Whats inside the Proton: The Invisibly Obvious

If we give the particles slightly more energy, the proton looks more like a . So the answer to "whats inside the proton" is "it depends on the way.
Table of contents

By the late s and early s, our understanding of protons and neutrons and what they are made of had largely stabilized, and has remained essentially unchanged since then. It is much more difficult to describe nucleons than it is to describe atoms or nuclei. Here things are not so easy. The complexity of the proton and of the neutron seems to be real, and not due to a lack of knowledge on the part of physicists.

We have equations that we use for describing quarks, anti-quarks and gluons, and the strong nuclear forces that they exert on one another. So we do have good reason to believe that the QCD equations are right, and that our knowledge of the proton and neutron is based on the right equations. As far as we can tell, that is the situation with nucleons: Because of the inherent complexity of nucleons, you, the reader, will have to make a choice at this point: No matter how far you go, you will probably not be entirely satisfied; for although the answers to your questions may well become more enlightening as you learn more, the ultimate answer remains that the proton and neutron are complicated.

So all I can offer you now is three layers of understanding, in increasing detail; you can choose to stop after any layer and move on to other subjects, or you can keep going to the last layer. Each layer begs questions that I can partially answer in the next layer, but the answers provided beg further questions. In the end — just as I do in professional conversations with my colleagues and advanced students — I can only appeal to data from real experiments, various powerful theoretical arguments, and the computer simulations I mentioned. An oversimplified vision of protons as made from two up quarks and a down quark, and neutrons as made from two down quarks and an up quark — and nothing else.

To try to make things easy, many books, articles and websites will tell you that protons are made from three quarks two up quarks and a down quark and draw a picture like the one shown in Figure 1. The neutron is the same, but with one up quark and two down quarks, as also shown in Figure 1.

This simple picture represents what some but not all scientists first believed protons and neutrons were, mainly in the s.

But this view was soon realized to be a significant oversimplification… to the point that it really is not correct. More sophisticated sources of information will tell you that protons are made from three quarks two up quarks and a down quark that are held together with gluons — and they might draw the picture something like that shown in Figure 2, with gluons drawn like springs or strings holding the quarks together.

Neutrons are again the same but with one up quark and two down quarks. This figure improves on Figure 1 by emphasizing the important role of the strong nuclear force in holding the quarks in the proton. Usually and confusingly the drawn springs are intended to schematically indicate that there are gluons in the proton.

This is not quite as bad a way to describe nucleons, because it emphasizes the important role of the strong nuclear force, whose associated particle is the gluon in the same way that the particle associated with the electromagnetic force is the photon, the particle from which light is made. So there are reasons to go further and describe things as I have elsewhere on this website: Again, neutrons are the same but with one up quark and two down quarks; the quark whose identity has been changed is marked with a violet arrow.

Not only are these quarks, anti-quarks and gluons whizzing around, but they are constantly colliding with each other and converting one to another, via processes such as particle-antiparticle annihilation in which a quark plus an anti-quark of the same type converts to two gluons, or vice versa and gluon absorption or emission in which a quark and gluon may collide and a quark and two gluons may emerge, or vice versa. A more realistic, though still imperfect, image of protons and neutrons as full of quarks, anti-quarks and gluons, moving around at high speed. The edge of a proton or neutron is not sharp.

Ignore the color-coding for now; it will become clearer in future articles. Figure 1 would have you believe that quarks are basically one third of a nucleon, somewhat the way a proton or a neutron represents one quarter of a helium nucleus or one twelfth of a carbon nucleus.

Were this picture right, the quarks in a nucleon would move around relatively slowly at speeds much slower than the speed of light with relatively weak forces between them though with some kind of powerful force keeping them from escaping. The mass of an up quark, and that of a down quark, would be about 0. These particles are colliding with one another; in these collisions, some of those particles are annihilated, while others are created in their place. The gluons are massless particles, while up quarks have masses about 0.

In a sense, Figure 2 tries to split the difference between Figure 1 and Figure 3. It simplifies Figure 3 by removing the many quark-antiquark pairs, which one might argue are ephemeral, as they constantly appear and disappear, and are not essential. But it tends to give the impression that the gluons found in a nucleon are directly part of the strong nuclear force that holds the proton together.

Figure 1 has another flaw, when we look beyond the narrow confines of the proton and neutron. It is not so good for explaining some of the properties of other hadrons , like the pion and the rho meson. Figure 2 shares some of these problems. These limitations of Figures 1 and 2 are the reason that I choose to convey, both to my students and here on this website, the image shown in Figure 3.

Still, it is worth noting that the extreme internal complexity implied by Figure 3 is to be expected for an object held together with a force as strong as the strong nuclear force. If you want to know why, you can read on in the second layer of detail… after we discuss the mass of the proton and neutron. This language is technically very useful in many contexts.

But it gives the false impression that if you somehow could look inside a proton, and you looked at a particular quark, you could quickly identify whether it was a sea quark or a valence quark.

Missing Neutrons May Lead a Secret Life as Dark Matter - Scientific American

Since the proton and neutron masses are so similar, and since the proton and neutron differ only by the replacement of an up quark with a down quark, it seems likely that their masses arise in the same way, from the same source, with the difference in their masses due to a some minor difference between up quarks and down quarks. But the three figures above suggest three very different views of where the proton mass comes from. And since the difference between the proton and neutron masses is just a fraction of a percent, the difference between the up and down quark mass should also be a fraction of a percent.

