impunv.wordpress.com

Also see

impunv.wordpress.com

There are no Higgs

There has been much interest in gauge transformations and in trying to extend them to areas in which they do not apply. These are the form that Poincaré transformations take for massless objects, and are possible only for these. This has been discussed in depth in Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group: electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry: R. Mirman, although it can be explained in one obvious paragraph as given in Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely: R. Mirman. For complete information see impunv.blogspot.com. The belief in Higgs bosons comes from the belief that all objects are invariant under gauge transformations, which strongly disagrees with experiment. Instead of giving that belief up it is kept, because physicists are emotionally attached to it, and a new field, that of Higgs bosons, is introduced to give objects mass. However gauge transformations are the form Poincaré transformations take for massless objects and are possible only for these. See Massless Representations of the Poincaré Group: electromagnetism, gravitation, quantum mechanics, geometry, although it can be explained in one obvious paragraph as given in Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely: R. Mirman. For complete information see impunv.blogspot.com. They cannot be applied to massive objects and it makes no sense to so apply them. That would be like saying that since orbital angular momentum has integer values all angular momentum has. Since this is not true a new field is introduced to produce half-integer values. That would make no sense and neither do Higgs bosons. There are no Higgs bosons.

Nobody noticed? Highly unlikely! --- the irrationale for string theory

String theory is designed to solve the problems caused by point particles. However there is nothing in any formalism that even hints at particles, let alone point particles. Where did this idea of particles come from? Could it really be that thousands of physicists are wasting their careers to solve the problems caused by particles with not a single one even noticing that there are none? What objects are is discussed in Our Almost Impossible Universe: Why the laws of nature make the existence of humans extraordinarily unlikely, R. Mirman. This also has a rigorous proof, verified by others, that physics is possible only in dimension 3+1 so string theory must be wrong. Don't the dots on the screen in, say, the double slit experiment show that objects are points? Of course not, they are consequences of conservation of energy. See the OAIU book and also Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory: geometry, language, logic, R. Mirman. There are infinities in intermediate steps of a particular approximation scheme, but they are all gone by the end. If a different scheme was used the idea of infinities would never have arisen. The laws of physics are not determined by physicists' favorite approximation method. Further information is at impunv.blogspot.com. Thus string theory is a mathematically impossible theory, in violent disagreement with experiment, carefully designed to solve the terrible nonexistent problems caused by nonexistent particles. Perhaps that is why physicists are so enthusiastic about it.

Nonlocal; QM or classical physics?

While it is the general belief from the EPRB experiment that quantum mechanics gives that spatially separated objects exhibit correlations, it is wrong. It violates an uncertainty principle (number-phase). Quantum mechanics is a statistical theory. It cannot be applied to a single event, thus the argument is not relevant to quantum mechanics. What that argument shows is that classical physics is nonlocal. Consider a spherical shell which explodes into two objects spinning in (of course) opposite directions. When the spin direction of one is measured that of the other is forced into the opposite direction, even though it is now in a different galaxy. Hence those who say that the argument shows quantum mechanics is nonlocal are actually saying that classical physics is nonlocal. See the QM,QFT book for detailed discussions.