Welcome To Planetary Coaching Academy

More on The God Particle


Natural News recently reported on the discovery of the Higgs particle — the “God” particle – saying that it will go down in the history of science as one of the greatest discoveries ever made. But just what was discovered, exactly?
Was it a discovery of a “particle” that grants mass to other elements of matter? Was it the discovery that thousands of scientists focusing on large data sets of apparently random events can successfully skew the results of the data into a “5-sigma” level of apparent statistical significance?
Was this Higgs discovery actually the greatest intention experiment ever conducted? This had definitely been proven not to be just a casual question. This issue reaches into the very nature of science itself– demanding us to ask: can human-run science ever truly be conducted independent from an observer?
The answer, of course, is no. The subsequent question then becomes critical: Do observers alter the outcomes of scientific experiments even without any intention of doing so?
The very thought that observers may have altered the outcome of the Higgs experiment might at first seem ridiculous to scientists who have been monitoring the hunt for the Higgs. Some almost universally believe that the machines running the literally trillions of subatomic collisions operate independently from any conscious observers. The intention of the scientists watching the experiment cannot affect the outcome of the experiment— they insist.
This assumption has become fundamentally incorrect according to the writers at Natural News for the simple reason that all known scientific knowledge has been gathered under a critical selection bias… the “consciousness” bias.
The consciousness within intelligent, self-aware observers has been shown to actually shift the results of seemingly “random” events into the direction imagined or visualized by the conscious observers. According to these new studies – it even happens without a deliberate intention to alter the data.
Higgs researchers are known to have obsessed over visualizing a positive outcome. In this search for the Higgs particle; studies were conducted over a period of many years, involving trillions of “random” events. They used statistical analysis methods to try to spot aberrations that could seem consistent with the behavior of the Higgs particle.
The most interesting part of this experiment—which I have noticed has been completely ignored by almost everyone — including the mainstream media — is that the search for Higgs involved tens of thousands of conscious beings (scientists) who were intently focused on creating a positive outcome.
They wanted the Higgs to be found. They wished for it intently, obsessively, and incessantly. They visualized it, spoke about it, and many even put their careers on the line in the hopes of finding it.
Essentially, Higgs scientists engaged in determined visualization and “intention” activities which, are now being shown by other researchers to have the ability to slightly alter the outcomes of large sets of apparently random events.
Essentially, searching for the Higgs was structured in precisely this context: Large data sets of seemingly random events combed over by CERN scientists who were not actually looking for any physical particle at all… they’re looking for statistical anomalies consistent with what they EXPECTED to find ie; Intention
This CERN study announcement on the Higgs boson discovery is based entirely on “preliminary” data. As CERN says on its own website;
“The results presented today are labeled preliminary. They are based on data collected in 2011 and 2012, with the 2012 data still under analysis. Publication of the analyses shown today is expected around the end of July. A more complete picture of today’s observations will emerge later this year after the LHC provides the experiments with more data.”
(http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2012/PR17.12E.ht…)

What caught my attention the most is: our thoughts do indeed count. They can shape, influence and create. So the motto of the story is: choose your thoughts carefully. Coach Louise Rouse www.planetarycoach.com

17 thoughts on “More on The God Particle

    • Hi Matt, I know you are trying to aseddrs the masses, and do not know what your feelings are about other theoretical physicsts on this site (I know some other bloggers do not want others stealing their thunder), but as far as I am aware there is no real public forum for professionals, apart from conferences which are themselves very limited . Anyway if you do not wish that kind of thing, please tell me. In regards to the no Higgs scenario on your other page, my view is that you missed one very likely possibility no Higgs, no technicolor, no supersymmetry all that stuff being wrong. And this is now not as outlandish now as it sounds. A low width SM Higgs is now very unlikely. With no supersymmetric particles seen, by all previous standards in physics, that theory deserves to be called a speculation. It is really very unlikely. Technicolor it has really had a tough time to get it not to disagree with experimental facts as they are known now, in which process it has lost much of its appeal. Sure one can say there are many variants of the above two theories according to which nothing should yet be seen. But the point is that as old frontiers fall (a metaphor for a theory version) one can always twist and turn and introduce new parameters to put up a new bastion. Really Feynman was right, when presented with a variant of superstrings, its not the desire of agree with experiment that should tell you how many dimensions to compactify, but the theory itself.

    • Amos if the Higgs mass is 125 GeV, then the quartic self-coupling of the Higgs, which (like all couinplgs) changes as the energy scale changes, will become negative at an energy scale well below the Planck or unification scale. That means the vacuum becomes unstable. Supersymmetry would cure this, and so would many other theories. Since the energy scale at which the self-coupling goes negative is well above the reach of accelerators, it is possible that whatever new physics solves the problem can’t be seen in accelerators. Of course, we all hope that the new physics is at the TeV scale.