Figure 2 is a bit less clear. It is very different from what is suggested in Figure 1 and 2, and not so simple. What Figure 3 suggests is that the particles inside the proton are rushing around at high speed, and there are many massless gluons in the proton, so contribution B is bigger than contribution A. Typically, in most physical systems, B and C turn out to be of comparable size, though often C is actually negative!

So the proton mass-energy and similarly the neutron mass-energy is mostly coming from a combination of B and C , with A a small contributor. And therefore this is also true of the proton and neutron mass; they are arising not so much from the masses of the particles they contain but from the motion-energies of the particles they contain and from interaction-energy , associated with the gluon fields that exert the forces holding the proton together. And we know that Figure 3 is essentially right. If Figure 3 is right, the quark and anti-quark masses are rather small.

How small are they really? The up quark mass same as the mass of the anti-quark is at most 0. The up quark mass is hard to measure and its apparent value is shifted by subtle effects, so in fact it might be much smaller than 0. And the down quark mass is about 0. Notice also that in contrast to what Figure 1 would imply this means that the ratio of the down quark mass to the up quark mass is not close to one!

In fact the down quark mass is roughly double the mass of the up quark, or more. How remarkable is this! Almost all mass found in the ordinary matter around us is that of the nucleons within atoms. Some of you may be satisfied with these explanations. For those who have further questions, please be patient! A second and third layer of discussion, perhaps answering some of your questions, will be coming soon. It is my understanding that you may discuss later how the value of the spin for the proton and the neutron is formed. Being both fermions, it makes some sense that how the spin comes out of the details of the picture might be of some importance to the comprehension of the proton and the neutron.

It seems to make some sense that some of the properties of the proton and the neutron could be explained by these relative contibutions:. I have been searching the internet for the answer to what should be a simple question. In the proton proton chain that is in stars like the sun, how can two protons merge to form D, and other particles, when the mass of the two protons is less than a proton and neutron in the new nucleus? How does an up quark get replaced by a down quark to make a neutron? So in the end all the mass of cosmic matter is due to …. Moving of something… Holding of that thing…..

But the Higgs field does not interact with moving or holding , so where are we?? There are other ways to have energy: You may want to look again at https: Yes Professor, rupture in spacetime metric due to the change in Conctancy of the heavens. Part of the proton mass comes from rupture in spacetime metric 3D - exposing dark matter positive pressure — thus increase the negative pressure or dark energy at a point or mass.

So change in constancy of the heavens means, slight change in proton mass — thus change in electron mass the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass is sensitive to several important quantities in nature. In context with Higgs like field, electron mass is simple. The behaviour is like graviton?

It does not escape 3D spacetime metric like photons because of its relation with mass of matter and its relation with Goldstone bosons? There is mistakes due to my rush. Rupture in spacetime metric means, concentration of high energy- like it was in bigbang- converted linear momentum into angular momentum. My assumption is, positive pressure protrude of dark matter or mass and negative pressure are proportional.

But the protrude mass create curvature in spacetime metric, inversely proportional to negative pressure dark energy? How did the Universe come by its angular momentum? It seems the universe is full of angular momentum. If dark matter accounts for most of the mass of the universe, how it could encompass the visible parts our 3D galaxy? We observe the behaviour of matter, and infer the existence of space-time structure, but cannot actually observe it. Since substantive spacetime is scientifically unverifiable, at best it lies outside the realms of science.

At worst, it is in conflict with observations in quantum theory. Modern physicists usually avoid the issue by denying that it is possible to describe nature? It is invisible, transparent. There is certainly precedent for this, solar neutrinos bathe our planet, but are almost impossible to detect. As for theories, you will find far more than dark matter out there, though it is certainly the current favorite. MOND was a hot one a few years ago for example.

While some physicists claim we may never understand the universe And there is no good reason why we should after all. I like to think the community as a whole is quite open minded. Thank you Mr Kudzu, some relief in my brain. Apart from evoking the science-fiction fantasy of parallel universes, the new view of space offers possible solutions to several cosmic problems. In addition , till now fields are mere math.

Cloud Chambers See The Invisible!

I like that very much , this is the way it should be. For that matter, how is a spin-zero quarkonium meson distinguishable from a vacuum or a photon [here my ignorance shows, I guess…]. I should wait for the second and third layers. But let me ask questions anyway. Are number of parameters in these calculations fewer than number of predicted values? Also do they explain magnetic moments also?

What about other baryons? Allow me to repeat a previous un-answered question: Is there something similar about quarks of adjacent nucleons? Or do the two nucleons swap quarks around too? Yes, and then again, no. To answer the core of your question, gluons do not mediate the nuclear force, quark containing particles do.

But the answer is more complicated. On the other hand those in lower orbits are bound to one atom and need serious energy to jump from one atom to another. I hope that you cover in future articles what the actual shape of the Proton is. We always see it depicted as a sphere but I suspect the reality is more complex than that. I am also curious about the shape when a proton and a neutron bond in a nucleus of say Deuterium or Helium. This too is an interesting subject. Though in the case of protons that change is relatively sharp. In this case, as with atoms, a sphere is a basic approximation.

