Supersymmetry is not confirmed by any experiment, not even by the LHC. What does a theoretician say? Urs Schreiber answers: The 1922 Stern-Gerlach experiment, which established spin 1/2, is a proof that world-line supersymmetry exists.
The reasoning is so blatantly false that I must ask: how can a smart man like Urs Schreiber write something so false? We all wish you that you recover soon. Find a caring person that helps you!
29 July 2011
27 July 2011
No endless frontier
After the numerous results presented a few days ago, it is obvious that no deviation from the standard model has been found. Despite of thousands of experimental physicists looking for the opposite, with the promise of fame and riches.
Particle physicists are stunned. Nothing new or unexpected has been found. How can this be?
The answer has been given in this blog for some time now. Particle physicists believed, without reason, that the domain of high energy is an "endless frontier", which allows new discoveries whenever an order of magnitude in energy is gained. But this belief is wrong.
The belief in an endless frontier is wrong for two reasons. First of all, it contradicts the idea that nature is comprehensible. If nature is comprehensible, there also is a moment in time where we understand it all. And this moment seems quite near. But secondly, the belief in an endless frontier contradicts quantum theory. Quantum theory tells us that there is a finite amount of energy in any finite volume of space, that there are a finite number of degrees of freedom in a finite volume of space.
Quantum theory states that nature is finite in its microscopic domain. Quantum theory tells us that there is NO endless frontier in the microscopic domain. In other words, quantum theory tells us since 100 years that there is NO endless frontier in high energy physics.
The LHC experiments simply confirmed this result. And they confirmed the strand model yet again.
Particle physicists are stunned. Nothing new or unexpected has been found. How can this be?
The answer has been given in this blog for some time now. Particle physicists believed, without reason, that the domain of high energy is an "endless frontier", which allows new discoveries whenever an order of magnitude in energy is gained. But this belief is wrong.
The belief in an endless frontier is wrong for two reasons. First of all, it contradicts the idea that nature is comprehensible. If nature is comprehensible, there also is a moment in time where we understand it all. And this moment seems quite near. But secondly, the belief in an endless frontier contradicts quantum theory. Quantum theory tells us that there is a finite amount of energy in any finite volume of space, that there are a finite number of degrees of freedom in a finite volume of space.
Quantum theory states that nature is finite in its microscopic domain. Quantum theory tells us that there is NO endless frontier in the microscopic domain. In other words, quantum theory tells us since 100 years that there is NO endless frontier in high energy physics.
The LHC experiments simply confirmed this result. And they confirmed the strand model yet again.
24 July 2011
One man, one thousand men, ten thousand men
The LHC results are out. This is the summary.
Christoph Schiller, working alone, settled more questions in theoretical particle physics than the one thousand theoreticians scattered around the world. And the experiments at CERN, performed by 10 000 men or so, agree with Schiller's predictions. And all these men were telling us for decades that the Higgs, supersymmetry, dark matter and the next unexpected discovery are "just around the corner". All are now forced to recant.
One man with some good ideas sees further than ten thousand with a large budget and an even larger lobby.
Christoph Schiller, working alone, settled more questions in theoretical particle physics than the one thousand theoreticians scattered around the world. And the experiments at CERN, performed by 10 000 men or so, agree with Schiller's predictions. And all these men were telling us for decades that the Higgs, supersymmetry, dark matter and the next unexpected discovery are "just around the corner". All are now forced to recant.
One man with some good ideas sees further than ten thousand with a large budget and an even larger lobby.
21 July 2011
Monopolium at the LHC
This preprint talks about "monopolium detection at the LHC". It is written by four resarchers from Spain and Argentina.
Were they sober? There is no final confirmation yet.
Were they sober? There is no final confirmation yet.
19 July 2011
Entropic gravity and its critics
The paper by Kobakhidze, http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.5414, discusses an apparent contradiction between entropic gravity and neutron bounce experiments. It contains the wonderful statement (towards the end):
"Thus, if E. Verlinde’s idea is correct, the neutrons would have to travel through the slit without substantial losses even if λ < h <<< z1."
The author arrives at this conclusion using the obvious method: he did not understand entropic gravity, assumes that entropic gravity is something different from what the proponents say it is, and then shows that his assumed wrong idea is indeed wrong.
The fun thing is that he managed to publish this complete nonsense in Physical Review D. In the comment section of an earlier post, somebody wants me to stop calling it nonsense because it is "in PRD", and "peer-reviewed". In the next email, he will probably ask me to believe that the world was made in 7 days, because this nonsense is written in a "famous" (and also peer-reviewed) book.
Some people still live in the middle ages, when authority counted more than facts.
"Thus, if E. Verlinde’s idea is correct, the neutrons would have to travel through the slit without substantial losses even if λ < h <<< z1."
The author arrives at this conclusion using the obvious method: he did not understand entropic gravity, assumes that entropic gravity is something different from what the proponents say it is, and then shows that his assumed wrong idea is indeed wrong.
The fun thing is that he managed to publish this complete nonsense in Physical Review D. In the comment section of an earlier post, somebody wants me to stop calling it nonsense because it is "in PRD", and "peer-reviewed". In the next email, he will probably ask me to believe that the world was made in 7 days, because this nonsense is written in a "famous" (and also peer-reviewed) book.