    • The only prediction that was cieformnd up to now is that whatever one finds at the LHC is is of course a prediction of string theory, despite the fact that is this very thread people pointed out to other articles (e.g. Shaposhnikov and Wetterich) that make a even more accurate prediction regarding the Higgs mass (I’m not saying the model is correct) and very importantly in 2009. Kane’s article was sent on Monday December 5 when the whole world already heard the rumors, really, what kind of prediction is that? It may be that Kane wrote about it before, but THIS specific article cannot be used as a serious prediction. Best case scenario is a postdiction.

    • Interesting rumours, ineded, and I am confidentthe Higgs will be found in the range 122-132 GeV, havingpredicted its mass together with the top quark massin a composite model, before either top or Higgs weredetected. But I’ld point out there were similar rumoursof an excess in the b anti-b channel indicating a Higgsin the range of 130-140 GeV just a couple of months back(personal communication from W. Marciano). It was a similardeal, a couple of sigma each in CMS and Atlas, which addedto a bit more than 3 sigma. It went away of course.My last look at the 2 gamma data, with abouthalf of the total data set analysed showed points aboveand below the theoretical continuum, and nosign of a bump whatever. The SM Higgs width at thismass is so small that I don’t even remember the numberbut I believe it’s on the order of 1 MeV. So in this casethe width of any bump in the 2 gamma mass spectrumwill be determined by detector resolution, on the orderof 5 GeV. There was an extra factor of two availablein the integrated flux not analysed at that time, butthat only gives 40% better resolution of any bumpat 125GeV. So I can’t believe this will be conclusive.A SM Higgs this light just escapes the vacuumstability and metastibility (due to finite temperatureeffects in the early universe) if new physics onlyappears near the Planck scale. So it’s premature for Kane and the supersymmetriciansto be rejoicing, I think. They should rather be worryingabout the absence of supersymmetry at 95% confidencelevel, below about 1 TeV. Exciting times! about 50%

  1. You’re actually a good webmaster. The website loading speed is amazing. It kind of feels that you are doing any distinctive trick. Moreover, The contents are masterpiece. you’ve performed a magnificent process on this subject!

    • Hi Marc Sher (who I used to know at Santa Cruz many years ago),Though the basic thrust of your amegrunt is right (i.e. that scalar fields are problematic at high energies), it is not true that the quartic Higgs coupling becomes negative. I am pretty sure you are thinking about Landau’s pole. I hope Peter W. will indulge my discussing the technical issues, so to avoid causing too much trouble, I’ll be brief. He may permit my comment because they directly concern the Higgs mechanism.Landau’s formula for the effective coupling is only good for small couplings. It breaks down at high energies, where it predicts the sign change. The pole/sign change is fictitious. The real problem is that if the coupling at high energy (say with a Planck-scale cut-off) is not fine-tuned to some enormous value, the coupling at the TeV scale is nearly zero. This can checked by the renormalization group in 4-epsilon dimensions, by 1/n-expansions and by numerical simulations. It is also strongly indicated by some rigorous results about triviality, but these don’t quite work in four dimensions. There is no change in the sign of the coupling. Some field-theory books present the Landau pole as gospel, even though it is completely unphysical. The real problem is triviality/fine-tuning.

    • Only just check back here taking my mind back 15 years to when this was fresh Higgs of about this mass at pp coreidlls are mainly produced by a pair of W or Z bremed of quarks in the t channel these then merge to form the Higgs. So this is sensitive to WWH and ZZH couplings.There is also a contribution from gluon fusion, via a top loop. That is sensitive to H t tbar coupling, and so mass generation for quarks. From what I recall though at these masses its t channel vector boson fusion which dominates my memory though could be wrong, so I’d be happy to be contradicted .David.

  2. Pingback: Shikamirikuta

  3. Well I guess now that I’m out of academia, I can comemnt without stepping on anyones toes as I’ve had not direct contact with experimenters working in the field in 10 years!Anyway the photon-photon channel is interesting, because only spin 0 particles can decay into two photons. So if a bump is seen in the photon photon mass then it must be some kind of spin 0 particle, e.g. the Higgs.So its just how big is the bump over the photon photon background. Alass don’t have the code I once had, so can’t do some simple calcuations of the various cross sections. Nice thing is though that for signals like this the significance of results builds quickly. So its at 3 sd now give it another 6 months or so (or rather the next run), and it should be a very significant signal then.Interesting though to hear about my PhD subject coming back to life

Leave a Reply