Textbooks show the nucleus without order, just a blob of particles stuck together, all touching. I also have one question: Why is such contribution negligible in this case? When compared to hydrogen instead of carbon the lead actually has a mass deficit over the numbers of nucleons times the mass of the hydrogen atom since it would amount to With iron 56 nucleons being the lowest energy of all.

If this were not so then nuclei would fall apart. But what about all the electromagnetic interactions? Surely as you ask, there should be e-p pairs, virtual photons and suchlike? The electromagnetic force is much much weaker than the strong force, and an atom is much, much much bigger than a nucleon. As such while electrons are indeed disturbing the electron and photon fields in ways that have significant effects in chemistry Such as the shielding of valence electrons. And of course electrons in an atom are lower energy than free electrons, there are all sorts of effects there.

An electron orbiting a proton has less mass than a free electron at rest and this is the case for ALL bound electrons, even those moving very fast in a heavy atom. Otherwise it would just escape. If you do a back of the envelope calculation not as easy as it sounds. Quark mass is also insignificant yet their interaction and kinetic energies are crucial.

You say there are no virtual photons in the atom, that is certainly wrong, all EM interactions between protons and electrons and electrons themselves are mediated by virtual photons. As for the e-p pairs they are also surely there, vacuum polarization is a well established fact. Maybe they are not as numerous as quark-antiquark pairs in the nucleon, but they have to be there. Ah, my reply contains an error. You are correct, atoms DO contain virtual photons at least.

I should have worded that better. What I wrote came off as a complete dismissal, when what I should have said was they were not very significant. But why, as you ask? Now, we can get an intuitive but wrong idea of the contribution of the electromagnetic force by considering its strength times less than the strong and the distance over which it is acting. However, given your apparent level of knowledge you can dismiss this argument, it is much too basic.

As it stands most EM interactions are mediated by photons which do not, in themselves, create more particles. An electron in a hydrogen atom disturbs the photon field a given amount and that is the end of it. Possibly the Professor can explain it more succinctly. Also, while chemical interactions are indeed rather weak compared to the energies involved in core electrons, these too pale next to nuclear energies.

Even in the heaviest atoms a single gamma ray photon can knock out 1s electrons at an energy scale below that needed to make even electron-positron pairs. This is an interesting subject. But something that is already in a very low energy state compared to any other possible states. Ordinary air contains a storm of rapidly moving atoms, yet any given patch has nowhere to expel the energy it contains.

The Known Particles — If The Higgs Field Were Zero

Hadrons are similar, the immense amount of energy they contain is in the most stable configuration, just because it is so chaotic does not mean it can dissipate, the laws of physics forbid it. So hadrons can only be created in very high energy situations. So every time the field gets excited by a collision, a new particles are born and added to nucleons, so the overall mass remains constant. A bit like water boiling in a pressure-cooker.

Am I right in concluding that there is a field of ZPE in there? If the gluon is massless, like the photon, why does it have speedwithin a hadron that is variable , rather that only c? This is just great for me! After that many years, I guess i have enough patience to wait for parts 2 and 3. Thank you so much for your lucid descriptions! Just as a Uranium nucleus is so massive because it contains a lot of nucleons.

I think you need to say something about this….. If we dispensed with quarks entirely and tried to show the interior as a fuzzy mash of fields or a plum pudding model it would ignore the fact that there are semi- discrete particles in hadrons that have very definite effects, viz deep elastic scatter.

Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter.

I think the current diagram, though not perfect, is a good compromise. Nevertheless, Axolotl is right that I have to address the issue — and I will try in the next layer or two. I understand from this and other writings of yours that in a proton-proton collision to produce a Higgs, one of the most common channels is the collision of two gluons.

If so, I have a bit of a tangle in my head. Please point out my error:. One error is in thinking that because mass-less particles always have the same velocity, they always have the same energy. Does that mean that gluons within an accelerated proton have in some sense a higher vibrational frequency than gluons in a stationary proton?

Yes, when viewed in the reference fame where the proton is moving towards you. Though you may be more familiar with the redshift instead. OK, this makes sense to me now. Do you have an article describing the cycle that the collisions inside the nucleons go through? I understand that the energy is conserved but am not seeing how the continual collisions does not eventually lead to a soup of the lowest energy particles.

The important thing to remember is that they already ARE a soup of the lowest energy particles, or at least there is nothing lower energy to which they could decay. You can excite a proton or neutron, in which case it will emit particles and return to its ground state. The air we breathe contains a massive amount of energy in rapidly moving particles, yet these cannot vent their energy anywhere or at least not much of it.

The case of nucleons is similar. Dimensional transmutation, I guess, itself a fascinating topic. Maybe that came as early as the ejection of protons from nuclei, which I thought Rutherford saw in the midst of WW1 when most of his students and lab staff were off fighting some prisoners in German POW camps.

Well, except for Moseley, who died at Gallipoli. Hard to see how nucleons radii would differ from that… But in general, in that era, the experimental picture was far better developed than the theoretical. I found this article fascinating and very clear. I am not an expert in this area, but I was wondering if perhaps one might argue that for low energy reactions e. While at high energies one gets much more participation from the sea quarks and gluons.