Some people still live in the middle ages, when authority counted more than facts.
18 July 2011
No Gluinos - still no supersymmetry
This summer is fun. The extremely conservative predictions of the strand model are being confirmed: no susy, no Higgs, no new particles, no microscopic black holes, no new interactions - nothing new at all. Almost every day, a new confirmation comes up.
Today, it is the lack of gluinos in the search by CMS. The standard model seems indeed complete, just as the strand model predicts. Go on, strands!
Today, it is the lack of gluinos in the search by CMS. The standard model seems indeed complete, just as the strand model predicts. Go on, strands!
11 July 2011
Higgs excluded even further
As expected, the LHC is starting to exclude more and more values for the Higgs mass. As this post shows, energies between 270 and 420 GeV are excluded with 200 inverse picobarn of LHC data. The full 1000 pb delivered so far have not yet been analyzed. Wait and see - the results will be out soon.
The first results only use 200 inverse picobarn, instead of the available 900. So they are holding back results.
Yes, they would be losing face, because they have said steadfastly that some sort of new physics MUST show up around 1 TeV - fact is that it doesn't show up. It is very clear that (essentially) everybody in the field was wrong. And all the wrong people got the money for the LHC on a wrong prediction.
The first results only use 200 inverse picobarn, instead of the available 900. So they are holding back results.
Yes, they would be losing face, because they have said steadfastly that some sort of new physics MUST show up around 1 TeV - fact is that it doesn't show up. It is very clear that (essentially) everybody in the field was wrong. And all the wrong people got the money for the LHC on a wrong prediction.
29 June 2011
Strings 2011: Maldacena lost his marbles as well
Maldacena's strings 2011 talk is about the "wavefunction of the universe". You have to be drunk to use the term, but you need to lose your marbles to give a complete talk about it.
Seiberg's talk is as wrong and narcissistic as all the talks he gave since the 1990s. He lost his marbles already back then. His missionary zeal, combined with the nonsense he talks about, is distressing.
Witten's talk on maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories is not about physics at all, but about knots. Witten shows again that he left physics for mathematics.
David Gross still thinks he is a great physicist; it seems that nobody told him that repeating nonsense is not the way to become one. His opening address is really bad and self-centered. He still hopes that supersymmetry will be discovered at the LHC. We will see.
It really seems that the main figures of string theory have lost their marbles even more than the less well known ones.
Seiberg's talk is as wrong and narcissistic as all the talks he gave since the 1990s. He lost his marbles already back then. His missionary zeal, combined with the nonsense he talks about, is distressing.
Witten's talk on maximally supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories is not about physics at all, but about knots. Witten shows again that he left physics for mathematics.
David Gross still thinks he is a great physicist; it seems that nobody told him that repeating nonsense is not the way to become one. His opening address is really bad and self-centered. He still hopes that supersymmetry will be discovered at the LHC. We will see.
It really seems that the main figures of string theory have lost their marbles even more than the less well known ones.
28 June 2011
Eliminating the Higgs - with the Tunnel of Babylon
According to this talk by CERN's Fabio Zwirner, 1 inverse femtobarn is sufficient to eliminate a Higgs above 120 GeV. Now, the LHC has achieved that value a few days ago. So I am looking forward to the corresponding data analysis!
Above all, I am looking forward to see the faces of CERN managers when they will admit that there is no Higgs boson. And to the Homeric laughter that will follow across the world.
The LHC will then be renamed "Tunnel of Babylon". (The expression is my copyright...)
Or are they holding back the result already, to avoid loosing face?
Above all, I am looking forward to see the faces of CERN managers when they will admit that there is no Higgs boson. And to the Homeric laughter that will follow across the world.
The LHC will then be renamed "Tunnel of Babylon". (The expression is my copyright...)
Or are they holding back the result already, to avoid loosing face?
27 June 2011
Strands, data and gender
Have a look at the comments on the strand model at this blog. A few people say about the strand model that it is "sketchy", "outrageous", and "speculative". This is the modern world: feelings and opinions instead of facts.
When I point out that there are hard predictions of Schiller's strand model that match the data, the answer is that these predictions are "not new." Wow; it is suggested that a model has to make new predictions to be taken seriously. But nature does not work that way; nature is as she is.
Ervin points out that there are other ideas to keep the standard model of particle physics correct to high energy. I'll look into his paper as soon as I get hold of it.
Kea directly asks whether I "know any physics". The old truth remains: no man is ever as nasty to a woman as another woman. The fun is that Kea claims that the prediction of three particle generations goes back to Ehrenfest. This is as correct as claiming that it goes back to the dinosaurs.
When I point out that there are hard predictions of Schiller's strand model that match the data, the answer is that these predictions are "not new." Wow; it is suggested that a model has to make new predictions to be taken seriously. But nature does not work that way; nature is as she is.
Ervin points out that there are other ideas to keep the standard model of particle physics correct to high energy. I'll look into his paper as soon as I get hold of it.
Kea directly asks whether I "know any physics". The old truth remains: no man is ever as nasty to a woman as another woman. The fun is that Kea claims that the prediction of three particle generations goes back to Ehrenfest. This is as correct as claiming that it goes back to the dinosaurs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)