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)
http://www.inovacaotecnologica.com.br/noticias/noticia.php?artigo=nova-imagem-nucleo-atomo&id=010115120324

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