Perhaps, one could argue that there is some merit to the simple three quark picture at low energies, at least when thinking about how the proton or neutron interact or decay? I have a similar question as the one above. If sea quarks are as much or more important than valence quarks ,how can one calculate anything like weak decays, strong cross sections etc? I remember a recent Nobel prize was given for CKM matrix for quark mixing. If the sea quarks continually exchange with the valence quarks of the right kind then perhaps it would not make any difference.

We know you are going to address these questions in the forthcoming articles but we keep on bombarding you with questions anyway!!! I hope you excuse us. The physics is too complex for me but it seems to hold up. Naively, one might expect that the chaos inside the protons and neutrons may have different states, in the sense of different energy levels — but this seems not to be the case.

Looking forward to your next articles! In the first case, what we must keep in mind is that while there are many states a proton may be in, many arrangements of its constituents, they are all equal, there is no barrier between one state and another. This has several odd consequences, but classically you can think of the proton as a deck of cards. There are many, many ways to order a deck of cards, but it is still a deck of cards and there is very little difference energy-wise between the orderings.

However protons and neutrons DO have excited states which they can be converted into by giving them a great deal of energy.

We only say protons are identical when we ignore their specific internal structure at any time. Here each collision is different, quark-quark differs from quark-gluon and so on. This is in fact one of the best lines of evidence for protons having the structure outlined here. Thanks for a great article. Can you explain how a particle as apparently stable as proton can arise from the maelstrom of particles of which it is comprised? Is it that the strong nuclear force plays an analogous role to the force of gravity when it draws stars from the interstellar gas?

Is it reasonable to imagine a similar process acting in the early universe on the chaos of fundamental particles to form the order of things like protons? What we must keep in mind is that as chaotic the proton is, there is nothing for that chaos to do; protons are the lowest energy state for that maelstrom to be in. Other hadrons, indeed ALL other hadrons rapidly and violently decay in factions of a millisecond. Not really,t he strong force is an attraction, like gravity or surface tension. A glass of water on earth is stable, one in the vacuum of space will explode into vapor. I am drawn to a comment by Steve Walkey mainly because I do not understand some of the other comments.

Albert Einstein was a window cleaner…….. I have had an idea for some years. It is that ordinary people should get involved with soem of the more scientific developments. Suppose a group of people were to put forward ideas, and counsel some of the more mad professors in the world. Maybe they could ask some questions that had not been asked.

Maybe put forward some ideas on the end results of some of the more outlandish proposals by qualified scientists. We could do with more informed discussion on many ideas. China is introducing 25, engineers to the world this year. British people, and I am one of them, seem to think that binge drinking will solve everything. The biggest problem facing Theoretical Nuclear Physicists today is their own intellectual inertia. Instead of seeing what is obviously happening, they just take him literally and fail to question his interpretation of that famous equation.

In a nuclear event like an atomic explosion, massive amounts of Alpha, Beta and Gamma particles are released, all of which have mass and so the original mass is conserved. If the original mass is conserved then no matter was converted to energy, so all of the energy released, must have been present along with the original matter, just in a very condensed form. Once one understands this very simple concept, all subatomic structure becomes self-evident and the nonexistence of the Higgs Boson becomes obvious. Simply put, it means that energy or more specifically photons are compressible and all subatomic particles like protons, neutrons and electrons are very condensed composites of both matter and energy.

That means that there is a lot more energy present in the universe than modern science is aware of and explains why our universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. It is my contention that as you say, theory should be based on observations of fact make the theory fit the observations and that is the problem with modern Physics, that contemporary theory, often as not, is based solely on wild speculation, with no basis in fact.

I would point out that there is no evidence to suggest that gravity is a wave or far that matter, exhibits wave behavior. So I suggest that you rethink your speculation, if your purpose is to truly understand. Most interesting and thought provoking anyway. I would like to see more comments like this. Matter has mass from oscillating factors between dimensions, no permeating wave or its particle that interacts but a new form of harmonics that instruct at the plank scale by plank time intervals building up to infinite energy that turns into mass once it leaks from the bulk where it confines its energy in but hides its mass from.

A photon is only a massless particle when it is freely propagating. When the box is accelerated, then there is unequal photon pressure on the reflecting walls of the box. It can be shown that the conservation of both momentum and energy require that this force MUST exactly equal the inertia exhibited by a fundamental particle of equal energy. For example, an electron with energy of KeV must have the same inertia rest mass as confined photons with total energy of KeV. If a Higgs field is required to give inertia to an electron, then it must be explained why the Higgs field gives exactly the correct amount of inertia to matched the inertia of an equal energy confined photon.

This and similar problems are analyzed on the website: These insights ultimately lead to a model of the universe constructed out of only 4 dimensional spacetime. It is shown that fundamental particles constructed from 4 dimensional spacetime must have angular momentum and must exhibit intrinsic inertia without a Higgs field. Therefore, coming from a completely different perspective, there is agreement with this website Eliyahu Comay that there is no Higgs boson, no Higgs field and no fundamental particle with spin zero.

In the spacetime based model of the universe, the vacuum is a sea of vacuum fluctuations that are wave distortions of spacetime with displacement amplitude permitted by the uncertainty principle. While this may have some similarities to a Higgs field and perhaps fulfill some of the functions of the Higgs field, it is not the same as a Higgs field. In fact, it is shown that these vacuum fluctuations are the physical cause of the uncertainty principle but they do not impart inertia.

