Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

· Home
· Forum
· Special Sections
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 127 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here


Hot Links

American Antigravity

Closeminded Science


ECW E-Cat World


Integrity Research Institute

New Energy Movement

New Energy Times



Science Hobbyist

T. Bearden Mirror Site


Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

Posted on Thursday, July 12, 2012 @ 21:47:59 GMT by vlad

Science WGUGLINSKI writes: In the beginning of July-2012 the community of physicists with great triumph has announced the detection of the boson of Higgs.

But is it indeed a great triumph ?

Let’s analyse it.

1- The community of physicists purposely forgot the failure regarding the Supersymmetry. However the great triumph of the current Modern Physics would be the confirmation of the existence of the boson of Higgs and the existence of supersymmetric particles predicted in Susy.

2- In the beginning of the 20th Century the physicist Yukawa proposed the existence of the meson, which would mediate the interaction between two protons. That was the Yukawa model of the neutron.

Today we know that Yukawa theory is wrong. Today we know that the meson does NOT mediate the interaction between two protons.

But in spite of Yukawa model of neutron is wrong, and in spite of the meson does not mediate the interaction between two protons, the meson exists, and it was detected by experiments.

So, due to a coincidence, Yukawa predicted by a wrong way the existence of a particle.

Can we extract a lesson from such a “coincidence”, so that to apply it to the discovery of the boson of Higgs?

I think the answer is yes.

First of all because, in spite of theYukawa theory was wrong, his idea of interaction (according to which a particle mediates the interaction between two other particles) was kept in the Theoretical Physics. Therefore, in spite of his idea of a meson mediating the interaction between two protons was wrong, such idea was kept in Physics.

3- The boson of Higgs is not detected directly. Its supposed existence is “suggested” via detection of two bosons W. As the theory predicts that the Higgs boson decays in two W bosons, then the detection of the bosons W is considered the confirmation of the Higgs boson.
Then let’s analyse the situation:

3.1 – According to the current Particle Physics, the boson W mediates the neutron decay, via weak force. The emission or absorption of a W boson can change the type of the particle – for example changing a strange quark into an up quark.

3.2 – But the Don Borghi experiment has shown that the neutron is formed by proton+electron. Therefore, probably the boson W actually does NOT mediate the neutron decay..

3.3- Actually probably the boson W is simply created and emitted (via weak interaction between the proton and the electron) in the instant when the electron leaves its interaction with the proton, in the neutron decay. And because the boson W is created via the weak interaction, this is the reason why it was possible to calculate and predict with good accuracy the mass of the boson W, by taking in consideration the rules of interaction according to the Standard Model.

3.4 – Therefore the production of the boson W in the LHC does NOT imply the existence of the Higgs boson.
Such conclusion that the boson W does not imply the existence of the Higgs boson actually we infer from the Don Borghi experiment. And so it’s easy to understand why the community of physicists NEVER tried to confirm his experiment.

3.5 – The experiments in the LHC detected the supposed existence of the Higgs boson not via the production of the boson W. Instead of, they found a “supposed” boson of Higgs with mass 125 GeV via its decay in other particles, as gamma rays or leptons.

3.6 – The LHC is working at present days with half of its capacity. And suppose that in 2014 it will be working with its full capacity, and Higgs bosons will be supposedly detected with mass different of 125 GeV. Then what will be the actual mass of the Higgs boson?

3.7 – Obviously the Higgs boson cannot have two different masses. And suppose they detect another boson, with mass 170 GeV. Then we have to ponder the following: “Well, as there is another boson with mass 170 GeV, this means that perhaps those two bosons with masses 125 GeV and 170 GeV (not predicted in the Standard Model), ARE NOT the Higgs boson, and they do NOT mediate the interactions responsible for the mass of particles“.

3.8 – Here we have to remember the lesson left to us by the Yukawa theory. When the meson was detected by the experiments in 1947, the community of physicists had celebrated that discovery as the confirmation that the meson mediates the interaction between protons. Today we know that Yukawa’s theory was wrong, and the discovery of the meson was a “coincidence”.

Other point to be considered is the fact that the community of physicists are obsessed with the discovery of the Higgs boson, and they neglect to consider other experiments that point out us that the current theories of Modern Physics are wrong.

One among several other examples of experiments which defy the prevailing theories is the experiment made by John Arrington, published in March-2012. His experiment showed that the structure of the nucleus of beryllium does not fit to the prevailing principles of current Nuclear Physics, according to which the aggregation of protons and neutrons within the nuclei is due to the strong force, which actuates in the maximum distance of about 2fm. But in the structure of beryllium detected by Arrington there is a distance of 7fm between the central 2He4 and the two nucleons of deuterium 1H2 (the two nucleons 1H2 and the central 2He4 are distributed along a rectilinear line, see the link bellow)

In another words: it’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain that structure of beryllium by considering the principles of the current Nuclear Physics, because:

1- The strong force cannot keep the 1H2 within the beryllium nucleus. Therefore the strong force cannot be responsible for the agglutination of the nuclei, as considered in current Nuclear Physics.

