 m/s, W is the incident power in hundredths of a watt, rho is the reflection coefficient for the material used for the vanes (e.g. rho = 0.60 for platinum, 0.43 for nickel, 0.81 for aluminum), and F is the measured force on the vanes in 10^-10 newtons.

Gerlach and Golsen in five trials obtained an average for c of 2.98 x 10^8 m/s and to produce this generated incident power ranging from 2.78 to 6.39 x 10^-2 watts, and a measured force from 1.74 x 10^10 N to 3.14 x 10^-10 N. These results directly led to the momentum relation for photons of E = pc, where p is the momentum. Hence, if the photon has momentum - and it must to produce the force for radiation pressure, then it must have mass.

How much? Fortunately, many more refinements of differing measurement methods have enabled us to at least put a good estimate on the photon mass.

In the reference 'Gravitation and Spacetime', 2nd ed., Ruffini and O'Hanian give the UPPER limit of the photon's mass as:

m_ph < 10^-59 g

This is based on possible deviations from Maxwell's equations. Readers can see other limits - derived from experimental and galactic magnetic data here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photonMass.html

The limit of (7 x 10^-17 eV) cited in one experiment (by Roderic Lakes in 1998) is actually about 7 orders of magnitude larger than the limit set by Ruffini and O'Hanian. However, it is much smaller than the 3 x 10^-27 eV limit..So it seems that the Ruffini & O'Hanian value is probably a reasonable limit from a number of perspectives.

Given this, we hope the CERN collision specialists appreciate the context here. And also, are able to address the question: what constraints are to be placed on the Higgs if the photon is not absolutely massless? The words of one physicist, Dr. Soldner-Rembold of the University of Manchester, echo loudly here (ibid.):

"It would perhaps be even more exciting if it (Higgs) isn't where it's supposed to be. Then we'd have to come up with something else."

DARK ENERGY – A NEW LAW OF PHYSICS? (II)

In the previous article I stated that the dark energy - vacuum equation of state:

w = (p / rho) = -1

is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'.

I now want to delve into more detail. Take the equation that defines cosmic expansion:

R’’/R = - 4pi/ 3 G rho (1 + 3 w)

And if we let w = (-1/3):

the whole right side becomes zero, and

-1/3 = p/rho or -rho = 3p

If we set: 0 = (rho + 3p) then:

p = - rho /3

and if: p < (- rho /3) we have gravity that repels

Looking back to the earlier equation for w, one finds:

p = - rho (e.g. pressure = - energy density)

and - rho < (- p /3)

Specifically the term (rho + 3 p) acts as a source of gravity in general relativity, (where rho = energy density).


In this case, a negative pressure dovetails with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts.

This being the case, we may assert that dark energy represents no "new law" of physics, but rather an extrapolation of an existing one. The core issue that still must be addressed is whether this relationship implies the need for a "cosmological constant" and if so, what magnitude it might be.

This brings us to the question: What’s to become of the cosmos if the acceleration is ongoing?

All this in tandem supports the prediction by many dark energy theorists that the cosmos will ultimately expand forever and yield to an ultimate heat death. All objects in the cosmos will be so far apart that no exchange of energy can occur and they will simply die out. Or, exhaust all heat sources and become cold, dead cinders. There simply isn't any agency to counter the accelerating force of dark energy to prevent it.

Will the discovery of the Higgs particle (boson) by the large hadron collider cause us to reassess this end? Not really! Not unless there is some corelative data that also show there is no basis to posit an accelerating expansion.

In the absence of that, the best tack to try to overturn the dark energy thesis is to try to find an alternative explanation for the two close peaks in the power spectrum - indicating that the plasma is subject to the dark energy equation of state. Thus, the current primacy of the dark energy thesis rests on a particular interpretation for those two power spectrum peaks based on using the Legendre functions.

If anyone has any evidence to the contrary, and can PROVE it (using the same power spectrum and the Legendre functions) points to a collapsing universe instead, then go for it.