What's in a proton?

If Higgs boson is confirmed by LHC, the problem of mass and inertia of particles can be solved based on Higgs theory. Nevertheless according to H particle-paths hypothesis in site H-particles. According to that, the mass or inertia is the competition of reversible moving H particle-paths respect to single direction or non-reversible one. It seems I got it wrong when I suggested that physicists might do what they did with quarks, and declare the Higgs undetectable. Rather it appears that somebody at Cern has twigged that if they end the search by Christmas, then they will be out of work in the new year.

So they have now announced that they need another year to complete the search. Dear Ben answer to your post from October 19, , Your first argument is incorrect. Please have a look at the following expression enclosed in square brackets: Hence, the quantity enclosed in the square brackets is real. This outcome justifies the claim of http: Next, the Hamiltonian is a Hermitian operator and there is a theorem stating that all eigenvalues of a Hermitian operator are real.

The energy of a physical particle takes a positive value. Here we arrive at a contradiction: You cannot deny my claims about real functions by showing an example of a complex function! It denies the introduction of real functions as legitimate elements of this theory. In your second argument you use again! Dear Gravitas, Please note the following points which refer to your Comment on the contents of the link http: Item 6 of A explains why any quantum theory must have an expression for energy. The corresponding expression is called Hamiltonian. In a relativistic theory the Hamiltonian must be a 0-component of a 4-vector.

The De Broglie principle relates energy and momentum to the wave nature of a quantum mechanical particle. It is not a definition of the Hamiltonian but a relationship that the Hamiltonian satisfies. Evidently, I have the right to use 1 in my analysis. You should also note that your linguistic argument is not completely correct.

For example, the Dirac equation also takes the form 1 of A , although its different name indicates that it differs from the Schroedinger equation. It can be shown that any form of the Klein-Gordon equation leads to contradictions see sections of http: However, A is dedicated only to real functions. I appreciate you taking the time to rely so swiftly and I need to explain myself more verbosely! Let us remember the eigenfunction theory from mathematics textbooks. If H is a operator we have an eigenfunction b, with an eigenvalue v only if: If Hb is not proportional to b then there is no eigenvalue defined!

So there are two cases, the right handsde is not an eigenfunction so no eigenvalue exists for it and there is explicitly no problem OR one exists and we must look at it. For the equation you state the right hand side is indeed imaginary. For the RHS to be an eigefunction it must be linearly proportional to psi. So there is no issue. At this point we need to explicitly use beginning assumption the field is pure real, which is not generally the case imaginary parts are phases in QM but one can indeed follow it through, so let us do that! In general interesting scenarios have complex wavefunctions.

Here, when one differentaties with respect to time a imaginary factor comes down and one has an i come down. You seem to be claiming that you can do all QM without any complex fields which is not true. One more thing fella: Dirac particles as in fermions, you mean? The plots have nice resonances. Indeed, text books [] of A and not myself claim that real field can be a legitimate element of quantum physics. You should also know that nobody claims that all QM can be formulated by real functions only. Contrary to your statement, the arguments presented in A show that I disagree to the idea of including real functions in QM and that I provide appropriate proofs that substantiate my claims.

Therefore, your statement makes no sense at all. Higgs and quark masses are free parameters in the Standard Model. They are not predicted. This can of course be seen as a problem of the Standard Model, but it must not distract from the fact that our quantum field theories make incredibly precise predictions many significant digits! Mankind has never come up with such a precise description of nature before — which does not mean that we cannot do even better in the future, of course. That is a very balanced post, but something physicists tend to overlook, is that just because a model makes accurate predictions, it does not necessarily mean it is a correct description of nature, the classic case being Newtonian mechanics.

The Higgs mechanism does at least appear to be falsifiable, but I just suspect that it might get a last minute reprieve because somebody thinks of a reason why it should be undetectable. The problem with quarks is not that their masses cannot be calculated, rather it is that they are so vague that the theory is hard to falsify. If the hundreds of hadrons and mesons had their masses measured to six significant figures, it would do nothing to prove or disprove quark theory. A proper particle theory would be testable by this method, in the same way that the composition of atomic nuclei is verified by the masses of atoms.

Obama has shut down the Tevatron to spend the money on health care for illegals, doubtless some people would like to do the same to Cern. Cern does not want to risk getting branded a white elephant, so to pre-empt that they should be starting to acknowledge that the Higgs is now unlikely to be found, claiming to have efficiently overturned one aspect of 50 years of accepted theory, and trying to get the public excited about the next project. I think the next project should be to try to measure particle masses as accurately as possible, mostly because it would test my own model, but also because it would test any proper theory about the masses of particles.

It is absolutely impossible to prove that something, whatever the thing, does not exist because an absence of proof is not a proof of absence. The search for the absence of Higgs is hopeless. Morever eventhough a scalar particle is detected at LHC it will be impossible to conclude that the particle is actually a genuine Higgs particle. You are right, but this post is not only about whether the Higgs would be found or not. It is about the erroneous physical structure of the Higgs. I think that before investing in new experiments, physicists must sit for a while and recheck their equations.