2- Suppose that the nuclear theorists succeed to develop a theory according to which it’s possible to explain that structure detected by Arrington’s experiment, by taking in consideration the strong force (this is just what John Arrington is trying to do).

3- However, the experiments that measure the nuclear properties of nuclei have detected that beryllium has a null electric quadrupole moment Q(b). But Q(b)=0 requires a spherical distribution of charges, according to current Nuclear Physics. Nevertheless, that structure shown in the link above has NOT a spherical distribution of charges (unlike, the charges are distributed along a rectilinear line).
Therefore it’s IMPOSSIBLE to explain why beryllium has Q(b)=0 , detected in experiments, while from current Nuclear Physics that rectilinear distribution of charges in the beryllium requires Q(b) different from zero.

4- Conclusion: even if the nuclear theorists succeed to explain how the nucleons 1H2 and 2He4 have a distance of 7fm by considering the strong force interaction, however it’s IMPOSSIBLE, from the nuclear models of the theory to explain why beryllium has null Q(b).
Therefore it is not possible to explain the beryllium structure, detected in Arrington’s experiment, from the principles of current Nuclear Physics.

As we realize, something very serious is happening with current theories of Physics. But the community of physicists, instead of starting to take seriously the so many experiments which are defying the current theories, they simply reject to consider those experiments, and they keep themselves in their obsessive attempt to prove the existence of the Higgs Boson.

And what is the future of Physics, face to such situation?

Well, probably we will have a rupture in Physics, as follows:
1- The current community of physicists will continue in their obsession with the Higgs boson, believing that the Standard Model is entirely correct, and they will continue neglecting the new experiments which require a New Physics.
2- But a new generation of physicists will realize that they cannot continue in this way neglecting the new experiments, and they will form a new community, so that to find a new theory able to be fit to the new experimental discoveries.

Unfortunatelly, such process of rupture in the Physics may cause a delay in the advancement of Theoretical Physics. The obsession with the Higgs boson can stop the advancement of Physics along decades, so that the beginning of the development of the New Physics may have to wait for a long time



Security Code: Security Code
Type Security Code

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.

Related Links
· More about Science
· News by vlad

Most read story about Science:
100 miles on 4 ounces of water?

Article Rating
Average Score: 5
Votes: 2

Please take a second and vote for this article:

Very Good


 Printer Friendly Printer Friendly

"THE BOSON OF HIGGS AND THE RUPTURE OF THE PHYSICS" | Login/Create an Account | 2 comments | Search Discussion
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

A possible source of energy for the overuni (Score: 1)
by vlad on Thursday, July 19, 2012 @ 21:20:14 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com
WGUGLINSKI writes: Scientist Finds Hidden Portals in Earth’s Magnetic Field


See figure 8 in my article on the Figueiredo Motor, published in Peswiki some years ago:

Article: How magnet motors work

by Koen on Sunday, July 22, 2012 @ 00:09:33 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://no.nl/tesla
The same is true (experiments are ignored that contradict the standard theory) for the Lorentz force. The Lorentz force does not even satisfy Newton's third principle of action- and colinear reaction forces,  in case two electric wires that carry a constant electric current are not exactly parallel to each other.
This old problem related to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory was known to Pointcaré, Weber, Von Helmholtz, Walter Ritz and many others,  but the problem has been ignored for more than a century, and at least 3 lame excuses have been found that do not solve this problem:
a) electric currents always run in closed circuits (NOT TRUE)
b) electric wires with constant current also exchange photons that balance the force such that Newton's third principle is satsified (NOT TRUE)
c) relativistic formulation of the Lorentz force  satisfies Newton's third principle (NOT TRUE and DISPROVEN BY WALTER RITZ)

Because of Newton's third law of forces,  scientists like Ampere and many others have been looking for longitudinal Ampere forces,  and more recently scientists are more open to Tesla's longitudinal electric wave. By defining an extra classical scalar field (remember, the "Higgs" field is also a scalar field), the phenomenon of longitudinal Ampere forces acting on electric currents and longitudinal electric waves in vacuum can be described as a scalar field force and as longitudinal electro-scalar waves.

It does NOT surprise me at all that so much is wrong with the official nuclear physics theories, thanks Guglinski, for making this clear.  And also SR and GR  are wrong, since the speed of light DOES vary slightly in vacuum, depending on the presence of gravity. We know that light trajectory is bend by gravitational fields, but we ignore the clear evidence that the speed of light is also influenced by graviational fields (see Dayton Miller's experiments for instance). This was also the end-conclusion of Michelson (variable light speed), who carried out light speed measurements with Morley and later on did better experiments independently from Morley. The so-called "null result" is the consequence of using measurement equipment with a resolution that is too low.

The offical standard theory of physics has become a farce.


All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.