Until today more than people had download the scientific article which Comay wrote about the Higgs. This article proves that the equations are not coherent. No one had responded so far. I wonder what we can conclude regarding this silence. Newtspeare There are good physicist and bad physicists. You seem to prefere reading the works of bad physicists. Actually I rarely read books, rather I look for experimental evidence to test my ideas. I think it is awful the way the geniuses behind things like DVDs and satellite TV end up earning less than the morons that appear on them; and I regret the fact that amongst the physics community the fantasists seem to be the ones who achieve fame and fortune.

My point below was just to expose the hypocrisy of people who attack religion, but then accept any old nonsense provided they are told to by somebody who is supposed to be a scientist. Of course there are good physicists, but apart from James Lovelock they seem to be virtually ignored by the media. If you are a good physicist, or you know one, you might like to check out my Squish Theory. The problem that must be solved is what must be done about the methodology behind the standard model when the Higgs boson does not exist.

There is enough discorvered in the LHC about other aspects of the SM in order to assign validity to these aspects. However, I did not yet hear of a repair of the SM methodology in case the Higgs is actually not there. I found it, it is simple. God, like the Higgs Boson, is hypothesised upon the evidence of the model. It works, — Higgs does not……………………………. God is omniscient so clearly he does know that the Higgs does not exist.

The big question is whether the theorists will ever accept the result of the experiment, or merely find excuses to carry on believing in the same mythical creatures in which they have believed for the last 50 years. You claim you believe what you imagine your invisible friend thinks, and on that basis you refute the most precise mathematical description of the universe that mankind ever came up with? Particles have mass because they are made of electric charges, for instance the mass of the proton is accounted for by the fact that it contains roughly charges; that is why I know that the Higgs does not exist.

Since God is supposed to be omniscient, he must know that too; however people who do not believe in God need not worry their pretty little heads about his omniscience. Since people are openly talking about the possibility of the Higgs being disproved by Xmas, it is a funny time to choose to defend it. Actually I think Cern ought to delay the announcement till after Xmas, because Xmas is a stressful time for atheists. Not only do they have to not believe in the virgin birth, many atheists do not believe in father Xmas either; on top of all that hearing the Higgs particle is a hoax might just push them over the edge.

People who claim to be physicists, claim to believe in nonsense like wormholes and time travel, because they claim these things can be deduced from the mathematics of general relativity. So what exactly is the difference between mythical and mathematical?

Data, data and more data then we may have answers. Lets do the science then talk about this subject later…. Stephen Hawkings has proven beyond any doubt that there needs to be No god. No Higgs bonon particle! Yet I have legs. At least i think i do. You are certainly right that the Higgs, like gluons, does not exist, and that the weak nuclear force is not caused by particles. Indeed it is not possible for particles to directly convey any force other than momentum. However to make proper sense of things, it is also necessary to dispense with the idea of quarks; as the universe must ultimately be reducible to simple units, rather than the dozens of fundamental particles and antiparticles suggested by the standard model.

Anybody smart enough to realise that the Higgs does not exist, might want to check out Squish Theory, where all particles are described in terms of collections of positive and negative charges. You will almost certainly conclude that the chance of Squish Theory being right is only one in a million, but that should at least help you understand why physicists continue to believe in the Higgs despite the overwhelming experimental evidence that it does not exist.

The highs bosson is a hypothesis based on the Bohr atom which is a negation of the fundamental laws of nature. Like all other hypothetical particles based on the Bohr atom Bighs particles do not exist and will never be found. A voice is said in the background about your article to Boson Higgs: Your footnote depicts why physics is following a wrong line of thinking for some time, aka zeitgeit, because the same problem which has existed in all human history: Actually not just pride.

And lack of creativity in Also aptitude of the theory to describe known phenomenons plays a part. Science is a collective body of knowledge. Therefore theories are only scientific if they are shared or sharable by a number of people. If everybody would just sit down and invent his own theory maybe 1 would come out as the most valid, but many thousands would be invalid in a multitude of graduations. I personally think the Higgs boson does not exist as a smallest particle adding mass to matter. But I will not be surprised if they find some particle in the place where they look for it.

I am a philosopher interested in science, not a physicist. So I only have an intuitive idea about it. I am glad to find a lot of people here who have a lot more expertise in the matter who have the same idea about it as me. Shows that I am not just some loony. While my butt is quite smelly, the baryons of entropy do not allow for the existencet o of the higgs boson. You must use chloroform on the patinet, and finger his p-branes.

Is,nt our universe so massive that it has to be the case that there must be millions of atom like universes? Of course if we give up asking questions we give up!.. Its just that even as a very young child in primary school i always leaned towards this having must be the case…I love to be fascinated in summary and hope we never learn everything!..

I am a common man, however when I imagine the edge of the known universe the very large I see the very small. As the universe expands I cannot see the entirety until it is there. How much more uncertainty could we all hope for? Peeling back the onion of knowledge will eventually bring us to the edge of the known universe. Thank you for making this available to the common man. While not for the reasons exposed here, many theorists believe that the Higgsboson might not exist, or that at most there might be a particle behaving like the Higgs but not being an elementary particle.

There is a fact. The Standard Model SM works at high precision in describing the phenomena we observed until now in particular the behavior of the W and Z bosons, verified to the sub-permill precision. Any theory that aims to replace the SM should be as precise and predictive as the SM. Said this, we know that a Higgs-less SM produces an anomaly called the violation of unitarity namely the probability of a phenomenon being greater than one, which violates the definition of probability in WW scattering.

So we know that something has to happen at high energy to prevent this violation. It can be the Higgs, it can be something else. We are looking for any possible explanation at the LHC, not just the Higgs boson. It is then unfair and wrong to state that millions of dollars have been spent to find the Higgs. The Higgs mechanism is the most widely accepted answer, but not the only one, and not necessarily the correct one.

Data, not conjectures, will tell us the truth. And data come with investment. Not spending the money will not be a way to say if you are right or wrong. And that, thanks to this, you are now able to have a web site. The Higgs boson Physics must rely on a self-consistent mathematical structure. I claim that the Higgs Lagrangian suffers contradictions. This claim is proved in the first 4 pages of this article http: See item 1 of the following http: In spite of an extensive search that lasted more than 2 decades, the existence of neither of these objects has been confirmed.

Other examples of QCD failures exist. Due to the enormous contribution of physics to modern technology, I think that physics deserves even higher amount of money for research promotion. The point is if this budget is used in an optimal way. Assume that somebody tells you that there is a problem with a connection of a cable of the CMS detectors. The same approach should take place in the case of theoretical problems.

Do you really think that theoretical physicists do a good job if they decide to bury their head in the sand? There is a group of educated mathematicians and physicists working in a group callefd String Theory Development, which I am mediator. We are all part of other research groups and historys.

Go from Quantum to Cosmic

We have alot in common and are rwriting the physics model. I see from your comments that you have tried to publish the correct methods for analyzing these complex issues. I just wanted to assure you your position is nearly correct. Our model of a tripolar quark had indeed fit the conceptualization like a hanfd in glove. As a group we are assisting Cern to find a way out of their mistakes, while other groups now know how to test the proton, because we have modeled the fields.

I have also modeled a quantum spacial calculator that models charges for the quark-antiquark pairs. All of this is on Facebook. Best Regards, Mark Aaron Simpson. You still use real numbers, complex functions and partial differential equations? Unfortunately, this is a dead-end way to represent the Universe. A quick two observations about this link http: Then state this shows the eigenvalues of H are imaginary. H is an operator not a number. Following this through we see a real eigenvalue. For the time independant case too tiresome to type out the full one but it ca be done: We have in our orbital wavefunction, the spherical Harmonic Ylm.

This is is not a issue as the wavefunction is not tanglible and can be complex. Your agrument here is not only to say QFT is wrong but all of Quantum atomic theory and the body of evidence for it to start how the semiconducting chips in our computers work is not small. It does not help to prove that the Higgs does not exist or is a false concept. A better approach is to prove that the Higgs is not required. That can be done by showing that there are other means to add mass to particles.

I stripped the Dirac equation from its obscuring matrices and spinors and wrote that equation by using naked quaternions that come in four different flavours. Fields must have the same flavor for each of its values. The coordinate system that acts as field parameter, also acts as reference system for the flavor. One field flavor exist that has the flavor of the coordinate system.

The next flavor represents the quaternionic conjugate. A switch to this flavor switches three imaginary base vectors. It flips the handeness of the field with respect to the reference flavor. The third flavor corresponds to a flip of two imaginary base vectors. The flip does not change the handedness. The fourth flavor switches only one imaginary base vector. The flip affects handednes. The four flavors correspond to four Dirac like equations and two extra cross equations.

They appear to be the equations of movement of a large scala of particles, whose properties can be explained with the quaternion field flavors. The equations also lead to secondary equations that enable to compute the masses if the particles from the private fields of the particles. Thank you for that! The voice of reason. I think the team at Cerne are doing the most amazing and ground-breaking work for the benefit of all humanity and should be given all that it takes to accomplish their work. We as a species have only been aware that these questions even exist for 50 years or so! Humans should support the great endeavours of our race with unity, but a big donut in the ground has little of the appeal of, say, a Saturn 5 on lift-off, so public opinion may not always be in favour of the costs involved.

Silly Public…Keep up the mind-blowing good work! Would all common people argument like you, our world might be a better one. In the times of Albert Einstein, dark matter and dark energy were unknown. There is still much to investigate, the non-appearance of the Higgs boson just being an alarm signal. La falta de seriedad y objetividad que se desprende,eso si,muy sutilmente del articulo, hace,a mi juicio,que deje mucho que desear.

Por tanto, yo como ciudadano al menos exijo de Uds. My experience with measurements at low dose rates, with intensified starlight scopes and with X-ray image intensifiers is that ALL information comes to us in the form of clouds of quanta. These quanta are generated by Poisson processes.

The efficiency can be weakened by subsequent binomial processes, but the combination can again be seen as a Poisson process. A lateral blur of the cloud can also be interpreted as a binomial process. Thus, the cloud can be characterized as being generated by a set of Poisson processes.

It has a Poissonian probability distribution. When it can be attributed to a single particle, it can be interpreted as its wave function. When all private fields are summed together, then a covering field results. Field theory tells that the static form of this field can be decomposed in a rotation free part and one or two divergence free parts. This results from Helmholtz theorem or if you want from Hodge theorem. The decomposition runs along curved lines. This curvature can be used to construct a derived field whose charges reflect the local curvature.

Call this field the curvature field. It has all aspects of the gravitation field. This reasoning would make Higgs bosons superfluous. Either I misunderstand your post, or you are actually unaware that the Higgs field and the gravitational field bear no relation whatsoever. If you have some way of describing gravitation, it does not tell you anything at all about the Higgs mechanism.

His W function is the exponential form of Shannon information, a good deal more real than q-bits, and still in use, but only for real molecules and materials. There is no point-potential busking for the nucleus and ghosting up a geometric zoo. Real stuff has pH, polarizes, as Slater knew so well, deforming in the range of mesons, where corrosional stress causes real cracking, also in real nuclear power stations, but sadly under reported Paramagnetic austenite steel is to blame here, demonstrating magnetic stresses inside molecules.

Solitons in the Yukawa potential are stable only in two dimensions, which is a better explanation for the cracks than reduction to fictional geometries — the old conceit of Platonism. The strand theory of Christoph Schiller supports the standard model. His project is at http: However, please note that this site is dedicated to a refutation of some aspects of the SM. The world of physics is quite large. Let other people carry out an analysis of other kinds of objects related to Higgs. It can be stated that the SM Higgs particle has some similarities with other kinds of Higgs objects.

The following points are of a great importance: There is also a major difference between the SM Higgs boson and other kinds of Higgs particles. Thus, unlike the other kinds of objects belonging to this family, the SM Higgs boson attracts the utmost attention. I believe that after refuting the existence of the SM Higgs boson one deserves the right to call it a day. I notice that you still do not settle the problems related to the quite large number of examples of QCD experimental failure which are mentioned in my Reply of January 28, Is it so difficult to refute the claims of QCD failures which are presented on this site?

First I must confess, that I did not bother to read through your entire article as I found error in the very premise of your argument. Also, a lot of the field theory involved is above my education as a physics major… but the issues I find immediately deal with elementary knowledge. Since when is this the definition of a boson? Bosons are classified by an integer multiple of spin 1. Also, only two of the four known bosons are massive and those are the most recently discovered bosons in the standard model.

So ignoring the field theory explanation of why the particle would be massless, I do not see any issue with believing why it would not be.

About the Structure of the Hadrons and the Strong Interaction

Indeed, the boson family have integer spin. The Higgs boson belongs to a sub-family, and it is supposed to have spin-0 not spin-1 and mass between to GeV. Look in the Higgs boson definition in wikipedia: The standard model claims that these are elementary, and provides equations which are not self consistent. The mass range only applies for one particular type of Higgs boson model the Standard Model Higgs boson. There is a multitude of other proposed theories or variants of theories that are not bound by these Standard Model fits. In my experiments these treatments will be sound, Noble Gases and states of consciousness.

A cat is placed in a box with a bottle of cyanide with a hammer suspended above it. A lid is placed on the box. The box is shaken. The cat is then either dead or alive due to the hammer dropping or not dropping and breaking the bottle of cyanide. Actually, according to the mathematics, the one of these two possibilities "pops" into existence the moment observation takes place. In the real world, the cat in the box is the next moment from now - with an infinite number of possibilities for the next moment.

All of these possibilities exist as a potential to be what the next moment will manifest, but none will take place until consciousness arrives on the scene of this next moment to observe. From a standpoint of quantum physics, the root level of reality is an infinite field of energy vibration. This field of energy exists as a possibility to be an infinite number of things, but nothing manifested as yet. This pure field of infinite possibility does not become manifest as anything until consciousness arrives on the scene to observe which possibility is going to "Pop" into existence.

When consciousness arrives on the scene, it mixes with this pure energy field and one of the infinite possibilities "pops" into existence. The question is "what determines which of these infinite possibilities is going to be the one which gets to "pop" into existence? When consciousness arrives on the scene to observe, it brings with it an expectation of what it thinks is going to happen.

This expectation gives that particular possibility a special significance over all the other possibilities in the infinite field of energy. The universe is an ecological system always looking for the path of least resistance to conserve energy. This expectation of a certain possibility by consciousness creates this path of least resistance for the possibility we are expecting to happen - this is why this particular possibility "pops" into existence instead of any of the others.

The next moment from now holds an infinite number of possible outcomes for my own life to flow into. As I arrive at this next moment, I have the possibility of controlling my expectation of what the next moment will bring as an experience; therefore I have the possibility of controlling which reality will "pop" into existence for me from moment to moment.

Quantum physicists have confirmed in the laboratory that in classical experiments the act of observing the experiment changes the results of the experiment. It seems to me that reality is actually based on magic: Like a multi-dimensional dream which God is having right now. In the past centuries people didn't give a second thought to the existence of higher forces, angel visitations, burning bushes talking, elemental spirits, etc. Then, as our species "grew up" we ceased to believe in such things and adopted a "rational" view of the universe and invented machines and devices to more accurately measure and view the nature of the material world.

It was then that science became the new church and scientists became the new priesthood. But now these scientists have discovered that the act of observation participates in creating reality moment by moment. So if scientists are expecting the world to be made of ever smaller particles which they can then put more names on, the act of expecting the world to be made this way is the expectation of consciousness which "pops" this reality into existence at the quantum level.